A Resolution Worthy of Support

Brother Steve,

Or whoever you may be. Your comment has been removed. When you think you can discuss the subject at hand, you are welcome to return. Taking jabs at respected theologians will not be tolerated.

Brother Steve,

When I dish out jabs I do so and everyone knows who I am . While you post with a name, there is no way to verify who you are. Read our policies on comments. If you are going to comment in an anonymous manner, then you will be held to higher standards.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Tim,

I mean this in a good way…. but this sounds more like a cry to evangelize and preach the gospel to the “existing membership roles” of affiliated churches.

Struck me as kinda odd!

Maybe I’m missing the simplicity of the resolution?

Blessings,
Chris

So we need a resolution to do what? There are billions without a knowledge of Christ and yet we need a resolution to make sure every person that calls themselves a member is actually a believer. Wow, this is great news. I can leave my difficult field overseas and return to the land of Chick-fil-a and Mt. Dew…I want to serve on the regenerate membership team.

Seriously, why are we doing this? Is this really an issue?

“WHEREAS, Baptism of only believers by immersion in the Triune name is the only proper means of entering a local New Testament church and is thus the indispensable beginning of regenerate church membership”

Are you saying that the only way to join a local church is through baptism? I don’t think that you mean to say that. Believers who have already been baptized join other churches all the time by transferring membership. They don’t have to be re-baptized everytime they switch Baptist churches. Right?

The fact that it finished with, “and is thus the indispensable beginning of regenerate church membership” does not alleviate the confusion because of the earlier line.

You might want to look at that and change it to, “WHEREAS, Baptism of only believers by immersion in the Triune name is the only proper means of INITIALLY entering a local New Testament church” or something along those lines.

Just a thought.

Brother David,

Sorry that I cannot answer that question. I do see that others have been able to add their name. Check with Brother Bart as he is the one operating that site.

Brother Chris,

I have gone back and looked at the resolution for a fourth time. I honestly do not see a basis for your analysis of a call to evangelize existing church members. The first RESOLVED is a call for churches to renew their commitment to regenerate church. Nothing about preaching the Gospel to those presently on their rolls. The second RESOLVED is a call for churches to renew their commitment to the congregation as a covenantal assembly entered only by immersion of those who evidence a credible profession of faith in Christ; Nothing there about current church members. The third RESOLVED is a call for churches to renew the practice of redemptive church discipline, reviewing their membership rolls and kindling fraternal kinship and accountability among all members of the congregation. Nothing there about evangelizing the current church members. The fourth RESOLVED calls for our churches to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a meaningful memorial celebration according to the New Testament, and develop congregants capable of responsible self-governance. The only call here that I can see is the call for growing disciples in order to be congregational in their polity. The fifth RESOLVED calls for our churches to seek to fulfill the New Testament ideal of regenerate church membership for the glory of God, the edification of His people, and the more effective evangelization of the lost. This seems to remind us to continue in regenerate church membership. It seems that the regenerate church membership is to evangelize the lost. This would be the only place I could possibly see your point. However, I honestly read that to be the membership is to evangelize the lost.

Hope that helps from my point of view.

Brother/Sister Camel Rider,

We do have a bit more of a problem in the states than our M’s have in other locations. After more than 200 years in the US Christianity has come to a point that many churches have names on their church roles. We are trying to get things corrected, however many family members make it very difficult to implement. The Resolution will help.

Brother Jake,

Your pessimism is contagious to other pessimists.

Blessings,
Tim

This is what I’m talking about. Why is Dr. Ascol the one who must “get on board”? Dr. Ascol’s perfectly good resolution has been in front of the SBC powers and messengers for two years. Obviously, for an alternative to be drafted and offered this year, there must be something in Dr. Ascol’s resolution which they find objectionable. I’m not accusing anyone of anything other than finding Dr. Ascol’s resolution wanting. I find it hard to believe anyone can dispute that. What I want to know is what, in particular, they object to.

If we need a resolution, I cannot see why we need two. The resolutions are not that different.

