« Great Commission Resurgence - Revisited | Main | “By My Own Reckoning” »
GCR Specifics from Dr. Akin, With More to Come
Posted by Tim Rogers | July 15, 2008
Dr. Danny Akin has published the first in what will be a series of 15 articles outlining the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) he envisions for the SBC. I encourage you to read the article here. In this article he is on record that this vision must be wed to the Conservative Resurgence (CR). To take what he said even further, I do not believe I would be imposing on his words to state that he sees the GCR standing on the shoulders of the Conservative Resurgence. I look forward to this GCR and desire with all of my heart to take part in this endeavor. I will encourage my church to give more, go more, and do more in order to see this vision become productive. We need a fresh wind blowing across the SBC that will unite us and keep us focused on presenting the gospel to the lost. I believe the fresh breezes of unity are experienced in this vision for the GCR. I also have some questions about exactly how this will be carried out. With that in mind I want to ask a few questions that I believe need to be answered as I look expectantly to the future articles that describe the GCR.
How will the success of the GCR be judged?
I believe the big picture is clear: it is a renewed passion for the pursuit and fulfillment of Matthew 28:16-20. I spoke specifically to this in a chapel message that also gave attention to the life and ministry of William Carey.
Dr. Akin presents a clear picture that he sees in the GCR. It appears that he is placing a much increased emphasis on International missions. Will this GCR be judged by increased international mission endeavors only, or will history record the GCR a failure or success based on increased churches being planted on North American soil also? Will there be a push for a uniting of efforts between these two agencies as a way of judging the success or failure of a GCR? One other thing about how the GCR will be judged. William Carey is known as the “Father of Modern Missions”. You can read a full report of how this group of Baptist preachers organized the Baptist Missionary Society here;
“on October 2, 1792, in a widow’s home where twelve ministers were present, the Baptist Missionary Society was organized, the subscription there and then amounting to £13 2 shillings 6 pence. Rev. Fuller was appointed secretary; Reynolds Hogg, of Trapstone, was made treasurer. Carey offered himself as the first missionary.”
While William Carey is known as the Father of modern missions, he was not the first modern missionary. It seems the Moravians were the first to do what we know as modern missions. As reported here:
The first Moravian missionaries were a potter named Leonard Dober and a carpenter named David Nitschmann, who went to the Caribbean island of St Thomas in 1732.
While both efforts succeeded to some extent, they went about their task in very different ways. It seems that the success of the Moravian Missions endeavor to plant churches was such that they divided their organization into colonies. While William Carey arrived in Calcutta in 1793 his first convert came in 1796. It seems that Carey was more inclined to translating the Scripture in the language of the people. While the Moravian missionariew were more inclined to plant churches and change the culture. William Carey, during his missionary life span:
| 1761 | Born at Paulerspury, Northampton. England. August 17. |
| 1777 | Apprenticed to the shoemaking trade. |
| 1779 | Attended prayer-meeting that changed his life, February 10. |
| 1783 | Baptized by Mr. Ryland, October 5. |
| 1786 | Called to the ministry at Olney, August 10. |
| 1792 | Pamphlet “An Inquiry” published;Baptist Missionary Society in England formed, October 2. |
| 1793 | Appointed missionary to India, January 10;Arrived in Calcutta, November 11. |
| 1796 | Baptized a Portuguese, his first convert. |
| 1800 | Moved to Serampore, January 10;Baptized Krishna Pal, first Bengali convert, December 28; Elected Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali languages in Williams College. |
| 1801 | Completed New Testament in Bengali, February 7. |
| 1803 | Self-supporting missionary organization founded. |
| 1807 | Doctor of Divinity conferred by Brown University of U.S.A.;Member of Bengali Asiatic Society. |
| 1808 | New Testament in Sanskrit published. |
| 1809 | Completed translation of Bible in Bengali, June 24. |
| 1811 | New Testament in Marathi published. |
| 1815 | New Testament in Punjabi published. |
| 1818 | His father died, June 15. |
| 1818 | Old Testament in Sanskrit published. |
