As has already been reported by Baptist Press, Dr. Frank Cox has announced his willingness to be nominated for consideration as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Peter Lumpkins had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Cox recently, and it is our privilege to share the audio with you. We here at SBC Today hope that this interview will allow many within our convention who may not know much about Dr. Cox to have the opportunity to get to know him a little better.
Dr. Frank Cox has been the Pastor of North Metro First Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Georgia, since 1980. A native of Tallahassee, Florida, Dr. Cox is a graduate of Mercer University in Atlanta, earned his Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and received his Doctor of Ministry from Luther Rice Seminary in Atlanta. Pastor Cox has had the unique privilege of pastoring North Metro First Baptist Church for 27 years.
Pastor Cox has held many positions of leadership including President of the Georgia Baptist Convention and 1st Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He is much sought out speaker who has preached at many Conferences and Universities including the SBC Pastors Conference and Liberty University. In addition to speaking Dr. Cox is a published author of Trusting God’s Heart, the story of sickness and death of his first wife, Debbie, and what God taught him through grief, and how God restored his joy.
Pastor Cox is married to Mary. They have three children: daughter Kristen; sons Stephen (wife, Brooke) and Jonathan. Dr. Cox’s hobbies include reading and travel.
We hope you will be encouraged by what you hear from the heart of this gracious man of God.
Way to go ‘Southern Baptist Minister Peter Lumpkins’!
Great interview bringing great insight into the heart of this man.
I agree with Junior Hill (won’t that shock some)…Dr. Cox is a man after God’s own heart…and ‘a Southern Baptist’s Southern Baptist.’
Brother Peter Lumpkins,
Thank you for your pinch hit for the SBC Today team. You have knocked one out of the park with this interview. :>)
Dr. Cox certainly laid out how the BF&M should be viewed, even in light of the Garner Motion. He does a great job dealing with Calvinism as well.
Blessings,
Tim
Great interview. It gives great insight into what Dr. Cox is all about.
Brothers,
You are much too kind. Dr. Cox is one of the most genuine guys with whom I’ve conversed. He’s the kind of guy that you’d just want to go down to the creek, stick a pole in the water, sit back and talk.
Surely, if one knows this man, I cannot fathom why anyone else would even consider allowing their name to be entered for President of the SBC.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Well, for one, because a democracy almost necessitates choices when elections are concerned. If not, what is the point in voting? Second, since the word on the street is that Dr. (is that a Ph.D. or a D.Min.?) Cox was said to have been ‘anointed’ this week at the ExComm/Great Commission Council meeting(s), maybe many within the SBC just flat out reject being ‘told’ who is the best candidate and look forward to another choice (regardless of who the establishment candidate might be, this or any other year).
Bill
I guess I didn’t read the article with as much clarity as I should. Dr. Cox earned a D.Min from Luther Rice. That speaks for itself in the academic world. That is no assault on his character, but simply an observation the quality of his education. I have no problem with those earning D.Mins (and have some as friends), but they are no Dr.’s, for sure.
Bill
Concerning the Garner motion, Frank Cox seems to have done a Al Mohler or a Paige Patterson. Instead of taking the document for what it says, he is going to choose to ignore it. The messengers voted it in and once again with much political talk, he dismissed it. Smooth, but obvious.
Peter,
When are you ever going to learn?
You said; “He is the kind of a guy that you’d would just want to go down to the creek, stick a pole in the water, sit back and talk.”
Are you going to say right before the whole world Frank Cox is a “Redneck” and would probably be a cornbread eater also?
:-)
cb
Bill Kiffin,
That was a pretty arrogant post (#6). I have seen the work D. Mins have to do and i think they have earned Dr.
By the way there are more than one candidates running, no one is telling you who to vote for.
Bill
I found Dr. (oops, sorry is that just Mr., Brother or what – anyway) I found Dr. Cox’s statements concerning the CP and the Garner Motion both refreshing and encouraging. What an example to all of us concerning our support for Southern Baptist work.
So far as the Garner motion – our agencies have all worked with the BFM as a minimal statement for years (for example, the IMB not appointing those who have been divorced). This has never been a problem in the past and shouldn’t be one today. After all, the BFM is a statement of faith – not a creed. I wasn’t in San Antonio but I watched online and I applaud men like Drs. Mohler and Patterson.
My only concerns are his statements concerning those of us who are reformed. Does he believe that those of us you are reformed are not biblicists? That’s what it sounds like when he and others make that statement. I am just as much a biblicist as he is and in some cases I believe even more so.
Also, I have never had a church express a problem with my theology – even when I didn’t fully understand that my theology was “calvinistic.” The church I pastor now doesn’t have a problem with my theology. Some of them do have a problem with the fact that I am such a biblicist (would you ordain a man as a deacon whose wife is a Church of Christ or allow an open homosexual to sing a special?). We need to face the fact that a lot of people are just having trouble with good biblical theology today – and then just blaming it on those flaming calvinists (btw – I don’t know of any hyper-calvanists in the SBC).
To Bill Kiffin – friend, what degree do YOU hold?
WesInTex (just a simple little D.Min.)
CB
I think Peter is going to stay away from food statements.
:-D
Robin
To all -
The second sentence of the third paragraph should read, “Does he believe that those of us who (not “you”) are reformed are not biblicists? Sorry, must have been that poor education I received!
Brother Peter
Wonderful job on the interview btw. I wonder though – you wrote: “Surely, if one knows this man, I cannot fathom why anyone else would even consider allowing their name to be entered for President of the SBC.” Would you not have also said the same thing concerning Dr. Mohler? I certainly would, and not just because of his position on reformed theology. Talk about a great spokesman for Southern Baptists. Maybe in a couple of years …
Bless ya brother.
Bill Kraft,
I didn’t mean to be arrogant. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I too have seen the work D.Min’s do, and it is not doctoral work. On top of that, Luther Rice is not so much a bastion of academic excellence. I’ve known D.Min. students from Luther Rice so my criticism isn’t just hearsay.
And I am aware that there are more than one candidate that will be nominated this summer. My statement was a direct response to Peter Lumpkin’s question of why would anyone want to run against such a man as Frank Cox.
Bill
Wes,
Please don’t read my words as a slap against those who have earned D.Min.s. Many work very hard for such a degree. However, there is a vast difference between a professional degree and an academic degree. One is practical but with (usually) little research while the other is predicated on substantial research. In such a regard, the former (in my opinion and that of John Piper) should not be conferred the title Dr. while the latter should.
And to answer your question, I hold multiple academic degrees that are both higher than an M.Div. or a D.Min.
Bill
Men,
Degrees are good, wisdom is better…
Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Study hard!
Blessings,
Chris
Wes in Texas,
(With tongue firmly in cheek.) If you really want to earn respect, you have to move back to campus and live off your wife for 5 years. ;-)
Chris,
Good word.
WesInTex,
I would tend to agree. Too many people use the term biblicist to eschew any part of the controversy. If being biblicist solved the matter then we should all come to the same conclusions…we should all be one even as Christ and the Father are one. Yet, we live in a fallen world and work with fallen though regnerate minds. Calvinism and Arminianism are two clearly staked positions from a biblicist framework.
It’s when someone claims to be a biblicist but frames one’s convictions, especially for ministry practice, based on personal preferences that I would have a definite problem.
If this is the only point of differentiation I have with DR. Cox, then I am quite well. After all that I have heard from DR. Cox, I feel he is the right man for the right time.
Sola Gratia!
Bill Kiffin
I am sorry to go CB Scott on you here friend, but you come across like a pompous well…let’s just say pompous preacher. Your obvious dislike for Dr. Cox is very transparent and again in the words of C.B. Scott
I’ll be your huckleberry
Jack Maddox
Jack,
There is no reason to apologize for ‘going CB Scott’ on me. I find him to be a very godly man and loving husband. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but i have nodisdain for Frank Cox. What I do have a problem with is a select few anointing a candidate, a blogger insinuating that anyone would be foolish to run against him because he’s such a fine candidate, and people believing that a D.Min. is a degree worth conferring the title “Dr.”
I’m grateful for Cox’s ministry. He is an example to many preachers within our convention, who claim 20 years of experience but, in actuality, have 3 years of ministry at 6 or 7 different places. I applaud his 27 years of contiguous ministry at the same church.
He appears to be too much of an insider for me to give him my vote, but that doesn’t mean i’m spiteful towards him. You have misjudged me tremendously.
And you can be my huckleberry anytime you want :)
It is neither the degree, nor the school that confers the degree, that truly defines a “doctor.” Rather, “doctor” means “teacher,” and if a man faithfully proclaims God’s Word, he deserves to be lauded by his fellow Christians. Thank you, Dr. Cox, for staking your ministry and your leadership upon the sufficient Word of God.
Dr. Yarnell,
Do you believe a D.Min from Luther Rice deserves the same title as a D.Phil. from Oxford?
Dr. Yarnell,
Good statement given with understanding…..and in full agreement with Paul.
2 Corinthians 2:17; 3:1-3 “For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? (2) You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; (3) being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”
There will always be titles conferred by competing agencies, but none of the titles will ever translate into the wisdom necessary for loving one another.
Blessings,
Chris
Bill
I have not misjudged you for I have not judged you at all…I have simply commented on your obvious arrogance and disdain towards those you seemingly deem inferior. It is you sir who are misjudging. It is obvious that your political leanings sway your thoughts and attitudes towards Bro. Cox. Not only do you insult men and women who have gleaned from the ministry Of LRS, but now you insult men who following God’s call have found their ministry more itinerant than what they themselves would have preferred, however answering the call of God they have gone where He bids.
jrm
Jack,
You did judge me. You claimed that i had a dislike for Frank Cox. You had no idea what i thought/think of him. And, whether you believe me or not, I have no disdain for him. And, again, you are wrong in assuming that I think he (or anyone else) is inferior to me. As i stated earlier, i am grateful for his example in ministry. No disdain in that statement (but i’m sure you’ll try to find some, since you know me better than myself).
And yes, i was making a stab towards those who move from church to church without making a substantial investment of time. Does God call some to move from church to church more quickly than I prefer? Certainly. Do many pastors move from church to church more often than they should because it’s a bigger church/paycheck/promotion? Definitely. There is no insult in speaking truthfully.
Chris,
No argument from me on the last sentence of your most recent post.
Gentlemen, remarkable cutting edge reporting from this site. These interviews are phenomenal. I am pleased that Peter’s boldness has survived his many years in ministry.
There is something so wonderful about listening to the spontaneity of an interview. Very telling are Dr. Cox’s candid, open and immediate answers to the hardball questions posed to him. That is one quality necessary in a man who will be a spokesman for the convention should he be elected president. selahV
This is the first fight I have seen that takes place by “degrees.”
Usually all one has to do is call someone a name and it all breaks out at once.
How my name got caught up in the “degree” fight is a mystery to me.
I just wanted to fight over “rednecks” and “cornbread” fed Southern boys who fish with “cane poles” down by the “creek” being interviewers and being interviewed.
I was just waiting on one of them to say; “hold on a minute, while I spit this wad of “backker” away from so close to the porch so Momma won’t fuss at me when she sweeps the yard later today.”
And here you guys are fighting about Luther Rice and Oxford.
Not one of you ever even met Luther Rice and Oxford, North Carolina ain’t big enough to fight over anyway. Besides they only have three doctors in the whole town. Let’s fight over cornbread again. That was really fun and we could all get into it even if we ain’t been to the doctor lately.
:-) :-)
cb
Leave it to CB to infuse the discussion with his type of humor :)
Thanks
SelahV,
Can you cook cornbread and clean the fish Peter and Frank are going to catch and then cook them up with some onions and ‘taters.