The only real difference I can see is the call for repentance in Tom’s resolution.

Here’s a question for the blogosphere: If we cannot even come to agreement on two resolutions this similar, but have to have competing resolutions, how do we think this resolution will really make a difference?

If we can’t work something this minor out, a resolution is not the solution.

Brother Dave,

You ask a great question. If we cannot even come to agreement on two resolutions this similar, but have to have competing resolutions, how do we think this resolution will really make a difference? As I remember a Professor from my days in seminary chapel say; “THAT’S THE POINT”!

Here is where I see the wisdom in going with the Barber resolution over the Ascol resolution. As you have said there is not that much difference in the two. However, there is one huge advantage in moving forward with the Barber resolution and that is a proven track record.

The resolution that Brother Bart desires to put forth was passed by the SBTC, at their convention this past November. Now, let’s look at the resolution that is being put forth by Brother Tom. His resolution, in a scaled-down version, was adopted by the Royal Palm Baptist Association October 16, 2007. He posted an article concerning this resolution and how he was planning to submit it to the SBC this year. My good friend, David Worley, commented on it and asked permission to present it to his association’s resolutions committee. However, when you compare the one he said he was planning to present to the SBC and the one presented to the Palms Association you will notice some marked differences. I submit to you that if he would have presented the resolution he is presenting to the SBC Resolutions Committee, to the Palms Association, it may not have passed.

Thus, you have a resolution that, in original wording, has received an affirmative vote by a state convention of SB, and a resolution that has not passed the muster of even a local association. Which do you believe will have a better chance of passing a national body?

Blessings,
Tim

Still haven’t received an answer. What is the problem with Ascol’s resolution? The “better chance of passing” argument really falls flat. If the language of repentance has to be removed from a resolution so that it better stands a chance of passing, then that speaks volumes.

Brother Bill,

Have you read the resolution that Brother Tom says was taken from the one he offered last summer and he wholeheartedly endorses for the association. Compare the two. It seems that his association resolution says,
RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Royal Palm Baptist Association to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18). That language does not have the same zinger as; RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18). If he could not get this language, and it appears that he knows it would not pass muster from the fellow pastors that know him more intimately, through at the association level, it seems reasonable that he will not get it out of committee at the national level using the kind of language that he has chosen to add.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Bill,

We seem to have posted at the same time.

You say; …does anyone entertain the slightest doubt as to which resolution will make it out of committee? The one approved by the SBCPTB (SBC Powers That Be) or the one brought by the troublesome Calvinist? You seem to forget that the resolutions committee are the ones selected by Dr. Pages appointed Committee on Committees. Thus, you seem to be saying that Dr. Page is advocating keeping those ‘troublesome Calvinist’ at bay.

If Brother Bart’s resolution makes it out and Brother Tom’s doesn’t you better believe it has nothing to do with the SBCPTB.

Blessings,
Tim

i believe that i may have one answer to why ascol’s resolution does not get voted in. and, i’m sure that tom ascol is a fine, christian man. but, he is looked upon by many, many people as being too extreme. and, i think that many look upon anything that he would offer as being extreme….thus, they are reluctant to ok anything that he brings up.

now, you may not like what i’m saying here. and, you may not like that some people would feel this way. but, i really believe that it has something to do with it.

also, this concept is so foreign to so many pastors and churches….church discipline….that many are having a hard time swallowing it. they just dont see it…for whatever reason. and, so, maybe tom’s bringing this up for two years has made people start thinking about it more….thus, maybe it will be more palletable this year….or the next…or the next.

david

Why, oh why, are the SBC numbers in decline?

Maybe we should read blogs to gauge heart attitudes. Here are two nearly identical resolutions, calling for pretty much the same thing, something we ALL AGREE ON – regenerate church membership.

Yet, we are fighting tooth and nail about this. I have read some pretty nasty comments, comments question the motives and actions of people on both sides.

Tim, you prefer one motion. Fine, I have no problem with that. I think I would prefer Bart’s motion too. I have no quarrel with how you have responded on this issue so far. Would that all who have opined would have done the same.