| 1820 | Founded the Agricultural and Horticultural Society, September 4;Danish King granted charter for college at Serampore; Marathi Old Testament published. |
| 1821 | Serampore college opened. |
| 1825 | Completed Dictionary of Bengali and English. |
| 1826 | Government gave Carey “Grant in Aid” for education. |
| 1829 | Suttee prohibited thru Carey’s efforts, December 4. |
| 1834 | Died at Serampore, June 9. |
Dr. Akin, obtaining the historical, theological, missiological, and other education he has knows that William Carey was not the first missionary. He has not said Carey was the first missionary and neither do I imply he has said such a thing. I point to these two different mission endeavors in order to present a basis for the question that I believe needs to be answered. If we are to judge the success of the GCR will there be a standard by which we do this? I know that we cannot do this by the baptismal numbers alone. If that were so, William Carey would have probably been reassigned from India. But I believe there should be some bench mark noted now that we are able to clearly point to, in order to term the GCR a success. In other words, “numbers, noses, and nickels” are not always accurate in assessing church health, but they do comprise a benchmark that many point to in assessing the success or failure of a church. What will be the bench mark that will determine the GCR’s success?
Will the GCR be wedded to or build upon the CR?
The Great Commission Resurgence, of absolute necessity, must be wedded to the Conservative Resurgence that was launched in 1979 with the election of Adrian Rogers as president of the SBC…
There is no disagreement among Southern Baptist that the CR was needed, as I do not know of any Southern Baptist that would say a GCR is not needed. My main question hinges on Dr. Akin’s terminology and how that applies to these two movements. Is the GCR to be wedded to the CR or is the CR a foundation for the GCR? There is a difference. If the GCR and the CR are to be wedded together then the foundation is Jesus Christ. That is what binds us together.
Also, as the CR is identified by the election of Dr. Adrian Rogers then if the GCR is wedded to the CR we need to maintain the principles of Dr. Rogers that kept us together. As Dr. Akin said; There can be no backtracking from the ground regained through the Conservative Resurgence. Further, there must be continued vigilance and even advance of the Conservative Resurgence. In a wedding there is articulated a clear definition of the purpose that brought the man and woman together. In SB life that purpose was the inerrancy of Scripture, which was based on the foundation of Jesus Christ. In expressing the standard of inerrancy Southern Baptist found out that many did not adhere to this standard. When the standard was spoken of it revealed a divide between SB and resulted in a labeling of groups. It was hard to understand the difference between these camps known as Conservative and Moderates. Dr. Rogers clearly defined these terms for us in his 2005 book Love Worth Finding released before his passing.
The moderate is a person who may believe the Bible to be without error, but who also believes in inclusivism. he is a person who maintains the position of accommodating the liberal view. I believe the moderate to be more inclined to opinion than convictions. {Adrian Rogers, Love Worth Finding (Broadman & Holman, Nashville, 2005) p.166.}
For this wedding to have a chance this must be the wedding ring that should sparkle any time someone mentions the CR. As we have always been told, the CR was about the inerrancy of Scriptures. If this is the case, and I believe it is, then the core of inerrancy was rooting out liberalism and the way that had to be done was identifying moderate behavior, which Dr. Rogers accurately describes. If, however, the CR is a foundation then the principles of the CR are good to know and something we need to keep in mind. As long as we keep these principles in mind then we can get along with anyone because we will not accentuate the principles, merely the accomplishment of the GCR.
My concern with the illustration lies with those that come behind us. I believe Dr. Akin will build this GCR within the structure of CR principles and he will not back down from that. However, if the foundation is the principles of the CR, those that come behind us may feel that the foundation is old and outdated and we need a new foundation. If the foundation is Jesus Christ, no one will desire to rebuild that foundation. But, if we are wedded together with the sparkle of that wedding ring clearly defining our standards we cannot divorce from that.