If you can, good, you know your place. If you can’t you have no business in a fight such as one over who is the best doctor; the three in Oxford, NC or Luther Rice. :-)
cb
Dr. Yarnell,
If I read what you are saying correctly we will never call Joel Olsteen or Paul Crouch Dr. no matter if they went to Oxford or Luther Rice or anyone of the six “real good seminaries” for that matter, right?
:-)
cb
I pastored Tabbs Creek Baptist Church in Oxford, North Carolina. What a great place to raise a family among a great people.
Brother CB,
Remember that Dr. Yarnell pastored over in Oxford, NC. Isn’t that something? He pastors in Oxford and gets hi Doctorate from a university in Oxford.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
Great day in the mornin’, cb! I weren’t in the least concerned with the banter over who is or is not a bonafide doctor. I have no puppy to pet in that battle. I’ve known some extremely well-educated doctors, CEO’s and political figures who didn’t have the common sense to swat a fly. While on the other hand, I have known some millionaires who look like and act like those two fellas you want to talk about going fishing. And to hear them talk you’d know right quick that they hadn’t even finished the 9th grade.
That said, YES sirree, I can clean fish and make cornbread. I like my cornbread cooked with bacon grease and a hint of sugar. I like my fish bathed in egg and dredged through cornmeal. selahV
Sorry boys and SelahV,
I have been in Prattville, Alabama working with and doing crisis counseling to people who lost most everything in a tornado this week.
I just wanted to rag a little and try to forget it.
Also, I got home last night and read about Alan Cross and his little boy Caelan who is possibly fighting cancer for the second time in his young life.
I ask you all to continue to pray for that little boy and his daddy and momma and brothers and sister.
I have read a few books myself and this is still something of the nature of things I have never understood. But, I do understand that God has given us the privilege to pray for one another and I will and I know you folks will, because in the end we all know God listens to His children when they pray earnestly.
cb
cb ~~ Rag on, my brother. I rather enjoy it when you lighten up the streams. selahV
selah and cb,
count me in on the cornbread and catfish thing. just tell me where to show up.
bill k,
even if i had a d. phil., i’d still just wanna be called “david.”
and, anyone who has earned a dr. degree can be called dr. we’ll all just be sure to call fellas like you….”high dr.” would that be distinguishing you from the normal dr.’s enough? or, maybe we could call fellas like you…”the right reverend dr.?” maybe that’d be better?
david
Volfie, You’re in charge of the sweet tea. I’m not cooking unless Peter persuades the good Dr. Cox to join us all, though. :) selahV
David,
No need to differentiate between ‘high’ dr. and regular dr. Simply give the title only to those who have demonstrated academic research, instead of conferring such a degree upon those who write ministry projects titled “Towards the Selection of a Specific Group of Men at First Baptist Church, Anytown USA to Develop Better Tithing Habits.”
There is a difference between practical research and academic research. Hence, there should be a differentiation among titles conferred.
high reverend dr. bill k.,
i believe that a differentiation already exists. one is called a d. min. the other is called a d. phil. also, another is called a m.d.
right?
david
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
Brother Dr. Bill Kiffin,
I pray that you take this in the spirit of love that I say it.
Blow it out your ear. Much learning has made you mad!
:>)
Seriously, let’s not focus on the difference in academic PhD. and DMin. I do not believe anyone with DMin is trying to persuade differently. This post is not about the “degrees”, it is about the statments that Dr. Cox made. It does appear by your reaction that Dr. Cox has made some statements that you cannot counter, thus you take this direction in your argument.
As for the difference in LRS and DPhil from Oxford, I believe one that has such a degree from Oxford has spoken well in this thread. As one with a LRS DMin. he may not weigh in on the subject, but I believe a man by the name of Charles Stanley possess one of those LRS DMin. degrees.
As to Dr. Cox’s degree being from LRS, I can only say one thing. He took a church with 100 people and God used him to grow it to over 1700 in Worship. It does seem that LRS did a good job training Dr. Cox.
Blessings,
Tim
David,
The difference you notice is one in degrees. I am arguing for a difference in titles. You seem to miss the distinction between the two.
Tim,
I’m not really sure how “blow it out your ear” can be said in a tone of love, but i’ll take your word for it. And, to be honest with you, i never got around to listening to the interview. I made a remark to Peter Lumpkins (who never responded to my criticism of his statement) and asked a question in my post #5. I followed up with an answer to my own question in my post #6. My desire to take the conversation in this direction has nothing to do with Cox’s statements. If i get around to listening to it, there may be some things with which i would disagree with. at that point, i’d make a critical analysis. Until then, i’m just reflecting what others (Piper) has already put into print.
And no one said LRS doesn’t produce good pastors, but maybe that kind of training came from his time at NOBTS, or even his study of the Scripture and his obedience to the Spirit. No need to give credit to LRS if it’s not due.
high reverend superior dr. bill k.,
did you not hear me call you….high reverend dr.? maybe thats the distinction we should have? we could call the no dr. degree ministers “non dr. bro. insertname.” then, we could call the d. min. guys… “low dr. insername.” then, we could call you really smart fellers…..”most high dr. insertname?” how’s that?
david :)
btw, everyone….from now on i wanna be called “graduated by the skin of his teeth from lowly ut…then graduated by the skin of his teeth from mid america baptist seminary david.” or, yall can just call me, “david,” for short. :)
david
David,
One of the differences between us is that i am trying to have a serious conversation and you are simply speaking nonsense.
How’s that?
d.phil. bill,
that’s fine! but, there’s some truth in the nonsense. a wise man will see it.
david
“David” for short,
I’ll look for truthful nonsense each time i read your comments.
One degree right or one degree left can alter M.O.A. at 500 yards far too often and cause a miss which can get one killed by that which he missed.
One thing is a fact though. If a guy works hard enough and really knows his rifle and scope well he can hit the target center mass most every time and live a long and healthy life.
The rifle don’t care if the guy is a M.D., Ph.D., D.Min. L.L.D. or D.D. or M.S. (Mule Skinner) If the guy knows that rifle well enough it will do the job for him every time.
I think that is what Dr. Yarnell was saying in his own particular way a moment ago.
If a guy knows the Word and preaches the Word, the Word will do what it is intended to do no matter the degree of the man.
The Word does not do well if it is “preached Off a degree to the left or right.” It must be cared for and preached by someone who knows it and has worked with it and spent time alone with it.
It matters little in the end about the degree or where one got the degree if it is legitimate.
Can the guy shoot straight enough to save lives is all I want to know if I am in a war and he is on my side.
We are in a war. The biggest of all wars. All I want to know is can the guy preach the Word in truth, filled with the Spirit. If he can, I want him with me in this war. If he can’t or won’t ’cause he don’t know the Word or because he is a coward or a liberal who has abandoned the Word for some “new weapon” I don’t want him with me and I don’t care how many degrees he has or where he got them. He will get me hurt and cause many to go to Hell.
Did we not already fight a war about that anyway?
Take this as a lesson from the book entitled: THE RIFLE MADE EASY FOR PREACHERS.
cb
Bill,
Just because another chooses not to run does not lessen democracy. Nor did I “insinuate another would be foolish to do so.’ If I implied that, please produce the language. I was expressing my view. If you do not agree, I think that’s just peachy.
As for your strange rejection of the title of “Dr” for those who pursue the doctor of ministry degree, please take that up with the academic accrediting agencies who approve such doctoral degrees. Until that’s addressed, your point is simply absurd.
Dr. Cox offered substance about some significant issues Southern Baptists face. And, instead of discussing those, you fill up the thread with what you believe to be significant and pertinent to what we face today–whether or not it’s meaningful to call a D.Min recipient “Dr” or not. Perhaps someone should consider writing a resolution about that.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
You wrote “I cannot fathom why anyone else would even consider allowing their name to be entered for President of the SBC.” According to your statement, it seems you find it ill-advised to oppose him. You said you can’t fathom it. What else does that mean?
I’m not sure why you find my rejection of D.Min’s as being Dr’s as ‘strange’. But (using your words), that’s just your opinion. And, according to you, until accrediting agencies and schools change the nomenclature, then my point is absurd. I was unaware that absurdity always rested with the minority (of course, don’t tell Luther or John Smyth that).
And I was not the one ‘filling up’ this thread. I made two statements (comments #5 and #6). All other comments were (to my memory) responses to posts that questioned my thoughts. When you stop answering those who question you, then I’ll do the same. And, if you feel writing a resolution will address this issue, then be my guest and compose one for us all to vote on. If you were to write such a resolution, “I cannot fathom why anyone else would even consider allowing their [resolution] to be entered for [consideration at] the SBC.” :)
If Bill is consistent, then he will call his Dentist “Mr.” and his Optometrist “Mr.” because neither went to medical school and neither engaged in “academic” research. I guess that Ed.D. highschool guidance counselor will have to be “Ms.” from here on out.
Good grief.
Stuart (or Charlie Brown?),
I don’t recall saying only those persons earning a Ph.D. should be called Dr. I simply said persons earning a D.Min. should not. It is not inconsistent (but actually precision) that allows me to make a distinction between academic Dr.’s and medical Dr.’s. As far as Ed.D.’s are concerned, I believe they are (like Ph.D.’s) required to do original, academic research (something not required by D.Min.s).
WesInTex
Actually, I possess little but respect for Dr. Mohler. No public figure among Southern Baptists stands taller than Dr. Mohler as able cultural critic of secularism today.
When he was trampled under foot by the Enid/SBCOutpost squad, I hope, under God, it evident I sided with the voice of reason there.
Also, when Dr. Mohler’s name was first released as a candidate, I made it as clear as I knew how that not only was he a worthy man of God, his pronounced Calvinism could not be used “against” him.
Hope that helps, my brother. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
d.phil. bill,
are you kin to william kiffin, a 16th century particular baptist? and, if so, was he a ph.d.? or, ahem, one of those d.min.’s?
anyway, any relation?
david
“David” for short,
Unless you are following Patterson’s “Baptists descended from Anabaptists”, there were no Baptists in the 16th century. I believe you are referencing William Kiffin, the 17th century British Baptist. And I don’t think he earned either a Ph.D. or a D.Min. (but thanks for asking). As to any relationship to him, i’m not sure. i’m not one for tracing my family tree. If i followed some former SWBTS leaders, i could trace my Baptist roots back to Jesus, John, and the Jordan River. But that’s just boring Baptist history.
I think William Kiffin would puke to witness Baptists arguing the credential value of various degrees. How Anglican of you.
Point, Set, Match for Dr. Barber!
heavens to betsy, i got the century wrong. please forgive my ignorance.
david
Gentlemen (& others…you decide [see even a Calvinist can affirm choice]),
What the uptight degree counter has done by his own admission is to hijack this thread. I am going to respectfully ask that he get back to the topic, actually listen to the interview and respond to the material presented, or else he will be left to talk about his doctoral musings all by himself. Apparently my brother, Tim, was right (mark one down for a NC boy, too!)…when you don’t like the issues make it personal.
That being said…thank you DR. Yarnell for your clarity…thank you right reverend MABTS Brother (your ‘kind’ are definitely welcome here!)…and thank you DR. Cox for graciously consenting to speak with ‘Southern Baptist Pastor’ Peter Lumpkins. I simply hope those who visit here to listen to what DR. Cox has to say and wish to engage in intelligent conversation about the issues at hand for our next SBC President are not distracted by the divergent musings which have transpired.
Sola Gratia!
AND…thank you DR. Barber for weighing in, too. Knew we could count on you!
BY GRACE ALONE!
Bart,
Maybe, but he’d also puke to hear Jerry Vines preach against Calvinism.