Fight about inerrancy? fine. Fight about calvinism? An important issue.

But when we fight about this issue like we are doing, one cannot be optimistic about our future.

Brother Paul,

Yes, I am aware that Brother Tom has taken Brother CB to task as to that conversation. I personally saw Dr. Yarnell go up to speak with Brother Tom on the convention floor after the vote failed to bring the resolution out of committee. Something I voted in favor of doing, BTW. I saw a discussion ensue and Dr. Yarnell came by me saying, “I tried”. Exactly what that means, I do not know. But one thing is certain. Brother Tom was reached out to in trying to for support of Brother Bart’s resolution.

Brother Dave,

As you have pointed out, I am not planning to argue over this issue. I am plainly pointing to the facts of the resolutions. Either resolution would be fine with me. I prefer Brother Bart’s because it doesn’t contain the terminology that appears to say; ‘This is what is wrong with our convention and it is everyone else’s fault except mine’ resolved’s.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Alan,

The part of the resolution that you have spoken about is; Baptism of only believers by immersion in the Triune name is the only proper means of entering a local New Testament church and is thus the indispensable beginning of regenerate church membership (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:41) According to the references of Scripture, this ‘WHEREAS’ is referencing one’s initial baptism into the body of Christ through a local church. No where, do I see, does it reference re-baptism every time one moves his/her membership.

Please help me if I am missing something.

Blessings,
Tim

timmy,

i did not villify anyone. i’m not trying to ruin anyones character, either. sounds like you need to take something to calm down. the dr. can prescibe something that might help. my brother, i’m simply stating what i perceive. the fact that you dont like founders being perceived as extreme is your prerogative, but many, many people out here do see it that way. i’m sorry if that makes you so upset.

and, btw, timmy, i was for tom’s resolution before bart presented his. in fact, i told him so. and, i’m sure that tom ascol is a fine, christian man…did you notice that i said that in my comment above, or did you get so angry that you couldnt see that? also, did you not read that i said that tom ascol bringing this up for two years now at least has more people thinking about this issue? that it might prepare people to consider it now? or, it might take another year for people to see it? to get it? did you see that?

but now, i’m going with bart’s resolution, though. i think it has a far better chance of actually passing. i hope that doesnt make you angry again. i’d hate to see you start calling people names like liars and verbally assaulting people and accusing people of saying things that arent true like you’re so prone to do.

david

Consider the reasons (given) the Ascol resolution failed both years:

1. Our lapsing members are our best recipients of evangelism. (seriously lame)
2. The resolution interferes with church autonomy. (unbelievably lame)

Now David is speculating that the reason it failed is because Dr. Ascol is seen as too extreme. If that is the reason, why wasn’t that given as the reason? If what David says is true (and I suspect it is) then for two years disingenuous reasons have been given for killing the resolution.

What about Dr. Ascol is considered extreme within the SBC besides his Calvinism?

David: Regeneration before faith and repentance is not in addition to Calvinism, it is (at least in part) Calvinism.

If you are right, and I think you are (not about Calvinism but people’s fear of Calvinism) then our situation in the SBC is truly worse than many people suspect.

SAD, SAD, SAD

To me it is quite evident that the Baptist Identity People are not Repentant of past sins and are Very, Very, Very PROUD OF IT. Just follow David’s and Tim’s comments on these Blogs.

Irene

Well, ok so I can’t spell …

“perseption” should be perception; and “effects” should be affects. My bad …

Irene,
We must have been posting at the same time. I agree that it is sad that we have somewhat lost our Baptist Identity of regenerate church membership. While I prefer the Ascol resolution, please know that I am very much a believer in the SBC maintaining a strong Baptist Identity. As Dr. Yarnell wrote on Peter Lumpkin’s blog recently:

“While I have no reservations whatsoever in putting my arm around people of other persuasions than Baptist within the Christian family, without hesitation calling them my brother or my sister in Christ, I’ll be darned if I am going to sit back and watch Baptist identity get swallowed up in evangelical anonymity.”