Do these bedrock essentials retain their exclusiveness in the biblical principles the SBC has identified as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?
Suffice it to say there must be a biblically informed, theologically balanced consensus for Southern Baptists to cooperate in a Great Commission Resurgence. So, what are some of the details or particulars that would accompany a Great Commission Resurgence, especially for those of us who are Southern Baptists?
Dr. Akin solidly states a standard and he also asks a very pertinent question. His statement, while very forthright, comes at a place in the article after he has spoken about the BF&M 2000 being the highpoint of the CR. With that statement I would presume that his meaning would be that we retain the biblical principles found within the BF&M 2000. Such principles as baptism by immersion and that being connected to the Lord’s Supper. He has spoken before that we should not partner with others outside the SBC to plant churches and the churches that we plant should only be biblical Baptist churches. He issues a strong warning in the following statement:
Further, our national agencies and entities need continually to be held accountable to the vision that marked the Conservative Resurgence. This will be the very nature of things, an ongoing process. If we fail to build upon and stay rooted in the theological convictions of the Conservative Resurgence, the Great Commission Resurgence will be short lived and ultimately a failure.
With this statement, he seeminly defines any GCR movement within the SBC to be one, not tied down with, but yoked to the BF&M 2000. I will look to more of an expansion of these ideas in future articles. Dr. Akin has done a great job in laying the groundwork for his upcoming series. I am one who anticipates his future articles as he outlines the nuts and bolts of how the GCR will be a hand-in-glove approach of moving us into a fresh era.
Topics: Building Bridges, Ecclesiology, Great Commission Resurgence, SBC Issues |
July 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“There is no disagreement among Southern Baptist [sic] that the CR was needed, as I do not know of any Southern Baptist that would say a GCR is not needed.”
Well, I’m a Southern Baptist, and I disagree that the CR was needed.
Still, I’m in complete agreement with you that a GCR is needed. And I’m likewise in complete agreement with you that the foundation is Jesus Christ, not the CR.
I look forward to reading Dr. Akin’s perspective on how a GCR may be accomplished in our time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. May God bless your continued service in His name.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Brother JND,
Where do you think we would be at today had the CR not taken place? It seems that at a recent gathering of former leaders of the pre-1979 SBC they listened to and even affirmed this guys theology concerning his beliefs about Jesus.
Blessings,
Tim
July 15th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
You ask some great questions Tim R. I would also ask JND if he could expound on where the SBC was before the CR? Was it Biblical? Was it growing? Was it healthy? Was it…?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Was the CR needed? Are you kidding me!
While going to school in the1970’s, it was clear that certain SBC Seminaries had Professors that knew very little about the truth of God’s word…very smart guys….but they had little heart for the truth. The SBC was quickly heading down the same path as other denominations that only wished they had conducted some kind of resurgence. The SBC has just begun though….so I wouldn’t pull the troops out at this point…..she has a long, long way to go!…..
It was actually needed in the 1950’s, but I can’t imagine what the last 30 years would look like in the SBC without some guys and gals fighting the good fight of faith!
Blessings,
Chris
July 16th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Brother Chris,
Dr. Akin says; If we fail to build upon and stay rooted in the theological convictions of the Conservative Resurgence, the Great Commission Resurgence will be short lived and ultimately a failure.
From Brother JND’s remark I see a huge gap in maintaining the theological convictions of the Conservative Resurgence. Would you agree?
Blessings,
Tim
July 16th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Brother Chris,
Also, some may respond that we have no leaders that would disagree the CR was needed. As I said in my article, the present leadership is not what concerns me. It is the voices of those like Brother JND that concern me.