Dear Bro. Bill Kiffin, Is there anything Pastor Cox said in his interview that you found noteworthy? selahV
Scott,
I think you are confusing my statements with accusations from Peter. I never admitted to ‘hijacking’ the thread. I only posted comments #5 and #6 unprovoked. All other comments were answers/responses to those who questioned what i was saying. Sorry you have misunderstood this, as well as the accusation that i was making things personal about Frank Cox. You must have forgotten or carelessly overlooked the many comments i made in this thread affirming many quality aspects of Frank Cox.
And thanks for noting that i’m uptight. I hadn’t noticed myself, but maybe i’m missing some fiber in my diet. I’ll take your diagnosis to heart.
uh….Bill…thats Dr. Jerry Vines….another LRS Grad
(sorry Scott, I could not resist)
jrm
SelahV,
That’s a good question. Unfortunately, as i said earlier, i’ve not had the opportunity to listen to the interview. i made two comments earlier today and have spent the rest of the day defending my comments. I might have a chance to listen tomorrow. if so, i would be more than happy to report back on any (and all) thing(s) he said that i could agree with.
But again, i reiterate (as i said in my latest comment), these baseless accusations that i’m making personal attacks towards Frank Cox are ridiculous. I’ve said as many positive things about him as anyone has.
Scott,
I’m waiting for you to chastise Jack for hijacking this thread. It’s an outrage. Let him muse by himself as we discuss the real issues.
Bill,
First, you said my words were “insinuating that anyone would be foolish to run against him”. I did not write that.
Then, you changed it to “you find it ill-advised to oppose him.” I did not write that either.
Then after twice placing wrong words in my mouth, you finally ask what I meant. What a weird way of conversing.
Secondly, you write “And, according to you, until accrediting agencies and schools change the nomenclature, then my point is absurd. I was unaware that absurdity always rested with the minority…”
Bill, again, that is not what I wrote. I wrote: “As for your strange rejection of the title of “Dr”… please take that up with the academic accrediting agencies who approve such doctoral degrees.” Where in this statement is there a faint hint about “accrediting agencies and schools chang[ing] the nomenclature”?
My point was decidedly not the change of “nomenclature.” Rather, it was the conferring of doctor of ministry degrees. Indeed nomenclature is your gripe–calling someone “Dr.” who, in your personal opinion, do not deserve the title.
The absurdity would be the academic accrediting agencies & schools conferring a doctoral degree–albeit a doctor of ministry but a doctor nonetheless–possessing all the “rights and privileges thereof” but refusing to acknowledge the recipient as “Dr.”
Similarly, when the academic community–including the accrediting agencies and the conferring schools–acknowledges a doctor of ministry recipient as “Dr” but some such as yourself, because of some personal aversion to it, questions such, in my view, not only is strange but resembles the same type of absurdity above.
Nor is it just my opinion. I am stating the view of the academic community. If I’m not, then produce my error. You, on the other hand, are stating your personal opinion contra the accrediting agencies and academic community. I think it’s great you can do so though it does not make your assertion any less absurd.
Given that, Bill, it would be nice if you would deal with either the words I actually wrote or with the interview and what Dr. Cox actually said.
I do not desire to question your purpose here, but as I read back through the thread, have you even seriously conversed about anything in the actual interview?
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
“David” for short,
I found the truth in your nonsense (#59). I must be getting wiser.
Bro. Kiffin, Well, after a good night’s rest and a big breakfast (add a bit of fiber if you feel it is necessary), you sit down with a big old mug of coffee and listen to that interview. I found Pastor Cox very engaging and look forward to hearing what you have to say once the titles are in the back of the stream. selahV
SelahV,
Thanks. I suspect you’re the first person to neither accuse me of personally attacking Frank Cox or being malcontent. I do look forward to listening to the interview and I will report back (though i suspect you might be the only one who would care to read any thoughts i might have on it).
Blessings to you
Hey Bill
Let me share with you why your getting so much grief brother. Your mean…at least your statements here are. You come across as an arrogant man who enjoys insulting others and their accomplishments. Your last shot at David makes my point. Perhaps the problem dear brother is that you think a little highly of yourself? Forgive me if I seem ‘rude’…but I never did care for mean people.
jrm
Peter,
I interpreted your statement at first as “foolish”. After your response, I believed you to be saying one would be ill-advised. Then, believing that even that interpretation might be incorrect, i proceeded to ask you meant by not being able to fathom that someone else would wish to oppose his nomination. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. it was not my desire.
second, i understood your statement about schools and accrediting agencies to mean you found my opinion absurd unless they changed their policies. Again, if i misunderstood you, my apologies.
I’d carry on, but my wife just arrived from work and i’d like to spend the rest of the evening with her. She’s prettier than all of you :)
Bill
You just redeemed yourself with me by choosing your wife over us! I take it all back!!! Your ok and seemingly extremely wise : )
jrm
Scott Gordon,
Are you going to thank me. I asked Peter the only question from the actual interview.
Also, I said what Malcolm said far better than he said it and with far more flair any far more words.
All Bart did was talk about “pukin’.” He made no mention of cornbread whatsoever.
I bet you don’t even eat cornbread. You eat tarts. You are just a bigot against me because I do not eat tarts and am not afraid to eat cornbread in public.
I knew something was wrong with you when they brought you in so sneaky like they did. Your last name is Gordon. You probably wear a jacket with Jeff Gordon’s car on it.
What one can learn just by listening to an interview and reading things into what other people say.
I have you number, Scott Gordon and I ain’t gonna let you forget it.
BTW, You call yourself Scott. Like Alexander said to the guy a few years back when he was taking over the known world.
“You straighten up or change your tart eatin’, cornbread hatin’ name.”
cb
TO ALL..
It’s way past my bedtime (I’m getting old..like Tim & Wes). Let’s put this to bed, give BK a chance to actually follow through with his expressed desire to be on topic and then let the discussion proceed from that point.
Thanks to all for an interesting…albeit digressionary…discussion thus far. I look forward to hearing more about everyone’s thoughts on the actual interview.
Sola Gratia!
…& Good Night.
(one more and i\’m done)
Jack,
Did you notice that I had no beef with David until he started \’swinging\’ at me.
I never insulted Frank Cox. As I\’ve said before, i have said as many kind things about him as anyone on this thread has said. I never diminished his accomplishments (it is certainly an accomplishment to graduate, from whatever school or whatever degree). My point was that the title \”Dr.\” loses it\’s value when it can be given to anyone who can write a \’ministry project\’ that was shorter than my Master\’s Thesis. I don\’t find you rude. I\’m grateful for rebuke, when appropriate. However, making difficult statements that aren\’t agreed upon at this blog does not a \’mean\’ person make.
Bill,
You come back when you can fight more. It was sure fun.
My anti-spam word is peace. Can I change it?
cb
SORRY.
I posted before CB ‘jumped me’…I mean ‘jumped in.’ :-)
I don’t have a Jeff Gordon jacket…it’s a Jeff Gordon hat!
Gordon is a great Scottish name…of a clan (boy that’s dangerous) known for our fightin’! BYDAND & FECHT!…and for those with seeming educational short-comings who may not be conversant with the Scotch…I mean Scottish dialect…”STAND & FIGHT”.
My number is 24…& 12…& 7 (Gordon, Staubach, & Mantle)…I’m not sure which one you have CB.
Cornbread…I can take it. Tarts…never mind. :-)
I prefer a good slab of KC barbeque ribs from Gates, thank you very much!
OH…”Thank You.”
By Grace Alone (to keep it English…& simple)!
Bill,
For my part, I’m through with this ridiculous exchange. Your point is absurd, shown to be absurd and you still keep making it.
And even worse, you make it sound as though it is a “difficult” thing, almost as if you hold a controversial, yet significant position contra those on this blog. “Making difficult statements”? Oh my. ..
SBCToday,
I do trust, guys, we will experience some formidable conversation on the issues Dr. Cox clearly raised without being clogged with such meaningless blather in the future. My deepest apologies for my own contributions to it.
Grace for this night. With that, I am…
Peter
Is it over? Have all the Doctors of various degrees gone to bed?
Did Peter go home? Did the big one get away while he and Frank were fishing in the creek?
Oh, well. Here I am am again.
I will sing; ALL BY MYSELF, DON’T WANNA BE, ALL BY MYSELF ANYMORE.
ALL BY MYSELF, DON’T WANNA LIVE, ALL BY MYSELF ANYMORE…….
CB…go to bed
:-D
:-D
Meanwhile, while Bill shoots us his drivel about doctorate degrees or the lack thereof, we know absolutely nothing of his own education.
That is, if he even has any.
One last thing before I go to bed.
Tone, you may be on to something.
Actually Bill Kiffin may not even be his name.
:-)
cb
“Actually Bill Kiffin may not even be his name.”
Imagine that!
LOL
Is the IP address from Louisville, KY?
I think the question on LRS and Oxford is Accreditation. LRS and all the other mail order degrees is not Acc. to offer Dr. Oxford is. My question why would one take a short cut. Cox, Stanley, or whoever, why would you get a degree from a non-acc degree granting institution. Of all the schools I will say this LRS is the better of the mail orders. I even had a Pastor get a degree from Southern Baptist Center for Biblical Studies. In one year he enrolled, wrote a paper over deacons in the church, and walk the stage in a Hotel ROOM in New Orleans during the convention there in the late or mid 90′s. Yea you have earned my respect to call be called dr.
that being said. Frank Cox is an excellent choice. He is one of he finest in the world. I look forward to seeing what happens in convention.
to all,
i got my dr. degree from a school over in possum lick, tn. i believe the name of the school was dr. degrees for those who aint really doctorin’. it took me two months. it costs me two weeks pay that i borrowed from a deacon. i had to study for two tests. i wrote three papers…single spaced….three pages each. then, i had to appear before the headmaster, dr. bubba crenshaw. he asked me a hunnert questions if he asked one. but, i passed the exam. we then went down to mama pearl’s cafe and enjoyed an all you can eat fried baloney sandwich and fried taters lunch. best sweet tea in town.
now, yall can call me, Dr. Worley. :)
d.phil. bill,
seriously, dr. cox earned his doctorate thru hard work as well as his d. min. studies. what degrees do you have? and where did you get them, btw?
also, is bill kiffin your real name? i’m beginning to smell a rat.
cb, do you smell the rat?
david
Accreditation only matters if you are trying to transfer or get another degree after the degree you got from non-accredited school. If a D. Min is the last degree you are going to pursue there is nothing wrong in getting it at LRS.
Second, a degree isn’t worth the paper it is printed on if you don’t do anything in the real world after you graduate. There are a lot of Dr.s’ & Masters graduates who haven’t amounted to anything.
Gentlemen,
Frank Cox is a grassroots Southern Baptist, a man in touch with the common Baptist. At the same time, we will never have anyone with more experience across the board for Convention leadership as we will with Frank Cox. Great man! Vote Frank Cox!
I am not sure if anyone is on to this yet or not, but William Kiffin was actually a 17th century Brit who was held some governmental positions. He was also quite active in helping Baptists gain some sense of credibility. My guess, he was much more credible than the young Southern Seminary student who is perpetrating this act of cowardice against Dr. Cox.
Peter,
Your “accrediting agencies sign off on the DMin, therefore those holding the degree can legitimately use the title” argument breaks down when it comes to Luther Rice. LR is accredited by neither SACS nor ATS.
Good morning to all,
I think I’ll pass on responding to recent comments attacking me and make due on my promise to selahV. With coffee cup in hand (but no breakfast), i sat down this morning and listened to his interview. I gave great attention to all that he said and took notes, so that my critique would not just be from a (somewhat) faulty memory.