That’s classic and a quote I put on the back page of my Bible! (not as scripture of course 8->)

Grace,
Wes

ranch,
Your comment implies a falsehood. The men that I have spoken with have never inflated their rolls. They are not prideful of their sin – in this case, they were not the ones guilty of commiting sin.

Please clarify your point. I began cleaning church rolls at my first Pastorate the first week on the job back in the early 90′s and have been doing so every sense. You know not what you say. Or are you saying I am sin? If so, what sin? I could give you a list that God is working me over with but not this issue.

ranch,
Would you ask the CBF or the BGCT to do the same? Their record keeping on the national level is intentionally wrong and yet they pride themselves in it.

This group – not guilty.

Tim G:

Can you clarify the following stement you made–They have handled their church rolls with integrity for years.

Brother Timmy,

Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back into the comment stream.

First, do you realize that you have copied a statement from me, then caste me in a position of possibly telling a lie, then restated what happened as I said it happened.

For example; you say that either I do not know what I am speaking about, or I am lying when I say you will find that he (Tom) was asked to become a part of this resolution. You then say in correction; Tom did try, and did offer suggestions. You say that either I do not know what I am speaking about or I am lying when I say He (Tom) refused for his personal reasons. You then correct me by saying Tom did try, and did offer suggestions. You say that either I do not know what I am speaking about or I am lying when I say Your accusation of the SBC powers not in agreement with his resolution, is in reality Brother Tom refusing to cooperate with Dr. Barber and Dr. Yarnell. You then correct my by saying Tom did try, and did offer suggestions.

You have informed everyone that Brother Tom tried to work and offer suggestions, something no one has denied. I have not stated anything disparaging about Brother Tom, but you have tried to paint me as doing so. I directed the commenter to Brother Tom to ask his reasons. Only he knows his reasons for agreeing to be a part of the resolution and then backing out of the resolution. Next thing you know, I will hear that Brother Tom never assured anyone he could be on board with Dr. Barber’s resolution.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Tim G,

I completely agree with your last statement because any Pastor can and should know the members of his church. If not, it is because he is lazy and misunderstands his calling….

Brother Tim Rogers,

Follow-on from my previous,…. an important question to answer concerning baptism is….Does the local churches exist because of “Baptism” or do they exist because of “Christ”? It is a biblical truth to teach that the local church exists because of Christ alone, without diminishing the obedience of baptism. If one truly believes that Christ is “why” the local church exists and the “means” of local church existence, then it is of no consequence for the local church to follow the commands of Christ to teach repentance, baptism, discipleship, love and many other doctrines to those that the Father has given to the Son.

Holy Scripture allows anyone to defend that baptism (immersion) for and by the local church exists because of Christ, but it is impossible to defend and teach that baptism is “the reason” the local church exists. (That is a slippery slide to all sorts of “other” extra-biblical doctrine). There are not enough translations available to piece together an argument that baptism creates, sustains, causes to exist, is the door, is the train; however else one may want to try and invent the act of baptism as being the confident prognosticator of the local church. It just doesn’t square with all of scripture.

Why not just be obedient and baptize those that believe, instead of try and convince someone that “a door” is synonymous with “baptism”, when it is clearly not,….. nor is it ever taught that way in God’s word. The act of baptism “is synonymous” with the work of the Holy Spirit in immersing us in death and life of Christ! (Romans, Colossians, Acts)

That is the great truth of baptism….and it can and it should be held up as the indispensable truth concerning baptism in our churches to the Glory of God. It is not good enough, nor biblical enough, to tell anyone that if they “don’t like the way” some Baptist has interpreted baptism as “a door” ….to just go find another church down the road or another denomination. That type of mindset shows a gross ignorance of how scripture defines baptism and misplaces the true meaning of the act of Baptism. That’s just pure laziness.

Why not just teach the truth of baptism… being about Christ concerning the work of the Holy Spirit immersing us in the death and life of Christ…and baptize believers that confess Christ as Lord and Savior. That seems to have worked for the Apostles and all the early churches.