Blessings,
Tim
July 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Was the CR needed? That depends. Was it worth it to alienate great state conventions because, as was evetually admitted by Dr. Patterson, of only five or six liberral professors in all six seminaries. Was it worth it to alienate good people, conservatives all, by making them sign a creed? Was the SBC growing before the CR. You bet it was. Is it growing now? Don’t think so. Some of us who are conserevative to the bone have been made to feel we are no longer welcome in the SBC simply because we will not let anyone tell us what we must believe to belong, or what vocabulary we must utilize in order to prove our loyalty.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I think it’s funny that there are still people that think the CR was strictly about “theological convictions”. If they are honest with themselves they know the truth but seem afraid to recognize it. The CR was a political power struggle veiled in a theological battle against “liberal” theology in the SBC that never exsisted to the extent that the leaders of this battle wanted us to believe. It has always been about power and position, not theology. It was a desire to be important and be in control. We needed the CR like I need a gun to kill the fly that just landed on my foot.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am
It’s hard for me to imagine anyone saying that the CR was not needed unless they either had their head stuck in the sand, or they werent a Southern Baptist before 1990, or they are at least sympathetic with the liberal voices. We had Seminary profs praying to Mother god. We had Seminary profs saying that to believe in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus was crass. We had young Ministers coming out of Seminary believing in some sort of universalism. We had Seminary profs teaching the JEDP theory as fact. We had whole OT departments in our Seminaries believing Darwinian evolution to some degree or another. We had SS writers teaching that there were two devils, and we had others teaching that God changed from the OT(harsh and judgemental) to love in the NT. We had Pastors and Churches believing that it was ok to ordain women into the ministry. We had Pastors teaching that Adam and Eve werent real people, and they had learned this is pre-90 SBC. And, the list could go on and on and on and on of the extremely bad things that were happening in the SBC until the late 1980’s, when the CR really took effect.
The CR was not needed? Yes, sir, it was needed. Thank God it happened, and may the state conventions continue to change as well.
David
July 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Brother RC,
I can’t disagree with you about the CR contained political maneuverings. That is a given and it still exists today and will continue in the future. The good of the CR was to open the lid of Pandora’s box and expose the evil,… not so much the liberal thinking that was seething into the seminaries and schools sponsored by the SBC. Look at Wayland, look at Hardin Simmons, or look at Belmont….what an incredible 50 year turn in doctrine at those schools….and they continue to reel from the lack of biblical doctrine that should be required to encourage their students in Christ.
The SBC has a long, long way to go. And yes, it will be political, but as long as truth is able to be detected, the political cowards will turn tail and run.
I don’t mind liberal thinkers,…they are fun to debate (heck,…I am even seen as a liberal sometimes, by some fundamental traditionalists). But, if the SBC is to survive this American church culture, she better remain firmly planted in real and true biblical doctrine, and have men and women that are ready and able to defend it.
Blessings,
Chris
July 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Brother Ken,
Was it worth it to alienate great state conventions because, as was eventually admitted by Dr. Patterson, of only five or six liberal professors in all six seminaries? Where do you get your information from that Dr. Patterson admitted that there was only five or six liberal professors in all six seminaries? I studied under Dr. Patterson and attended most every chapel service he led in at SEBTS from 1995-2000 and I have never heard him say anything close to that statement. As a matter of fact, I grew up within 5 miles of SEBTS and I can count more than five or six liberal professors that were at SEBTS alone.
Brother RC,
We needed the CR like I need a gun to kill the fly that just landed on my foot. So you are saying a movement that began and moved liberal teaching out of the seminaries and brought to it solid theology was an over kill?
Brother David,
You have certainly said it much better than I ever could.
Blessings,
Tim
July 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Brother Coffee,
I guess one thing that is a by product of the whatever this CR is,….is the discussion of success. If growth is some indication of success, then we can find famine type numbers and fast growing numbers as well documented in the words of scriptures,…. Yet those indicators never change the fact that God is saving a people unto Himself according to His plan (God’s church has never decreased in size). Of course, that does not alleviate us being obedient to Him or His commission (in case someone just likes to think they can be lazy). It just plain truth, that God’s plan will change our view of what success is, when we pay attention to Christ and come to understand the numbers are simply the numbers.