Here are my thoughts (in somewhat of a chronological order as the interview progressed):
1. I am grateful for the technology that allows such interviews to take place and then be broadcast for all of us to hear. Such an interview is quite helpful in helping messengers decide who to vote for. While I felt a few of the questions did not necessarily pertain to the purpose of the interview, overall I thought they were good questions asked by Peter.
2. Concerning the Garner Motion (GM), I was disappointed at many points on what Frank Cox said. First, he seemed a bit at a loss for precision when he said the debate from the floor (as he listened to it later because he didn’t attend the convention) was either a “highlight or a lowlight”. I’m not sure why he would describe it in such a way. The debate was mostly healthy and the only time it got heated was when the question was called and many booed the chair for not allowing more debate. I don’t see what is wrong with debate on the convention floor. Second, he mentioned that the vote was not a “great mandate” (since it passed by 58%). He didn’t come out and say as much, but I took him to be insinuating that the GM lacked authority because it didn’t pass by a super-majority (just my interpretation of his words; maybe that’s not what he was saying). I have already commented on Tim Rogers’ personal blog, but I find this argument to be faulty, since rarely did any of the CR presidential nominees get more than 55% of the vote from 1979-1990 (see Tim Rogers’s blog where I make a longer argument about this and another commenter gives actual percentages). If Cox’s logic is consistent, then we shouldn’t have ever enacted a resurgence because presidential elections were not obtained by a ‘great mandate’ (note to readers: I am not saying I disagree with the CR, but only that you can’t pick and choose when it’s right/good to respect the vote of the majority). More could be said, but I think this suffices to demonstrate that I was disappointed that he did not defend the motion that was a clear majority of the convention.
3. I thought he had great things to say about churches adopting unreached people groups. I agree. I’m not sure what to think, however, about his critique of the IMB’s lack of resources/personnel to get the job done to the exclusion of a similar critique of NAMB. I’m not hinting at anything at this point, but merely offering an observation.
4. I think he said that CP% giving is down among SBC churches. However, I don’t remember reading where the overall SBC budget has been reduced in recent years. I was under the impression (i.e., just my thoughts; I didn’t look them up this morning) that CP giving is either up or at least somewhat steady. I felt he was making the correlation that since % is down, then overall giving would follow. I didn’t make the same correlation.
5. Peter’s question about the Lifeway survey on Calvinism was not as precise as it could have been (no criticism against you, Peter; I’m just making a point here). He mentioned that it was 5-10% of SBC. In fact, it was 10% of SBC pastors. Surveying pastors is much different than surveying church members. This is only my thought, but I would suspect that a similar survey of church members would yield a lower percentage of Calvinists. I found Frank Cox’s answer to Peter’s question not very helpful. Two examples will suffice. First, his term ‘Biblicist’ really doesn’t help the conversation. I suspect Tom Ascol or Al Mohler would also be delighted to describe themselves as Biblicists. Second, if he does define himself as a Biblicist, it would have been nice to hear his thoughts on the very biblical term “election”. Since it occurs frequently, in both the OT and the NT, he should be able to discuss how that term fits his Soteriology (I’m not saying he’s unable to do this; I just wish he would have). I am grateful that he says he’s not on a crusade to rid the SBC of Calvinism (I believe his words were “I’m no anti-Calvinist). At least he’s no Jerry Vines or Ergun Caner at this point. For that, I can applaud him. However, I found his use of the term hyper-Calvinism to be lacking in historical precision. It seems he fails to understand that men such as John Gill and John Ryland, Sr. were hyper-Calvinists. He makes it seem like the evangelical Calvinism of today’s SBC is tantamount to 18th century British Baptist Calvinism, which is decidedly not the case.
6. I’m not sure why Peter asked Frank Cox about Wade Burleson and the IMB Trustees (what does that have to do with being SBC president?), but I did listen closely to his answer. He linked the BoT with a church body. If his church called for a vote, and it passed, it would cause dissention for a person to ‘beat a dead horse’ after the church had spoken and that person (if he persisted), would be subject to church discipline. However, I don’t think a BoT functions in the same was as a church. A church is a covenanted group of persons while a BoT is an appointed/elected group of persons. There is no expectation of unity within a BoT. His thoughts on this question, however, did seem to contradict something he said earlier in the interview. In responding to the IMB situation, he said “Once the body speaks, at that point, it is time for all of us to walk in unity together.” However, that is precisely not what he indicated about the Garner Motion. Since it wasn’t a “great mandate”, he seemed to leave open the idea that the convention entities were not obliged to follow the voice of the people. He can’t have it both ways. Either the issue is settled and we walk in unity, or we allow the dissident group to ‘keep beating a dead horse.’
7. On the whole, I found it very enjoyable to listen to the interview. I am grateful for the time both men invested in order to provide this resource. I came away rejoicing to God for a man who has been faithful to his congregation for such a long period (I was confused if it was 27 or 28 years; the post gave one number and the interview gave another). I am grateful for his comments about small churches. He has every appearance of a Godly shepherd and I am thankful that he serves within our convention.
All things under consideration, I don’t think he would ‘garner’ my vote, however. If what I heard out of Nashville this last week is remotely true (and I have little reason to believe otherwise), Frank Cox is the anointed choice of the insiders. For that reason alone, I would not vote for him. This has nothing to do with him as a person, a pastor, or a leader. I have already made ample statements of affirmation towards him. I simply choose to stand on the principle that the convention should be open to greater transparency rather than less transparency (and that is what we have had for the better part of the last twenty-five years).
I apologize for the lack of brevity in my post. I was asked to listen to the interview and provide my thoughts. I took the request seriously and this is the shortest answer I felt I could provide that conveyed my thoughts.
Bill
P.S. And you can put the rumors to rest. I do not, nor have I ever, lived in or near Louisville. I’m no Mohlerite myself and would not have voted for him had he remained in the presidential race. Sorry to spoil your speculation.
John Mann,
Your ‘guess’ is nowhere near the truth. I am neither young nor a student at Southern. And I would respectfully ask that you provide your definition of an ‘act of cowardice’ as I cannot refute your claim unless I know precisely what you mean. I didn’t realize I was ‘perpetrating’ anything, but I am more than willing to be educated by your thoughts on the matter.
Walt,
I would very much like to respond to your inquiry as to why Dr. Vines and Dr. Stanley decided to get their doctorates from LRS.
It is actually very simple and it is the reason many did not use a SBC seminary (or others at the time) during that same time.
The reasons:
Charles and Jerry, along with a great host of others, believed the Bible was, in fact, the Word of the Living God from the Beginning to the Everlasting.
SBC seminaries had faculty (in droves or “herds” being a better word maybe) who did not share that position and were sadly proud of it.
Jerry and Charles did not want to waste their time and money seeking light from “flashlights” with dead batteries. It just did not make sense at the time to be a preacher of the Light and seek education from darkness.
How is that for reasons as to why so many of us went elsewhere?
Now the good news of history:
We all declared a war on darkness, won the war, got all new “flashlights” with permanent Blood bought, gospel proclaiming, Bible believing “batteries” in their energy source cylinders and now a person can go to any one of our six seminaries and not hear foolishness and sissy-boy liberalism.
Now, Walt, I ask you; Is that an answer or is that an answer? What do you think?
cb
CB,
Just a question for you. If biblical fidelity was the reason for going to Luther Rice (and I’m not disagreeing with you at this point) and not ease of the program, then why not obtain a D.Min. from an accredited institute of higher learning such as Mid-America?
And second, what does that say about people like Frank Cox who got his M.Div. from NOBTS just as the CR was beginning (or Mohler or Frank Page or Paige Patterson)? Did he waste his time and money? Did he come out a sissy-boy liberal?
No attack here by me, honestly. I just think these are valid questions as well.
Bill Kiffin,
Is that you real name?
John
‘BK’,
Thanks for your follow through. Much appreciated.
I haven’t the time to respond to the thoroughness of your comment at present. Telling though is your comment on the one for whom you would vote. You are planted squarely in the ecumenist reform movement of our convention and therefore are predisposed to vote against the ‘establishment.’ Therefore…your previous line of thinking within this stream may well be a diversionary tactic (‘again, I’m not saying that it is, it’s just what I observe from reading your comments’).
So, if John’s hypothesis is “not even close” would you then say that you are using re-routing software to disguise your actual IP? (‘again, I’m not saying that you are, it’s just what I observe from reading your comments’).
I appreciate discussion along these lines(‘don’t get me wrong here’). I don’t appreciate your previous tone and pointless antagonism. That is to what I responded previously.
Sola Gratia!
Dear Bro. Kiffin, Glad you got a good night’s rest and have your coffee in hand. You really should eat your breakfast though. It’s the most important meal of the day, I’m told. (Plus, it keeps ya from getting edgy from all the caffeine.)
On your point regarding the Garner Motion (GM) and Pastor Cox’s contradictory statement you wrote: “Either the issue is settled and we walk in unity, or we allow the dissident group to ‘keep beating a dead horse’.”
Would that we could walk in unity. The problem as I see it from this conclusion, Bro. Bill, is that the issue is not settled. Many people who voted for it didn’t understand it or interpret it to mean what some are saying it means. It is a confusing motion on which some within our convention (and I’d say many) couldn’t adhere to for the sheer ambiguity of its wording. Now, had the author’s intent been attached to the motion and read before the convention and the debate been able to continue on the motion, I would venture a guess that the motion would have failed. (I could be wrong) I’m a pew-sitting grama and while I hold no degrees or diplomas other than a high school diploma earned in night-classes in Hartford, Connecticut, I have read a few things in my time on how to confound, confuse and produce writing that would imply one thing and mean another and visa versa. To me the GM needs to be rewritten for the sake of clarity. As it stands, it can mean just about anything anyone wants it to mean. That’s just my opinion, and my opinion is only mine. I own it and have arrived at it by trying to figure out that darn motion ever since it was placed before the convention.
On your point number six, you pondered “I’m not sure why Peter asked Frank Cox about Wade Burleson and the IMB Trustees (what does that have to do with being SBC president?), but I did listen closely to his answer.” I’m sure Peter will speak for himself, I still want to say a word about that, if you don’t mind.
I don’t know a whole lot about how the convention operates, Bro Kiffin. But from what I’ve been reading, the entities within the Convention are part of the convention as well as all the churches. And should this controversial situation be exploited in the secular news media (as it has), I think it is imperative that we know how articulate a future president might address it should he be asked. I will have to go back and listen to the interview again, but I don’t recall Peter mentioning any names. (correct me if I’m wrong). He was using it as an example of a situation he wanted Pastor Cox to address.
And for the record, I think Pastor Cox’s analogy was as good one could get, considering how analogies and statements seem to be ripped apart worse than the parables of Jesus (and I’m not comparing Pastor Cox to Jesus, nor his analogy to a parable) within the scheme of things. (Just look how your opinion on titles has been yanked about.)
That said, I think from what I’m hearing on that interview that Dr. Cox does have all the fruit of the Spirit one might inspect if one were a mind to. selahV.
Bill,
If we are going to debate this, I need to know a few things. OK?
Do you live in Louisville, KY?
Is your first name Andrew?
If not, where are you from and what is your real name?
You see, Bill, many of us have read church history and we know your last name is not Kiffin and you did not have a role in the movie; KILL BILL.
cb
Scott,
Thanks for your kind words. I look forward to reading any response you might have. No offense taken concerning your observations. I hope you will believe me when i say my previous comments were not intended to be diversionary. I made a comment (#5), responded to my own comment with a follow up (#6), and then went on the defensive about those thoughts for most of the rest of the post.
We all have presuppositions. The question is whether we can be objective with regards to our presuppositions. My presupposition isn’t with Frank Cox, but with the establishment. I do not wish to go back to the days where the people are ‘encouraged’ to vote for the ‘party’ candidate. That’s no knock against Cox, though. I hope you believe me.