Blessings,
Chris

Tim R,
I did not know you were so romantic? As for the illustration, I myself try to stay away from saying anything about my wife other than “You are gorgeous, incredible, intelligent, and I am so blessed that you put up with me.

As to the application of your analogy – you are correct in the discussion with Alan and Chris.

Tim G:

Thanks for the clarification. I think more churches need to have integrity about the numbers.

Tim:

This is my second attempt to post here…I hope this one makes it through. You have several factual mistakes and misrepresentations in your comments about me and my involvement in the resolutions saga. I have no doubt that you, like CB Scott, are merely repeating what you heard or were told. But I would like to set the record straight.

1. I have not refused to work in a cooperative manner. Dr. Yarnell and I spoke late last summer and last fall. I was unwilling to set aside my widely announced plans to present my resolution again this year in favor of a resolution that he crafted.

2. I never agreed to be part of the Barber-Yarnell resolution and therefore, never backed from supporting it. I have had read to me an email that states otherwise, but what it states is simply false. Bart and I talked and exchanged emails. I do not see him or his resolution as a “competitor.” I agree with all his resolution says, I just think it needs to say more.

3. I was asked by a friend on Monday of this week if I could sign on to the Bart-Yarnell resolution. I offered via email a few suggested additions and changes in wording. Bart considered these and on Tuesday rejected them. It was his prerogative to do so and I harbor no ill-will about it.

I have notes and email records to verify all of the above. Again, Tim, I assume you have only repeated what you have been told. It would have been an easy thing to verify the accuracy of the report simply by contacting me. As you have stated it here, you have misrepresented me at several points. It would be helpful to remember Proverbs 18:17.

Tom,

I am glad you have commented here. I had determined not to deal with this anymore unless you, Malcolm or Bart came to the forefront again with some more clarity.

You have now done so.

Would you be willing to say you now well understand why I made the statements I made was because it was my conviction, due to information given me, that you were on board with the resolution?

Would you say that due to my interest and involvement based upon the information I have had for several months and especially in the last week I spoke in good faith with no desire to falsify anything or move toward any agenda other than seeing a Regenerate Church Membership resolution be passed this year?

Tom, this is no big deal to the rest of the world. I realize that and I know the world does not revolve around me, but I have committed to finishing my race well and being faithful in what I say I believe to be true with what should be valid reason is very much a part of that.

Would you also say that you and I have worked through this as brothers and have come to an agreement that no foul on my part or yours was present thus far in this matter?

cb

CB,
It appears you have been lied to by some of these Baptist Identity People and that Wade is telling the Truth. Again I say it is SAD, SAD, SAD
To me it is quite evident that the Baptist Identity People are not Repentant of past sins and are Very, Very, Very PROUD OF IT. Just follow David Worthy and Tim Rogers’s comments on these Blogs.
Irene

Brother Chris,

Blessings my brother – I hope things are going well with you and your family.

I believe Brother Robin has already mentioned the fact that Dr. Yarnell is first and foremost a Christian guided by the Bible. I trust that I am as well. As I search the Scriptures I seek the Spirit’s guidance in my life and my church through those inspired pages. I have often said in our church that tradition for tradition’s sake is dangerous. However, if what we do (that some may call traditional) is founded on the principles of God’s Word – then it stays where it is regardless of what others may say. I also believe this is something Dr. Yarnell would agree with.

The statement I quoted from Peter’s blog also speaks for me. Being biblical in my life and ministry – I truly believe that Baptist faith and practice align more closely to the Scriptures than any other faith. As Spurgeon said (and I paraphrase as I don’t have the direct quote in front of me) if I didn’t believe the Baptists were right, I wouldn’t be one.

Dear Ranch (Irene)
Instead of just repeating baseless accusations against those of us in the Baptist Identity group – would you like to interact with some of the questions posted to you earlier? Being from Texas myself, I was always taught that if someone asks you a question you dignify them with a response. Maybe its just me.