Blessings,
Chris
July 16th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Heard with my own ears sitting in classes at a Baptist university belonging to one of the “great state conventions.”:
1. Jesus probably was walking on a sandbar, not on the water.
2. Every intelligent person knows that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not historically accurate.
3. “I’m not prepared to call homosexuality a sin until we know more about the causes and origins of it.”
4. God did not part the Red Sea for the Israelites to cross over.
5. The book of Isaiah must have been written late (at least portions of it) because Isaiah could never have known Cyrus’s name through supernatural prophetic means.
So, before the CR we had two problems. First, we had a whole boatload of people drawing CP paychecks teaching and employing this hogwash. Second, we had an even larger number of people who would protest all day that THEY didn’t PERSONALLY believe any of that, but they were just fine with paying to have the poison spread on their behalf.
Yes, we needed the CR. A lot of places in our convention still need it.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Folks like JND, Ken Coffee and RC make me chuckle some times. So blinded by their pre-CR loyalties they don’t fully realize the foolishness of what they write. The SBC didn’t need the CR - you’re kidding me!
“it was just a political movment …” It involved politics, but that is just because of the structure of our convention. The heart of the CR was on the nature and authority of the Bible and what we as a convention were willing to support.
“conservatives all …” That’s a laugh, Dr. Coffee. I had simular experiences to Bart’s when I went to Wayland in the early 1980’s. Even more, some of the professors there used profanity; called students names; ridiculed convention leadership and outright lied - and that was in the Bible Department. I don’t know what your definition of conservative is - but that ain’t mine! BTW, every one of the professors I had in the Bible department at Wayland were grads. from one of your conservative pre-CR seminaries.
I am grateful for the CR and for the growing call for a GCR wedded to the accomplishments of the past 30 years.
Grace,
Wes
July 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
The only real mention we have of success in Scripture is in Joshua 1:8.
Therefore, it would seem “success” for a Christ-Follower is to be faithful to the Word of God in all things.
Numerical growth does not seem to be the biblical idea of success. It does seem that numerical growth is totally up to God. It also seems that God does expect and bless faithfulness to His Word.
We are to be faithful to the Word of God and contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints for there are certain men crept in unawares who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
The CR was necessary. One’s saying it was not is to simply illustrate a gross ignorance of history or it is to be a liar. It could possibly mean one is both ignorant and a liar.
BTW, there were as many or more true liberals running around the SBC back in the days of the CR as there are flakes and nuts running around the SBC currently.
Frankly, the liberals of old were much easier to deal with than will be the flakes and nuts of today.
Any of you boys who are going to fight in this war had better gear-up with the full armor this time ’cause this one is going to make the CR war look like an ice-cream social.
One more thing: Every word Bart Barber said in comment #13 is true and anyone who says it is not is, well….you already know what you are don’t you?
cb
July 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Anyone still questioning the need of the SBC CR only need to look at the progressive slide and decline of Baylor. My sister went there. On weekends she would come home to our home church and hear from preaching the real truth and then go back for 5 days of false doctrine. The gap between the two was so obvious - I went Liberty!!!!!
July 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Tim G,
Baylor is a good example. Many good folks got hurt and confused there. Naturally, some survived, but an education in a Baptist school should not be about survival in the faith. It should be about the strengthening of one’s faith.
cb
July 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Thank you to the owners of this site for allowing me to comment and to reply to questions from others. As I read here, I get the feeling that many of you, if not most of you, know each other personally. As far as I know, I don’t know any of you, and I appreciate the opportunity to get to join in the conversation.
To Tim Rogers,
“Where do you think we would be at today had the CR not taken place?”