In addition, i have no idea how to route or re-route my IP. I’m not computer genius. I simply get online and begin typing. John’s comment was that i was perpetuating an act of cowardice towards Cox. I’m not sure how your comment about my IP address addresses his baseless (and slanderous) accusation.
I can appreciate your last paragraph. However, if you are going to rebuke me along such lines, then be consistent by also calling out David and John (and maybe even others) who made statements towards me that were unChristlike in tone, not to mention filled with antagonism.
Bill Kiffin,
Is that your real name?
John
Hey fellas, my anti-spam word is PEACE.
CB…you aren’t gonna let go of this bone till you know our Bill Kiffin’s place of origin, are you?
I went for over a year without sharing my identity other than selahV. I was afraid of internet predators. Still am. Then Geoff Baggett asked me to be part of his collaborative blog, sbcIMPACT, and I had to reveal the awful truth that I’m nobody important or significant in the scheme of things. You would not believe who many people thought I was before I shared my given name (which I abhor) but will answer to if forced. Maybe if Bill Kiffin isn’t Bill Kiffin, he doesn’t like his real name.
Of course, I know that doesn’t make any difference to you, CB. You’ll beat and gnaw and twist till you either get him to tell us or chase him off in the woods somewhere, huh?
selahV
This little bit of information is to stop any speculation as to Bill really being Benjamin S. Cole.
He is not. Ben is somewhere else today. He is not using a computer.
cb
SelahV,
Actually, I will not continue to chase Bill. If he does not give his real name I will simply ignore him.
I am going to weigh in on the interview when such debate “cranks” up. This may turn into the longest comment thread in the history of Blog Town.
The interview was a good one. There are some issues. My army is now amassed and ready.
cb
SelahV,
You are right. Peter did not use names, but no one mistook the situation (or the person) to which he was referencing. I merely filled in the blank that Peter left void.
CB,
I recall you went quite a while in Blog Town under a pseudonym. Should people have ignored you?
CB…Ben Cole?
Bill Kiffin has none of the writing attributes of BC. Unless of course, BC is a bonafide split-personality. Study of the written words will give us much in determining the authorship of words. Similar phraseology, word choices, logical reasoning, (or illogical) etc. Just ask Dr. Allen. He’s the sleuth on Hebrews and I’m excited about knowing more about him and his position there.
Hey, Bro. Kiffin, now Dr. Allen is a bonafide doctor in your estimation, isn’t he?
BTW, you wrote regarding your reasoning for not voting for Pastor Cox for president as: “My presupposition isn’t with Frank Cox, but with the establishment. I do not wish to go back to the days where the people are ‘encouraged’ to vote for the ‘party’ candidate.”
Isn’t this a presumptive position to take? Just because people (who you know in Nashville, and revere because of their anti-establishment stance) have put Pastor Cox in a box labeled establishment, doesn’t make it so, does it? selahV
“Bill Kiffin”
Before you attempt to contribute anything further to this discussion, please answer John Mann’s question (97, 102).
Thanks.
selahV,
I have some difficulties with Dr. Allen, but his education is not one of them.
We often act on our presumptions. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes they are not. I don’t recall labeling him part of the establishment but he doesn’t seem averse to it either (just conjecture from me on this). Would you believe that some participate on this blog have a presumption to vote for the establishment candidate?
I’m out for awhile. I have scheduled some time today for ministry obligations, to which i must attend.
Bro. Kiffin, I see. and I understand your rationale. Wade Burleson once did the same thing in a post in referencing Peter’s comments without naming him in his post. And another blogger, (who, like you knew who Peter was referencing) knew exactly who Wade was referencing, popped Peter’s name into the comment stream. I’m sure your inference was as innocent as hers. Although the posts were definitely two very different pieces with extremely damaging inferences to one and not the other.
So you are correct, in who the IMB question was regarding, however I still believe Peter was posing the question to see how Pastor Cox would address something similar should it be presented on his watch should he be elected president.
I think each and every question was germane to how our future president would think or speak in the event he were to be elected. I also think it germane that we address each candidate with similar questions. What do you think? I think Peter would make a great interviewer of any and all candidates being nominated this year. (or any year for that matter). He doesn’t shrink from asking tough questions with grace. selahV
Wes and others,
It is certainly a characteristic of a man or women of God to be straightforward and plain spoken. I can understand that “computer names” or “electronic names” are sometimes used for fun or because a real name is not available for use. This is one of the hazards of (Al Gore’s) inventions ? (you are aware he did invent the internet).
The men of women of God hold truthfulness in highest regard. If you are anonymous, you may be living in fear for a myriad of reasons. Believe me, there is nothing to fear with this bunch!
You should err on the side of full disclosure!
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Bill Kiffin,
I do not know what is going one in this comment stream. I do know one thing. When I go into our sitemeter to see who you are and where you are from, it shows a different name than what you are using. Arin tells me that something is amiss here. Allow me to remind you of our guidelines that we hold to; Anonymous posting is welcome. If you post anonymously you will be held to a higher standard. If there is anything deemed inappropriate by our resource managers your comment will be removed. Also, we have another statement that calls us to your situation; If you are warned and do not heed the warning your comments will be removed the first time. The second time this happens you will lose your commenting privileges at SBC Today.
We cannot verify you are who you say you are. The only thing I can find on Google is a 17th Century Anabaptist. You need to do two things to continue in this comment stream. 1.) you need to verify with one of us your true identity. 2.) you do not need to think that your interpretation of our guidelines trumps our interpretation, and argue for a different meaning. Brother Wes, one of the original blog owners, and now I have cautioned you. You need to respond with some way for us to verify you.
Blessings,
Tim
Bill,
Everybody with any history in the SBC knew who Villa Rica was and still is. They also knew who Merle, Lefty, Pancho and Bob Rambo were.
I got literally hundreds of emails about it, especially when I did the thing about the Ladies Meeting in Greensboro.
Wes Kenney, who actually did not know me, kept driving me nuts with his ethical challenges. The rest is history. Everybody also knew Ben Cole and Villa were together. It did not take long for “insiders” to figure out who the players were.
Now, I am pulling a “Wes Kenney” on you. Who are you ?
You did not answer the question. Is your first name Andrew?
Wes,
Why do you want him just to answer John Mann’s question? If you continue to ignore me I am going to blow up the SBC TODAY building with a skunk stink bomb and put snakes in your yellow car. :-)
cb
CB…I thought you were going to ignore Bro. Kiffin. :) had to say it.
Bro. Kiffin, I don’t know if you’ve ever read my fine Rules of Engagement for Bloggers, but if you have a few minutes after ministering, you can go to:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/02/07/pot-calling-the-kettle-black/
I think this could help you in communicating with this fine group of Christians. Then maybe not. selahV
I am not going to wait any longer for Bill to cowboy up.
I am going for the “jugular.” The Judge will be proud. :-)
Bill is right in some things he said about the interview.
The 58% statement is weak. Remember Jerry Vines won by a far less margin in 1988. It was a win and we took it for miles and miles afterward. In war a win is good no matter how you look at it. Second place is bad no matter how you look at it.
I realize we are not in a full blown war…….YET. This is a cold war at the moment.
I just want to say I will support Frank Cox unless David Dockery enters the “race” between now and June.
My basic reason for supporting is because he will stand on biblical issues come hell or high water. Right now we need a guy we can depend on to do just that.
Some things are very wrong in the SBC. To say otherwise is either a sign one knows little or is just a bear-faced liar.
Some of us pushed for certain things to be “righted” (klouda, buffoon trustees, etc.)
At the same time, some of us have pushed some things too far. When 15000 people showed up in Atlanta for the “meeting of fruits and nuts” accompanied by people that should know better it was a wake up call.
The same kind of sulfuric smell from hell that hit us in the years before the CR were beginning to stink up the place again. They just have more expensive haircuts, wear better suits, lie with more ease and use cigars for things other than what a good cigar is made for.
We need a guy like Frank Cox right now.
He is wrong on some things. It is often the case that SBC folks think if a guy is the pastor of a large church he knows the SBC inside and out. That is far from the truth.
Frank Cox does not understand the real problems in the SBC are due to poor trustee leadership. Period.
(examples: If Dr. Patterson had had real Baptist statesmen as trustees. He would not be in the mess he is in now. If the IMB had not had the Tom and Jerry Show we would be far better off today for several reasons of which if I stated would certainly take this thread to a place it was not intended)
I do believe Frank Cox will listen to wise counsel. I also know he would not listen to guys like me or Ben Cole. Therefore, some of you guys such as the ones who own this blog need to get down to reality and be honest ant tell the man some things are really wrong with the trustees of our entities. The system, itself, is good just as he said it was. The problem is we have BOOT-STRAPPING, BOLONEY EATERS in too large numbers on our boards. That needs to be addressed.
OK, I have started. Wes, Tim, Robin, Scott, Stewart and Joe; You sponsored this ball and I have called a dance. Grab you a partner and come on. I have no partners in this anymore because I cannot go completely in the way some are going.
Frank Cox will do a good job, I think, if some of you out there will be truthful and give him good counsel. There are those who if they were elected would make the SBC a ZOO for creatures from the land of fruits and nuts in short order.
Therefore, I support Frank Cox. I don’t know much about him, but he has guts and says what he thinks without checking the wind. At least he did in the interview. He has my respect for that.
cb
Wow! See what a night out with the wife and a good night’s sleep will cost you – all these comments take a while to get caught up.
Stuart,
Thanks brother, good point. I would much rather spend time with my family and flock than to sit for years in a cloistered cubical reading dead Germans. I am grateful for those who have – but that’s not what God called me to do. But then again it seems that I fail at several points: a non-existant, unaccredited degree AND I’m one of those church jumping flaming Calvinists (incert collective blog-gasp here) 8->
Scott,
Of course you are correct. We should not be single issue voters and for the most part I agree with DR. Cox. I just wish that we would all be more careful with the words we use. I think Dr. Cox will make a fine President should he be elected. I still don’t know that he’s the one I would vote for at this point, but I do believe he is a man of commedable character and commitment.
Peter,
Bless you brother – I know how strongly you supported Dr. Mohler. My thought, however, was toward your reaction to Dr. Cox’s nomination in that a man of Dr. Mohler’s standing had already been nominated. With Mohlher’s withdrawal, however, I do realize that its a non-issue.
Bill Kiffin,
Thank you for finally listening to the interview and addressing its substance. I actaully find myself agreeing with much of what you say. For example, I do not believe that it would be accurate to compare the SBC trustee system to a church business meeting. However, that doesn’t mean that I agree with the “reformist camp” that the actions of the IMB BoT was wrong. I just think Cox could have used a better illustration.
The two issues that I disagree on would be the GM and your distaste for the “establishment.” First of all, it is no secret that the agency BoTs have almost always used doctrinal issues beyound the BFM in their policy guidelines. The have included (but certainly not to be exhaustive) such issues as beverage alcohol, divorce, speaking in tongues (and to me that includes PPL) and others. That is because everyone has understood the BFM to be a Statement of Faith – NOT a creed. I watched the debate on the GM – and there was a great deal of confusion on the intent of the motion. Looking at the GM itself – I can see both sides (as simply affirming the BFM or attempting to limit doctrinal issues). I personally believe there needs to be clarity and a full disclosure as to the INTENT of those making the motion to begin with. As others have said – that will more than likely change the voting outcome.
As to your apparent … hummmm, may I say “discomfort” with the establisment … vote your heart brother, but wow – where would we be today as a convention if not for many of those “establishment” leaders.
And for the record, my name is Wes Massey and I am privileged to pastor the First (and only) Baptist Church in Coahoma, TX. As though anyone cares.