Grace,
Wes

Tim:

I suppose I should be grateful that you are constrained to take my word for the two reasons you cite. And I appreciate your unwillingness to trouble Bart with this while he is sick. However, it is not a matter of “he said, he said,” but of “he emailed, “he emailed,” which, fortunately, makes it very easy to verify.

I reread Timmy’s comment. He wrote:

“Tim, you not what you speak about. You do not know (and if you do, you are outright lying) what has been communicated over the past week and why the two resolutions could not come together. For record, Tom did try, and did offer suggestions. The fact that you take such liberty to speak of matters you have little if any knowledge of reminds me of the very reason why I never read blogs like this.”

I fail to see an accusation of lying in his words. He state a conditional clause parenthetically, worded in such a way that if the condition is true–if you indeed do have knowledge of the events you speak of–then you are lying. That, conditionally, is a true statement because the claims you have made are false. By stating it conditionally, Timmy actually has given the benefit of a doubt–something which you did not afford me when you accused me of being unwilling to cooperate.

Regarding the resolution that my local association adopted, it was based on my resolution. If you reread the very post in the link that you provide, you see that I wrote that our association adopted a resolution that was “adapted” from the one I presented in San Antonio. It is because it was a cooperative effort that it turned out the way that it did.

Had you given me the benefit of a doubt (again), perhaps you would not have been so quick to jump to the unwarranted conclusions (again) that you have.

And Brother Tim Rogers,

I will not ask you about your wife….that will keep you out of trouble trying to explain your carrying-ons about her looks….

Blessings,
Chris

Tim:

I tried to cooperate and what I brought to the table was summarily rejected. I am not upset by that, but it is what prevented me from “co-operating” on the Yarnell-Barber resolution. To be judged as unwilling to cooperate on that basis is simply erroneous.

OK, Ranch 5026,

I would like to ask you to give me a short hearing here if you will?

Now, I have called many people a bear-faced-liar. I have no problem in doing so. Yet, because I have no problem in doing so, I have, on occasion, called someone a liar when, in fact, they were not. Once I found that out, I had to beg their forgiveness for my sin against them after having to seek forgiveness from God for my rude behavior.

From my perspective involving a four-way “simi-conversation” no one in that conversation called anyone else a liar. The four people in that conversation are bold men and would call another to account for a willful lie if any or all felt it necessary.

As I have had time to reflect on this today and ask God’s help to keep my sinful nature in check I have come to the following conclusion which I ask you to consider before you call us all or any of us liars who adhere, unashamedly to an historical, and theological Baptist identity. Here goes:

I believe that due to the length of time dialogue has taken place between several individuals about the RCM Resolution several assumptions have been made which as time progressed and more dialogue took place were, due to not being refuted, taken by several (me most assuredly) as fact rather than mere possibilities.

That is not an unusual thing to occur among people, not even Christ-Followers. The good thing about Christ-Followers is that if they keep their heads and willfully submit to Jesus and come together to search the truth that there can be proper and biblical resolution. I feel that it is highly possible that occurred between four of the primaries in this situation last night.

Now, grant me grace and let me say another thing:

It has been said that Bart Barber, Malcolm Yarnell, and Paige Patterson have entered into a plan to politically motivate this resolution through private emails and devious methods.

Ranch 5026, if you have been following the last two years of events and know the personalities involved at all, you must ask yourself one question; If all these particular fellows were intent on secretly preparing a RCM Resolution for political purposes, why in the world would they allow cb scott to be included in the emails?

That one thing alone is ample proof that Paige Patterson is innocent of any plan to develop the resolution for political purposes. He has not done what he is being accused of doing. Any and all of us had opportunity to speak to the resolution in an open forum by email. That is true.

I openly supported the resolution and later, openly, encouraged Bart Barber to be the one to present it.

If you are aware of the history of Bart Barber and cb scott in Blogtown and the “real world” of SBC life at conventions and elsewhere in the last two years you would know we have been in some very heavy confrontations the entirety of our relationship and it will probably happen again dependent on subject matter.