Thank you for asking. I think we would be about where we are except that more would have been done to accomplish the Great Commission. => Bold Mission Thrust, and all that. I’m a layman, not a pastor/professional/seminary trained expert (You pick the term that’s most appropriate; I don’t want to label people incorrectly). I know what I heard taught and preached in Southern Baptist Churches in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, and none of it—that I can recall—was heresy. A whole bunch of it was the first word in Cooperative Program, and a whole bunch more of it was reaching the lost and making disciples. So I think that had all the effort that has gone into CR (and into anti-CR) gone instead into GCR, we would be much further along on the GCR. Of course, I could be wrong, but it’s what I think based on my experiences in Southern Baptist Churches.
To Tim G,
“I would also ask JND if he could expound on where the SBC was before the CR?”
Thank you for asking. My portion of the SBC—the local church—was Biblical, growing, and, in my opinion, healthy. As above, I could be wrong, but that’s how it looked to me. The local church of which I am a member today is Biblical, growing, and, in my opinion, healthy. However, the net effect of the infighting at the association, state, and SBC levels has been to wear down the growth and health of several of the local churches of which I have been a member previously in the last 30 years. As for the SBC as a whole, I thought it was Biblical, growing, and healthy prior to 1979. Of course, as in the local church, there will always be individual exceptions. But it was in 1970 in an SBC church under the pastoral ministry of one educated at SWBTS in the 50’s and 60’s that I came to saving faith in Jesus Christ. So I’m most grateful and thankful for the work of the pre-CR SBC.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
As I step back and read my post I see that it was definitely jaded by my experience. But I still contend that this so called attack on “liberal” teachers and professors was inflated to bring legitamacy to a desire to gain power and prestige. For example, two years after my graduation from SWBTS I was serving a local church in Florida. I was approached by a woman that asked me about all the professors, she mentioned some by name, that were teaching Mary wasn’t a virgin and Jesus was not the son of God. I honestly never heard anything even close to liberal theology, or any heracy come from any professor, ever. In fact quite to the contrary. I clarified to her that if any one person in Southern Baptist life ever disagreed even slightly with an interpretation of scripture by one of the people in power, they were immediately lumped the group with other “liberals” regardless of the rest of their theology. Some people create the battle so they can be the General.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
JND,
Your church like mine was fine - it was the entities of the SBC that were moving off in the wrong direction. This discussion is not about local churches in that it discusses the Seminaries and Colleges and Mission agencies. Look at Baylor - they do not even accept the Bible as Truth. Once in history they did - but not now.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Brother JND,
I don’t mean to be short with you, but I really do not have time to respond at present. I am preparing for a church Business Conference for this evening. (As a Layman you guys show up, but as a Pastor I have to review Roberts Rules of Order and the Constitution and Bylaws to make certain I can rule correctly if someone asks if something is out of order. Let me mis-speak and one of you Layman will pull out his/her copy just to question me on my knowledge.) It is not that bad, but I do desire to be prepared.
Welcome to SBC Today. We may not agree but I can promise you that I along with others will respect you and debate the issues. If, however, you or someone else decides to begin placing landmines along the way, you will be cautioned. Please feel free to comment your beliefs, but also be ready to back up your beliefs with something other than opinion.
Before I go let me leave you with a question. Are you presently serving a SBC church that gives solely to the SBC through your church budget to the CP?
Blessings,
Tim
July 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Tim G
Please provide a link or other evidence that shows the Baylor School of Theology and it’s stance on scripture.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Brother JND,
I think you make a lot of sense, in fact while living anywhere around West Texas like I did around those same times you mentioned,….I would respond the same way you have. The SBC churches I was a part of were just as you have mentioned (not sure where you happened to be geographically).
But, even with all of the insulation, right doctrine, commission minded fellowships, etc…. I had in West Texas, I certainly realized that a great deal of the professors at SWBTS (just a few hours away) at the same time were attacking the word of God and I certainly thought it not wise to attend there or just to sweep that under the rug. Our little church gave money to the CP and I expected that our church (which was not affected by those seminary impostors) was responsible to hold the institutions in check. The seminaries, book stores, colleges, etc. are simply an extension of the local churches cooperation and to not be concerned about men and women teaching heresy is simply unconscionable.