WesInTex: Hi, I’m selahV and am just wondering: You said, “I do not believe that it would be accurate to compare the SBC trustee system to a church business meeting. However, that doesn’t mean that I agree with the “reformist camp” that the actions of the IMB BoT was wrong. I just think Cox could have used a better illustration.”
Could you give us your illustration of what would be more accurate? thanks selahV
bill kiffin sounds very familiar to me. sounds a lot like a couple of fellas from the outpost.
david
Matt,
You too? Oh my. Unfortunately, you may not have kept up with accrediting processes. You write: “LR is accredited by neither SACS nor ATS.”
You are correct that Luther Rice is not accredited by SACS. Neither is Harvard. So? NEASC does accredit Harvard as does TRACS accredit Luther Rice. TRACS is recognized by the Dept of Education in the very same sense as both SACS and NEASC.
Why this is being pressed slips right past me. I’ve encountered academic snobbishness before and I have to tell you: the present obsession with this issue wreaks of it.
Frankly, I don’t care at this point if Frank Cox ever attended seminary or university. The life, ministry, gifting and sheer character of the man speaks volumes more than a classroom could ever instill. Formal education cannot offer what Dr. Frank Cox possesses.
Let’s drop this, Matt, and focus on something that really matters, shall we? Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
SelahV
First, I don’t think an “illustration” is actually necessary. Why not just use the opportunity to explain (again) how our beloved Convention works. It could be a result of my upbringing but to compare the Convention to the church makes me nervous.
Rather than offer an illustration, why not explain that each agancy or institution BoT is elected by the Convention and then authorized (read: empowered) by the Convention to operate said agancy or institution according to its own officers and policies – within the framework of the Convention and BFM.
For the incident in question – the IMB BoT has been empowered to direct the IMB; they have their own officers and have established guidelines and policies. Each new trustee is expected to operate within those policies and guidelines (including those related to confidentiality and closed meetings). They even receive training in how the BoT is operated. If they disagree with the guidelines they are certainly welcome to work to change them – working within said guidelines.
When those guidelines and policies are violated, those guilty of such bear responsibility for whatever action the BoT deems appropriate. Don’t speed and then blame the trooper for the ticket.
If an illustration is necessary – better to look at our national congress (please don’t read anything into that 8->). We the people elect our congressional represenatives who are empowered thereby to govern. If a member of the congress violates one of its rules – it is the congress who seeks corrective measures. The people still have the option to re-elect – but congress is governed by its own rules and procedures according to the Constitution of the US.
IF an illustration is needed – to me that is a better one than a church business meeting. A church business meeting is the purest form of a democracy – while congress and our SBC trustee system is based on more of a republic system.
Wes
Peter is right.
At this point in Frank Cox’ life it would not matter if he had graduated from The snake pit at Richmond or Union in New York.
His life and ministry says he is a Christ-Follower, believer in the authority of the Scripture (inerrancy) and a believer in missions and evangelism.
He shows no signs of being a liberal nut, a right wing, Landmark dipstick or a disciple of Benny Hinn and the flakes.
He seems to be honest in his convictions. I believe he needs help in understanding the failings of some pitiful trustees. If he will hear truth on that he will do a good job as president.
Even if he does not listen to truth about the failings of so many trustees he will do a better job than many who are “lurking” at the gate.
Conservative Southern Baptists failed Mike Huckabee and the unborn. Don’t make the same mistake here. You guys need to support this guy and do it now. But, please tell him the truth about trustee failures.
cb
Hello again, WesInTx: Well! Now that was a really fine illustration of what a prospective president could have said off the cuff.
I do hope they are all reading this. I still think what Dr. Cox said was in keeping with a man being honest in his answer to a fast pitch, though. I like the openness with which he shared–no hesitation at all in his voice. selahV
Bill (or whoever),
You write: “Peter’s question about the Lifeway survey on Calvinism was not as precise as it could have been…He mentioned that it was 5-10% of SBC. In fact, it was 10% of SBC pastors.”
Bill (or whoever) the very reason I mentioned 5-10% of the SBC is because Lifeway’s research was pastors not the SBC at large. How could one be “precise” when a study did not address perfectly the question being asked?
Indeed you yourself conclude “I would suspect that a similar survey of church members would yield a lower percentage of Calvinists.” Lower than 10%? Sweet. How about 5-10%?
To date, Bill (or whoever), each time you’ve mentioned something I’ve said or written, you seem to come up a quart low. I can only conclude the pattern is probably true of comments to others.
Again on the Calvinism question: “I found his use of the term hyper-Calvinism to be lacking in historical precision.” Go back and listen once again to the interview. Dr. Cox was definitively not alluding to theological nuance in historical Calvinistic thought.
Rather he clearly was speaking about aggressive Brothers who, through over-jealous, “hyper” activity attempt to impose their theological paradigm upon an unsuspecting congregation. That’s the “new strain” of Calvinists to which he referred. Hence, he was calling for integrity in the matter, etc.
Bill (or whoever), I find the criticisms you offer us less than fair much less convincing. Were I you, I’d make sure I understood what I was critiquing before I pledged it to print. Of course, since you are probably employing a pseudonym, it kinda cushions you from looking foolish, does it not? Very sweet setup, I’d say.
With that, I am…
Peter
Billy Kiffy,
Peter is right again. It is time to give your identity or just stand down.
Peter,
Why don’t you just ignore him? I know you can do it. You and Wes are constantly doing it to me.:-)
cb
SelaV,
Thanks for your reply. I do hope I am not misunderstood – I enjoyed the interview and thought Dr. Cox made some good points. I also realize that I am not “under the gun” as he was when he was being interviewed (again, not that Peter was gunning for him). I have just always been taught to make clear distinctions between the church and the convention so I wouldn’t have personally used the illustration he did.
Brother Peter,
I do love your posts – even if there are times when we disagree. And, though I am hesitant to agree with something “Bill (or whoever)” said, may I personally comment on this: (You write to Bill in #124) “Rather he clearly was speaking about aggressive Brothers who, through over-jealous, “hyper” activity attempt to impose their theological paradigm upon an unsuspecting congregation. That’s the “new strain” of Calvinists to which he referred. Hence, he was calling for integrity in the matter, etc”
This was another point that I found troubling with Dr. Cox because it is parroting so many others. I agree that there must be integrity on the part of ALL pastors as they interview with PSCs. I don’t know of anyone who would seriously say otherwise. However, historically “hyper” is not defined as what you or Dr. Cox or Dr. Vines or (get the point) say it is. A “hyper-Calvinist” is historically understood as one who doesn’t believe in the need for missions or evanglism – or that the gospel should be presented to everyone. Now, that may not be what Dr. Cox meant by “hyper” but that IS its historical context – and I might add, what most would understand it to mean. Because of its historical meaning (and even its current understanding among the vast majority) I do not accept the term, and I find it personally offensive. I’m not one of those who goes around crying about it – I’m a big boy (in more ways than one 8->) but I do expect those in leadership to use their words carefully and don’t try to chage definitions – its confusing and hurtful. If you want to refer to the new aggressive Baptist Calvinists – why not just call them “aggressive Calvinists” and be done with it. Don’t muddy the waters by using terms that have a historical definition other than how you’re using it.
Love ya bro.
Wes
Tim,
I have emailed one of the blog administrators and am awaiting a reply. However, I do wish to respond to Peter’s most recent attempt to discredit my critique of the interview. I hope that is appropriate.
Peter,
My criticism on the first point is that your question about the Lifeway study should/could have been more precise. Instead of venturing a guess (5-10%), why not use the statistics that have already been verified? I have no problem (and have already said) saying that less than 10% of SBC members are Calvinists. I’m just asking why you avoided a verified statistic in your question.
Second, if I misunderstood Cox’s definition of a hyper-calvinist, don’t blame me for his unorthodox usage of the phrase. if he wanted to discuss those who (as you say) “impose their theological paradigm upon an unsuspecting congregation”, then why not use a phrase such as hyperactive Calvinist? He used a very ‘tossed about’ phrase in a very unlikely and (to me) unheard of manner. But, i’m sure i was the only one who heard him use that phrase and misunderstood his intent.
Third, you seem to forget (or failed to have read) that the last time we went round and round on this thread, I made an apology to you for misunderstanding you. Either you glossed over it or didn’t find my words sincere. I doubt that making a second application for your forgiveness would get a different response. And, no worries, i’m not looking to you for a grade when it comes to your conclusions about my other comments or whether my criticisms are fair or not (but thanks for giving me your unsolicited input on the matter).
Wes (and CB),
Be careful. Agreeing with me on this blog might damage your reputation :)
Peter,
One more thing: Does that mean I can call the Caner boys, Vines, Ken Whitten, and others like them ‘hyper-Arminians’? They seem to be “imposing their theological paradigm” all over the place. Does that make them a ‘new strain’ also?
Tim,
I am unsure why your sitemeter is messing up. i’m not jamming it. i wouldn’t want to and i don’t know how (even if i did). as i said in a previous post, i have made initial contact with one of the blog administrators but i’ve not heard back from him yet. i’ll do my best to play nice until then, if that’s ok.
i’m by no means trying to circumvent your rules. i’ve played nice (for the most part) just as much as anyone else here. that you might (or might not) know me doesn’t detract from the substance of my comments (not withstanding the fact that apparently they are always a quart low). i only wish to discuss the topic(s) at hand.
David,
Sorry, friend, but i don’t have multiple personalities, so that disqualifies me from being “a couple of fellas from the outpost.”
WesinTex,
Sorry, friend. You simply break the first rule between those communicating. That is, assuring you understand precisely how they are employing terms. And whether or not you agree with “how” a person employs a term stands irrelevant. The question is, was the person employing the term consistently within his context. If you cannot point to precisely how Dr. Cox misused the term within his context, what is your point?
Even more mysterious, WeinTex is your confessed “offense” when you openly concede Dr. Cox did not employ the term in its technical sense. Why would you be offended when he did not employ the term in a less than honorable way?
I get the feeling sometimes that, on the one hand our Calvinist brothers are commended for their open, unashamed pronounced views on strong Reformed theology, like Dr. Mohler for example. However, when a similar, pronounced NonCalvinist perspective is evident, “I’m offended” suddenly arises.
For unity’s sake, please: Dr. Cox made it perfectly clear he’s neither anti-calvinist nor possesses ignorance that Calvinism, in his words “has always been a part of SB life”, not to mention his many friends, including a very long personal friendship with Al Mohler. Bringing “I’m offended” into the conversation makes little sense to me, at least from where I’m sitting in West Georgia.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Bill (or whoever),
Last post on my end dude. Refer to my comment to WesinTex about employing “hyper” pertaining to Calvinism/Calvinist. I’ve been over this ground before pertaining to the valid/invalid employment of “hyper” I have no interest in repeating it.
Suffice it to say Dr. Cox employed the term “hyper” not toward a technical, theological point within Calvinistic theology and the context of his statement bears this out. If you can prove otherwise, do so; if you cannot I’m wondering why some continue to milk it.
And now Bill (or whoever), she’s all yours. If the criticisms against Dr. Cox stand no more potent than what’s been leveled thus far–especially from the comments attributed to “Bill (or whoever)”–I do not suspect Dr. Cox’s respectability as candidate will hardly be tarnished.
With that, I am…
Peter
Frank Cox was going to do his Doctor of Ministry work at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and the Seminary told him that he needed one more Greek class to qualify. Already involved in ministry in NE Georgia, Frank just went through Luther Rice.
I will tell you that Frank Cox has been a great friend and supporter of NOBTS. As an alum, Dr. Cox has been close friends with both Chuck Kelley and Landrum Leavell. Dr. Cox has preached at several seminaries.