The simple truth is that cb and Bart and many others believe it has simply gone on too long for the SBC not to address this situation and sought to address this problem. That is all there is to this.

Had not other events occurred there would not have been a conflict any where near this proportion.

Accusations have been made against Barber, Patterson and Yarnell that have no real foundation.

I beg of you to give great thought that there might not be a conspiracy if you will. Just think about it is all I ask.

Tim,

There is really no “He said-He said. There is a “He/I assumed”, based on what he thought.

Brothers and sisters,

The need for this resolution is bigger than any one personality or personalities. Why can we not just let the two resolutions go to committee and pray something good comes forth that will address a situation to which attention is long overdue and ask God to forgive us for taking so long?

cb

Chris,

Help me,here. Direct me to the statement in question.

cb

irene,

God bless you.

also, irene, i have never owned any slaves, so why should i apologize for slavery.

and, i have always tried my best to make sure that only saved people joined the churches that i have pastored. now, my church currently has people on the roll who never show up. but, we reach out to them in many different ways to encourage them to get back in church. and, one of the ways is that i try to visit in their homes….more than once…. to encourage them to get back active…and then, to help them see that there is a spiritual problem.
so, please tell me why i should repent?

also, pray tell what things i have said that have caused you to be so angry with me?

again, God bless you, sister.

david

My friends, I have not kept up with SBC Today, and just read through the string of comments. May I provide a few concluding thoughts?

We live in a world corrupted by evil and filled with evil people, including ourselves. It is by grace that those of us who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord have been born again. And, it is by grace that we can even try to live sanctified lives. And, it is by grace that our salvation will be brought to a successful conclusion by God.

The issue before us, ultimately, is not whether Tom’s resolution is superior or whether the SBTC resolution is superior, nor is it about how the events transpired in both resolutions coming to be. The issue, ultimately, is about whether our churches will truly resolve together to recover Regenerate Church Membership. This is our hope and is the reason that ties Bart and I so closely together, and what makes our hearts believe in what Tom is doing. Our hope is that all Baptists will keep our eyes on Christ’s will for us and our churches, as our forefathers did, when they were at their best.

My friends, we are all sinners and subject to divine wrath, an eternity in hell — that is the bad news. The Father, however, sent his only begotten Son to atone for our sins on a cross, and he offers salvation to us freely through faith — now that is good news. What all of us are arguing is that the Gospel is free, but that it has implications for our lives.

Those who have been born again (i.e. regenerated) must live as born again people. This includes both our individual lives as Christians and our corporate lives as churches. What we all detect is that we have perhaps been striving to do so as individuals, but we have not been so successful as churches. This is where the rubber hits the road. The resolution is intended to serve as a summons for us to change our ways and seek to implement the Gospel in our corporate lives just as we seek to implement it in our personal lives.

I pray that this will not get lost in all of the supposition about who said what when and where, and what were their motivations. I cannot speak to the motivations of others, and, like Paul, I cannot even judge myself adequately in this regard. What I do know is that my heart has a burning passion to glorify my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and the churches that led me to him are not always evidencing that passion. This breaks my heart. This makes me weep. This is why we want our convention to pass a resolution n Regenerate Church Membership, and then begin living it out.

Although I love being a Baptist, it is not really about being a Baptist. Although I am a non-Calvinist by conviction, it is not really about being a non-Calvinist. What it is about is Jesus. He is my Savior and has forgiven this worm for all of his sin. And He is my Lord and calls me to a full life in him.

When I look around, I see imperfect people who have been saved by grace through faith. I see people whom I respect highly because God works so magnificently through them upon me as they mine and speak God’s Word. And I see people whom I have difficulty with because it is obvious that they are resisting and not implementing what God has for us. What is really disconcerting is that the people I respect and the people with whom I have difficulty are the exact same people, and that includes me.

I pray that we will remember that God is perfect, and we are trying to be, and not think that any of us are any better than anybody else. I pray that we will repent of our sinfulness as individuals and as churches and come back to where God wants us to be. There are no perfect Christians this side of glory, and there are no perfect churches this side of glory, but we have to try to do better.