So yes, I agree that probably your and my churches were just fine, for the time being. But let little “Bill” grow up and learn that Jesus is just another good man or that the bible really has some problems and can’t be trusted, ….then little Bill, now authoritative Bill, return from an SBC seminary armed with new ideas and although the church may put him in his place, …and continue to fight the good fight, ….there is certainly unnecessary fall-out and wasted time.
So your probably right,….if the men and women that attacked the Seminaries in the 60/70/80/90ish with anti-biblical doctrine were to have been held accountable at that time then there would not have been a real need for a CR….yet always a need for the GCR.
Blessings,
Chris
July 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
TimR,
I told you you should not have slept through Church Admin. classes:-)
RC,
The links would be the names of graduates and it would be unfair of TimG to name them.
cb
July 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
CB Scott-
He said Baylor, not individual professors or students. If Tim G would like to clarify what he meant then I will withdraw the question.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
The wise Tim Guthrie wrote:
“Look at Baylor - they do not even accept the Bible as Truth. Once in history they did - but not now.”
Hilarious.
Yes, Tim, please provide a link, oh wise one.
And while you’re looking for that URL, perhaps Volfan could put together a list of those professors who denied the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Brother BDW,
Leaving the office and thought I would check before I went home. I knew when they started on Baylor you would be here. However, let me remind you that Tim G. grew up in Texas, and can probably provide you with enough to make your head swim. I believe he would be wise to allow you all to keep pressing him as he will have to reveal names, and that is not something we wish to do here.
I, on the other hand, will not provide names but can give first hand accounts of profs that stated in print, (you remember the Broadman Holman series) Isaiah was not speaking of a Virgin but a young girl. Oh, do not forget the in print edition where one of our SBC profs stated that Adam and Eve were not real humans, and I am remembering an occasion where I witnessed in the church I grew up in, a prof from our illustrious neighboring seminary telling our congregation in a sermon that Jonah was a big fish story and that Jesus probably did believe it because he was trained in the Oral Tradition.
Need I go further?
Blessings,
Tim
July 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Tim-
The answer to your last question is yes. You need to go further. In a debate involving personal experiences you must provide this “written” evidence. Where is located? Do you have excerpts?
July 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
All, for your perusal
1). Broadman’s original commentary on Genesis explicity stated that Abraham was not commanded of God to sacrifice Isaac, rather, Abraham was deluded. This was our pre-Lifeway publishing company.
2). “The Message of Genesis” was published by Broadman by a Midwestern Prof, who explicitly stated that first 11 chapters of Genesis are not literal, but figurative. That is, Adam and Eve were only fictional, as well as Enoch, Seth, Noah, and the whole lot.
3). For Big Daddy Weave…
“Does the seminary teach that the Bible is inerrant? Do the professors believe in inerrancy? The answers are easy. As a good Baptist seminary, Truett does not dictate what people must believe on secondary matters of doctrine; the professors vary in their views of biblical accuracy while holding firmly to biblical authority.”
“The best approach is to admit Paul made a mistake but one that in no way misrepresents God’s message to the Corinthians or to us.”
From a Truett Seminary Theology Professor at
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4670&Itemid=134
For one person’s journey of a SBC Seminary leading one to liberalism and beyond, you could consult Clayton Sullivan’s “Called to Preach, Condemned to Survive.” There is absolutely NO objective way to say that the CR did not need to occur, unless one is quite content with a religion that has no authority for practice, that is Scripture.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
By the way, those were only the ones that came to mind as I read the comment stream. There are numerous other examples that could be provided with a little more time.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Thank You John. If these facts are accurate(don’t really have the time to look all that stuff up), and I trust that they are, I concede that a CR was needed. My question is this- Was a double secret strategic plan for the political takeover of the convention needed? Did the SBC need to implement a structure that rivals the Catholic church to try and gain control of what the local church believes? (No need to read your Bible, we’ll tell you what it says.) Did the SBC need to alienate thousands of people with the same foundational theological beliefs just to say they were 100% right?