Dear Peter, sorry this is so long;
Peter said: “Sorry, friend. You simply break the first rule between those communicating. That is, assuring you understand precisely how they are employing terms. And whether or not you agree with “how” a person employs a term stands irrelevant. The question is, was the person employing the term consistently within his context. If you cannot point to precisely how Dr. Cox misused the term within his context, what is your point?”
Actually, Peter, I am not breaking anything. I am assuming that Dr. Cox is an intelligent man who knows how to communicate effectively and use words wisely and to say what he means clearly enough for people to understand. He has a distinguished history in his church and I assume that is because he is a skilled communicator. I am not some bumpkin just in off the street – and I know also, how to use words to communicate my point. “How” a person uses words is precisely the point of communication. I do not have an agenda here other than to consider one who is to be nominated as President of the SBC.
I listened to the interview again – and actually came away even more concerned than before. I do believe Dr. Cox was “employing the term consistently within his context.” He used the term “hyper-Calvinist” twice, both with the adjective “aggressive.” He wasn’t saying “aggressive-hyper-Calvinists,” but rather “aggressive, hyper-Calvinists,” and later “hyper-Calvinism in an aggressive form.” He was not using the term “hyper” as a synonym for aggressive. This is clear because later he refers to simply “aggressive Calvinists.”
Peter said: “Even more mysterious, WeinTex is your confessed “offense” when you openly concede Dr. Cox did not employ the term in its technical sense. Why would you be offended when he did not employ the term in a less than honorable way?”
My offense, dear Peter, is at the improper use of a term with a clearly defined historical context. My actual comment was “Now, that may not be (emphases added) what Dr. Cox meant by “hyper” but that IS its historical context – and I might add, what most would understand it to mean.” That is not conceding anything. It is pointing to the fact that when you say “hyper-Calvinist” to the average Southern Baptist it’s like waving a red flag at a bunch of bulls. Peter, the attempts at changing the meaning of “hyper-Calvinists” from what it has historically meant to some new bread of critter is confusing at best and possibly even sinister on the part of some.
Peter said: “I get the feeling sometimes that, on the one hand our Calvinist brothers are commended for their open, unashamed pronounced views on strong Reformed theology, like Dr. Mohler for example. However, when a similar, pronounced NonCalvinist perspective is evident, “I’m offended” suddenly arises.”
I am not offended that he is not a Calvinist. I am grateful that he is not an “anti-Calvinist.” It does concern me when he uses a particular term with a historical definition that will incite some to the wrong conclusion, and then tries to pass it off as “well, you just don’t understand how I’m using the word.” Talk about breaking rules of communication!
Blessings,
Wes
Hello again, WesInTex. Do you think any of Dr. Cox’s comments were meant in an argumentative way? Do you think his tone indicated disdain or ire toward reformed brothers and sisters? I did not. And therefore his term “hyper” could easily be interchanged with “aggressive” or one used to further describe that which he is concerned has already caused divides within the churches he is familiar with.
It’s happening Wes. I have several readers who write to me because of the heartache they are enduring due to the kind of Calvinist Dr. Cox seems to be referring to.
It happens. And while I think it is not a whit to be concerned about, I am only one person who sees it this way. People who encounter it on a weekly basis, are concerned—just as many Calvinists are concerned about those men mentioned earlier in this post (of whom I am not familiar with).
Do you know who has talked to me, emailed me, and calmed my concern regarding the “aggressive” Calvinists? Some of the dearest kindest loving reformed brethren and sisters in the blogosphere. And do you know who speaks to me via email and telephone with encouraging words about many of the reformed brothers and sisters in the convention and blogosphere? Peter Lumpkins among others.
What we don’t understand can provoke all kinds of fear and distrust. People we do not know but assume from their blog comments that we know, can seem as though they are anti-everything. Fear and suspicion does some strange things to folks, don’t ya think? selahV
To All,
My spam word was patience and I have completely lost mine. :>)
Seriously, I want to put this out here because it seems we have focused more on degrees of degrees than on the real issues.
Dr. Cox presented clear arguments as to why the Garner Motion was flawed. His argument, from one that was not at the convention, is quite convincing. So I have some questions that I believe should be answered as we proceed in this discussion.
1.) Does Dr. Frank Cox believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
2.) Presuming the answer to the first is yes, Does Dr. Frank Cox believe the Scripture is sufficient to do what is says it will do?
3.) As President Dr. Cox has said he will keep Evangelism first and foremost. How will he proceed in doing that?
4.) Dr. Cox said he would preach in any size church. Does he have available dates next year, because my flock that God has given me as an under shepherd is roughly 150 in Sunday School and 175 in Worship. Will Dr. Cox come and do a revival for me in the future?
Now, get back on what this post is about and leave the unknowns for the devil to take the hindmost.
Blessings,
Tim
SelahV,
Whether I believe Dr. Cox meant his comments to be argumentative or not is not the issue. I personally don’t believe they were intended that way. Again, that is not the issue. The issue is that the use of the term “hyper-Calvinist” incites some people to extremes. The term has a historical, theological definition and context which neither Dr. Cox, Peter or anyone else can change. Words matter. To communicate the speaker must consider not only his meaning – but how those words have been used in the past, and how people will still take those words today. The statement Dr. Cox made referring to “hyper-Calvinism in an aggressive form” can be, and unfortunately will be taken by some to refer to those on the extreme (who deny missions and evangelism) who are becoming more aggressive in Southern Baptist life. Those may or may not be the one’s he is referring to – but it is the term he used.
I have no doubt that there are those aggressive Calvinists who seem to live only for the next church battle. I’ve had to deal with some of them myself. But I also know there have been cases where a pastor has simply taken a stand for something that the majority in the church didn’t agree with. And, because he used the term “election” in a sermon somewhere, he gets branded a Calvinist who split his church. Sometimes it isn’t really the “Calvinistic” theology that’s the problem so much as it is just a plan ol’ Biblicist stand.
I am not fearful or suspicious of anyone in the SBC. I am a word freak. Words have meanings and must be used carefully. All I am asking is that we stop using words which we know have a less than honorable history and that we don’t throw red flags around. Again I want to say that I enjoyed the interview and thought both Dr. Cox and Peter did well. So I didn’t agree with everything he said – my wife doesn’t agree with me 100% of the time either.
Now its preparation time; may the Lord richly bless ALL of His people as we worship on His Resurrection day.
Tim…
AMEN!
Sola Gratia!
Tim
I agree…and here is my thoughts
Dr. Cox is the kind of man and leader that frankly scares the ‘pseudo reformers’ to death. He is unashamedly committed to the inerrant Word of God. He is focused on evangelism and missions. He understands the Baptist in the pew as his experience has been with roughly every sized church up to the size he currently pastors. He believes in the SBC and they way she works, through the convention and the trustee system. He never said there were no problems but he trusts the convention to police herself and deal with such problems as they arise. What scares the ‘pseudo reformers’ is not necessarily what I have stated thus far, but the fact that he makes it abundantly clear that he is not going to use a confusing and unclear motion such as the garner motion to reinvent the wheel. The BFM has always been a minimal document, not a creedal maximal statement of Baptist belief and doctrine as some would have you believe. The ‘pseudo reformers’ will vote against Dr. Cox because he is not going to take us down the road of weak kneed, watered down, mansy pansy, syrupy, every body is the same ecumenicalism that the ‘pseudo reformers’ seem so enamored with. They hate convictional, conservative, committed leadership…and that is why they will vote against him.
C.B. Scott has nailed it on the head. There are some things and issues that need to be addressed in the SBC. Always have been, always will be. however, those who would drag us back to the pre CR SBC at the expense of doctrinal fidelity will once again find themselves on the loosing end of this fight!
If they think the garner motion is the will of the people, then let them take up Bart Barbers challenge to bring to the convention floor a motion of clarity and precise meaning that does not hide itself behind the wording of our confessional statement, yet gives the convention a clear and concise opportunity to speak to the parameters of the BFM2000 that our agencies and boards are to follow. They will not do so because they know that they will also loose that battle. They would rather attack the character and integrity of Godly men and women and the integrity of our institutions and indeed our people in doing so.
Dr. Cox will continue the good work that Dr. Page has been doing in leading us in winning our communities, our states, our nation and indeed our world to faith in Jesus Christ! Let the ‘pseudo reformers’ post their inflammatory blogs, attack and slander, gossip and flip flop. Let them continue to preach to their sanctimonious choir…but I for one will not buy that piece of beach front property, and i rather doubt our convention will either.
jrm
Greetings All,
To Wes,
I think that the problem that you have here is only 10 percent of the people of the SBC are actually “offended” by the improper use of “hyper” as it relates to those Calvinists of the Gil nature.
I do not, as you do not, believe that Cox was using this term in a derogatory sense, for I have not listened to him rail against Calvinists in his sermons; continuously making ludicrous statements about what Calvinists believe as some pastors in the SBC do regularly. I believe that you are just trying to impress upon him that this term is offensive to those of us who do embrace the “doctrines of grace” while we rely on the power of God to convert all who will listen as we earnestly evangelize.
Now, what really grinds my goat, is when pastors who should know better use the term “Hyper-Calvinist” as they rail against the “dangers” of Calvinism when they know that the type of Calvinism that is rising in the SBC nowhere bears even the slightest resemblance to historical “Hyper-Calvinists”. It is a straw man and these men should be ashamed for using such an argument. I believe the only reason that they use it and get away with it is because the bulk of the congregations haven’t an iota of an idea of what a “Hyper-Calvinist” truly is. Furthermore, the university that awarded the d.min. degrees to these men should have what accreditation they do have revoked.
Okay, maybe that last bit about the revocation of accreditation is over the top, but you can see just how passionate we are about being called dispassionate about lost people.
With all the love of Christ that a sinful worm can muster,
Anthony
Mr. Jack Maddox,
What is a “pseude reformer?”
Rick Garner
Mr. Rick Garner
I do not know what a “pseude reformer” is
I used the term ‘pseudo reformer’
pseudo – being apparently rather than actually as stated
reformer – well, you get the idea!
jrm
Jack,
You said it well in #139! Tim R, you did as well. Interesting how this comment string has progressed. I tink Dr. (and I do respect his doctorate) Cox has hit the nail on the head!
Mr. Jack Maddox
Apologies for my typo.
I’m sorry, but I don’t get the idea.
Maybe you can give me an example of “who” would fit your definition of a “pseudo reformer?’ Is Dr. David Dockery, or Dr. Timothy George or Dr. Albert Mohler or Dr. Frank Cox, or Dr. Frank Page, or Dr. Morris Chapman, a pseudo reformer? Or, are you using this term as a label for some who may disagree with you?
Rick Garner
Rick
A Pseudo reformer would be one who yes, I disagree with, however, I believe them to be a small group of Southern Baptist who use the mantle of reform as a banner to take the SBC down a road of ecumenism under the guise of cooperation. My opinion of what motivates them is merely subjective and prone to error, however I believe much of it to be as a result of personal vendetta and so called scores to settle with leaders in the SBC. They are pseudo because they use the stated issue of reform when really what they want to do is not reform but to remake. Their tactics are silly, political and often times quite comical. They have more in common with the Clintons and the Carters of this world than they do the average Baptist that will sit in our pews tomorrow. They use innuendo and gossip as their tools of trade and cloak it under the title of “Information”. They are made up of a mix of former SBC’ers and current SBC’ers. I would not classify Dr. Dockery or Dr. George or any of the others that you mentioned as a ‘pseudo reformer’
hope that helps and thanks for asking!
jrm
cb
I give you that one. Please don’t misunderstand me I am not saying that if you have a degree from LR or any of the other non accred schools that you can’t be successful. One of the most blessed ministries I know comes from a man who does not even have a college degree. I am just saying that today or for the last 15 years there is no need to keep these diploma mills running. One must also check the motive for the individual seeking the degree, both Acc. or non-Acc.