We have to be better Christians. We have to be better witnesses about Christ. We have to be better teachers about Christ. We have to be better at forgiving one another. We have to be better, and none of us are there, yet, and none of us can accuse another for his or her failures. We must simply glorify Christ in all we say and do, and we haven’t been doing very well at it, have we?

Where are the Christians today that God will use to bring a mighty revival in our world? Where are the Chrysostoms? Where are the Luthers? Where are the Helwyses? Where are the Kiffins? Where are the Fullers? Where are the Edwardses? Where are the great saints for today? They could be us.

Rogers could be our Chrysostom. Patterson could be our Luther. Barber could be our Helwys. Welty could be our Kiffin. Lemke could be our Fuller. Moore could be our Edwards. Me, I just want to sit at the feet of these men, be inspired by them to witness, and be a better witness to the only one who can save this world from its repetitive disasters of nature and justice. Could we be these people? Could we be better witnesses to the Gospel, not just in our words, but in our lives, individually and corporately?

This is my passion. This is my soul’s desire. I want to say, “Thank you, Jesus, for everything you have given, are giving, and will give me. I am so sorry for not being a better witness. I am so sorry for not being a better churchman. I am so sorry for not glorifying you as I should. Please forgive me for my failures, and help me to be better express your grace. I am not very smart, Jesus, but I trust you will help me be a better theologian, in spite of me. I am not very bright with people, Lord, but I hope you will help me be a better minister to people, in spite of me.”

My friends, that is my heart, and I have no other purpose. There are no hidden agendas here. There are no covert emails. I am a broken man looking at a broken people, and I know Jesus Christ is our only hope to be better. His grace saved me and his grace will make me a better man. His grace saved the people in our churches and only his grace will help our churches to be better churches.

Oh, Jesus, would you bring your churches a revival? Oh, Spirit, would you bring the lost regeneration? Oh, Father, would you grant your people the grace to live as you command? As Augustine said, Lord, “Command what you will and grant what you command.”

In Christ,
Malcolm

Well,….Malcolm,

I just want to thank you for risking all to be a man of integrity and honor, in humility before the Lord and man.

May men of faith speak well of your courage and conviction for years to come.

cb

Chris,

I am glad to have answered your question, although I did not actually intend to do so. If you were edified, that was purely by accident on my part and entirely by divine intention. Dr. Patterson and I wanted to add a strong statement on holiness and baptism from Romans 6 to the Resolution, but Bart was correct in letting us know that the SBTC already agreed to a resolution and we should not change it anymore, especially since others had also agreed to it.

CB,

I don’t know who Philip Nolan is. I do know who CB Scott is, and he is a hero to me, already.

If the new resolution had come out of the blue I don’t think we’d be having this conversation. But c’mon. With Dr. Ascol bringing bringing his resolution for two years and having it shot down for two years for the most feeble and incredible reasons, you have to know how this looks. Dr. Ascol made it clear that he would again introduce his resolution this year. And now, bang, a new resolution appears, the the stamp of approval of (many of) the SBCPTB. The differences: The newer one does not contain the language of repentance and is not introduced by a Founder’s person.

Does anyone truly think that both of these resolutions will make it out of committee? And does anyone truly wonder which one will prevail?

It seems that many do not understand the nature of corporate repentance. Corporate repentance does not assume every single person within the corporate body is personally guilty. I again refer you to the slavery / racism resolution.

If Dr. Ascol’s resolution is not worthy because he is a “controversial” Founder’s person and we don’t like the language of repentance, then let’s have the courage to kill it for those reasons and not the disingenuous and intelligence insulting reasons given previously.

Bill,
Well said! I wish they would just be honest instead of cloaking everything in a holy passive aggressive manner. Everyone sees through their excuses and it just makes them look petty.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are also closing this comment thread. We thank you for your involvement in this discussion and urge everyone to give prayerful consideration to the issue of restoring the practice of a visible, regenerate church membership to all our sister churches within the SBC.

By Grace Alone.