Walt
Walt
To call Luther Rice Seminary a diploma mill shows your lack of understanding of what a diploma mill is or either what LRS is, and no, I am not a LRS grad or student. Would you consider Liberty a diploma mill? You guys gave really got to stop lobbing these grenades around. Please check your facts before posting.
jrm
Jack,
Seems like the pot is calling the kettle ‘black’, with your pot shots at the “pseudo reformers”.
BK,
I have replied to you…why have you not responded?
Sola Gratia!
Scott,
I didn’t check my email last night or this morning. We had friends over last night and i just got back from church. I’ll check it now. Thanks.
Brother Rick Garner,
Dr. Cox has interpreted your motion in the interview. I am glad to see you engage the comment stream here. Can you tell us what you intended b y the motion and if you did intend it to be a maximum doctrinal guide, why didn’t you say so in the motion?
Blessings,
Tim
Hey Bill
I may be a little portly, but I aint no Pot!
jrm
Jack,
I saw you in San Antonio. I think i would describe you as stocky moreso than portly. But, with your own grenade tossing comments, that most certainly makes you a pot. You might not like those who you so affectionately call ‘pseudo reformers’, but your nomenclature is both poorly chosen and wrought with inflammatory tone. Those you classify in such a negative light might very well be reformers. You can reform an organization from it’s slide too far to the right just as you can from a slide too far to the left. Maybe those ‘pseudo reformers’ are just calling for a bit of a pendulum swing. If that’s the case, they are by no means pseudo.
Bill
At first I thought you said I was “Stocky moreso” I did not know what moreso was so I looked it up, it was then I realized it was a typo. I need to be stocky lesso, but after the roast I just partook of I may be in trouble. Bill, let me be clear. I have not met one person that I consider a pseudo reformer that I do not personally like. I consider Ben Cole a PR yet Ben is a very personable and likable guy. As far as my ‘nomenclature’ being inflammatory….yes, it is. I intend for it to be…But much less so than that of the pseudo reformers constant attack and innuendo against the SBC and her leaders. As far as calling for a bit of a swing of the pendulum…if that was all they wanted many of us would have gladly joined with them, but instead they chose the path of a scorched earth. It is for this reason that I will never join their ranks and will stand against their rhetoric and vision for the SBC.
jrm
Bill,
“Pendulum” swing? Yes.
Pendulum to the absolute “LEFT” of the building and through the wall leaving a hole big enough to drive Vandals and Visigoths through in herds from the NBCC “BadLands” and beyond? No, not hardly.
Jack,
What I just threw was a grenade.
It is similar in color to the one you threw.
Difference? I knew what it was when I threw it. It was by intent. Grenades are dangerous. Having them in your possession is one thing. Throwing it is another.
If you throw one you should take accountability for it. Because, whether you meant to throw it or not the consequences for the one whose lap it lands in are the same.
cb
Jack,
Ben Cole is not a “pseudo” anything. He is the real deal.
That is what makes him dangerous to the established entrenchments who know him.
Jack, that was another grenade, BTW. :-)
cb
CB,
I like that you call them as you see them, and you are fair to both sides. I’m not calling for a pendulum swing to the far left, by any means. Thanks for being able to understand that you can swing back towards the middle (which is what i meant by saying swing back to the left – i.e., left of the far right) without being a liberal or a no good trouble maker.
“Scorched” earth, Jack?
Did you mean to throw that one?
cb
Bill,
We are in agreement…..on this one.
cb
Bro. Tim: Wow, am I obtuse! It just hit me that the Rick Garner posting here is the Rick Garner that wrote that motion so many of us interpret differently.
Please, Bro. Garner, could you answer that question Tim asked in comment #151. Your intent would be most welcome to know. Not only by Tim, but myself. Thank you so much. selahV
Rick,
If you do present the intent (or rather “full” intent) of the GM, please be very specific and completely open.
If you cannot do that at this time, then please, stand down.
cb
CB
You know me enough from the forums brother that I don’t throw anything that I do not mean to throw. Perhaps I am just chunking them back before they blow up in my lap…as far as Ben, I like Ben, I disagree with Ben and his tactics, no secret there. I got a grenade thrown at me once, on it was the words ‘spooky fundamentalist’
I just chunked it back at the one who threw it.
Understand this CB, I could care less if my words are deemed ‘inflammatory’, I do care about the SBC and although she is far from perfect I will not stand by and allow the baby to be thrown out with the bath water. Conservatives in Texas are a battle hardened bunch. I, like you, have been in this square circle for a long time. Slick political verbiage and middle of the road ecumenism is not something that I care for. I owe my allegiance not to Paige Patterson, Jim Richard’s or Paul Pressler, and my talking points do not come from a blog administrator. I own up to what I say knowing that I will give a full account one day. And it will not be Bill that I answer to.
C.B., I like you because your a straight shooter…but your not the only one.
I just listened to the interview today. Kudos to Peter Lumpkins for a great interview, to SBC Today for hosting it, and of course to Dr. Frank Cox for granting it. I found myself liking Dr. Frank Cox almost instantly, as he seems very warm and genuine. Though I know nothing about him, he’s made a very good initial first impression.
Having said that, I have a few small reservations I want to voice.
Honestly, I would prefer Albert Mohler to be nominated as SBC president because of his strong endorsement of Calvinism (primarily), and excellent defense of the Christian world view against secular perspectives. I believe that Mohler is one of the very best candidates for the job, though that comes from primarily my theological perspective to be sure. However, Divine Providence has had other plans for him, at least for the short-term, and I will be praying for him and his family as the Lord puts him on my heart and brings him to mind.
I do not agree with Dr. Frank Cox on tithing at all. I do sincerely hope, even if this is a personal conviction, that it will not be a focus of his presidency. I believe that giving is to be governed by the Holy Spirit in the area of Christian liberty, and that tithing is not for the new dispensation post-Pentecost. However, that’s a secondary issue, and many good brethren disagree with me (and others with my views). That’s fine. We should all serve Christ.
I also have a reservation with his use of the word of “aggressive” in reference to the new “strains” of Calvinism, and his use of “biblicist”. Perhaps it was not possible to do in this interview, but I would greatly appreciate clarification on this matter. Calvinists can have a bold defense of reformed soteriological views, without necessarily being aggressive or divisive. Are some Calvinists in the SBC guilty of this? I think so, as I was one of them, but as you mature in the Spirit you learn to treat other believers with kindness and grace (though I’ve certainly not arrived yet!). Also, all believers are biblicists if their hearts are right with the Lord. I applaud that in Dr. Frank Cox as well. And no one likes to be labeled, I suppose. But labels can communicate truth more concisely and efficiently, without assaulting character or integrity. But Dr. Cox is right to make the ultimate reference to Scripture, not labels.
If Dr. Frank Cox is the man I think him to be after listening to this interview, I believe my reservations will be resolved with further clarification from him on his views, and I’ll have no problems endorsing him. I certainly hope and pray that God’s man is the one who will be elected.
CB,
We agree on more than just this one thing. And I suspect you know what Rick’s intent was in making the motion, since you attended a meeting (along with others) with him the night before he presented it.
Jack,
Liberty’s only off campus degree for the longest time was its non accredited Life Long School Of Learning.
LR, again of all the Mills it is the most respected but I like it to our choice for Dem. Pres. Nominees. Not much respect. Except from Tim :)
Tim, if you got to say you respect it, there may be a problem there. You must currently be enrolled in either LR or some other mill. Just giving you a hard time
walt
Jack,
Fair enough.
Remember though, it was not Ben who called anyone “spooky fundamentalists.”
Not that Ben hasn’t called a bunch of people many things, but he is not the father of that one.
Bill from DFW, Texas,
Now I know.
cb
CB,
Sorry, but you are 0 for 2. I’m from neither Louisville nor Texas.
Jack,
I am curious, so I must ask based on you saying; “your not the only one.”
Jack, Did you ever sing with a group from England know as the Beatles?
cb
Bill,
Are you saying you are not a student of an institution in Texas?
cb
Brother Walt,
For some reason you had three comments saying the same thing. I just unapproved two of them. Therefore if you see something show up in moderation you will know why it is there.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I have not had that particular issue crop up with me, but since yesterday, every time i post, i get a very long error message. i emailed Robin and told him about it, but he has not yet responded (wes said something about him hosting a conference, but i didn’t realize it when i emailed him).
my comments always go through, but i have to hit the submit button, then the error message shows, then i hit the back button, then the refresh button. after all of that, my comment then appears.
i’m not sure if it’s my computer/internet service or this blog. just wanted you all to know.
Tim,
I have received the same messages that BK gets when he tries to post. I suspect it is because there is so much traffic on this blog post. I just hit the refresh button and it posts my comment. selahV
bill kiffin,
are your other initials bsc? and, did you just recently move from texas?
david
I have seen many post saying that they don’t know enough about Dr. Cox. His website helped me get some additional info on him. http://www.frankcox.org
Brother Bill,
If you give us your real name and where you live so we can contact you local isp, we will be glad to help resolve your issue.
:>)
Seriously, I have had the same thing happen to me. We are probably going to have to contact WordPress to resolve the issue.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
It keeps telling me that my time has expired and I hit refresh and before i caught it it had posted already. Sorry about that.
walt
Tim,
i don’t know what you are talking about :)
sorry to hear it’s happening to you also. i just wanted to make you all aware of it so the problem can be resolved.
thanks.
Brethren,
I do not know Mr Kifflin and am not in complete sympathy with his messages. However, the nature of these message boards is suitable for those who wish to remain anonymous.
John Who You Ain’t,
You are not John Killian. Dr. Kilian was at my van down by the river playing poker with me, and my brother Pancho and Rufus Bigalow ’till about 20 minutes ago.
He was a big winner. He said he was going down to LOCAL CAFE to eat breakfast with VILLA, my older brother, and cb and Merle.
I don’t know who you are, but just as soon as we get enough money for gas we gonna come to you place and steal some of your stuff to teach you a lesson about actin’ like you somebody you ain’t. Then we gonna deal with this Kiffy dude for his messin’ ’round with all these guys, here.
LEFTY RICA
Two free comments to the 200th speaker.
d.phil. bill,
again, do the initials of your real name have a b and c in it? and, did you live in texas a little while back…you moved across the state line into sooner country?
david
Bart,
If we take out our silly exchanges of D.Min vs. other doctoral degrees and guessing who Bill (or whoever) is, how many do we have to go before we reach 200? :^)
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
If you would stop ignoring my darts toward you we would already be there. :-)
cb
CB
Darts? So, you wanna a piece o me? I’ll come over there in Birmingham and force Folgers Coffee down your throat. What do you think of that?
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
As long as it is Colombian
:-)
cb
TO ALL,
After repeated attempts to contact and have “Bill Kiffin,” “Seminary Student,” “John Smyth” disclose to us his identity, we have failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the matter. We have been contacted by “Bill” through e-mail but, again, we reached no resolution.
We at SBC Today are not opposed to anonymous comments. That option is available to anyone. However, the continued off topic incendiary comments in this stream are not in keeping with responsible dissent or difference of opinion. Also, repeated, continued deception after being called to task indicates an unwillingness to work with us here at SBC Today. We likely should have shut down this comment section altogether much earlier. We are doing so now.
We all, not just “BK” would do well to remember that our stated intent here at SBC Today is to encourage unity through the restoration of our Baptist Identity and Biblical Discipleship.
It is our hope that in further posts, while having fun taking ‘jabs’ at each other, we will do so not to the detriment of the subject matter of the post.