I may be incorrect in what I believe scripture says about some things. I am not so naive to belief I can be totally right about everything. I am, however, not wrong just because I disagree with you.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
RC,
I am glad the facts I mentioned have helped you to see what some of us are saying. However, you pinpointed Tim Rogers to provide some proof for his assertions (which I added to). Could you please provide some proof for your comments regarding a “double secret strategic plan for the political takeover of the convention”? Also, the alienation of “thousands of people” seems to beg for some objective loci as well.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Tim: Argh! Now you’ve gone too far. The pastor should not moderate church business meetings.
That’s all. Back to the CR discussion.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Brother Bill,
That is what the constitution calls for. :>) Of course I do love doing it because it keeps me on my toes.
Blessings,
Tim
July 16th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
If you want to see what our seminaries would look like had the CR not happened, look no further than Campbell Divinity school where I was told we don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. A friend of mine that graduated the MDIV program said his professor said the manna provided by God for the Israelites was nothing more than bug excrement on the leaves of plants and non miraculous. A professor at SEBTS told our class his heat went out on campus and as the repair men came to fix it, they removed a panel in the roof in the closet and about 100 Playboys, Hustlers and other nudies dropped out and onto the floor dating from the 70’s and 80’s. He also said keg parties were fairly common on the weekends. You judge whether the CR was needed or not.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Tim: I think the pastor moderating the business meetings is most likely the norm in SBC churches. Despite my drive-by attempt at light humor, I do think it is a bad idea, but I won’t hijack the thread further.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
When I was at SEBTS we were often told of how when the liberals moved out they found used condoms littered about the attic of the men’s dorm from homosexual activities and in an ethics class our professor said that there was a professor in the pre-CR days who counseled his single students that they may still be single because God had made them to be homosexual. Sounds like changes were needed to me.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Brother Tim,
Before we get to rambunctious and begin to sound like a Ronco commercial (And That’s not All!), I think it is important to note that most of these individuals that were deceived came out of our Baptist churches and ended up in these seminaries and agencies. So, the problem’s loci is in the church, and has found an easy target in the seminaries, agencies, etc.,….and trust me, the remedy is not as far along as some would like to believe.
I live in Nashville and my wife was at Lifeway for 21 years,…trust me, the remedy has only just begun and has a very long way to go. There is still very little direction in Lifeway (baby steps). I hope that a return to right doctrine can simply begin and continue. That will take vigilance and men and women with a heart to know God and all of His astounding attributes.
Blessings,
Chris
July 17th, 2008 at 7:09 am
What, exactly, is a “GCR?” This seems to be the latest in a long line of “buzzwords” in Southern Baptist life.
I rather think that a refocusing upon the Great Commission is rather simple … make disciples, not just “converts.” The keys? Small groups, hands-on ministry, missions-going (not just missions giving), and giving birth to new, vibrant, living congregations. It’s not all that mysterious or difficult.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Brother Geoff,
Well said.
Blessings,
Chris
July 17th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Brother Chris,
I agree, we need to refocus on the post. It seems one sentence of the post has been given all of the attention. I thought I asked some very good questions. Of course, I believe Dr. Akin will give answers to these questions in his forthcoming series.
As to the bombs being thrown at Baptist schools, some of the “I was told by someone that said someone told them” statements do need to be reigned in. Therefore, I do ask that if you do not have first hand knowledge of these issues (IOW, you were sitting in class, or you can point to something in print by someone) we do ask that you reassess your comments.
Thanks Chris for the words of wisdom.
Brother Bill,
I caught the humor and thought I was being humorous in return. No problem. I am planning on doing a post in the future about the Pastor as Moderator. Maybe then we can glean nuggets of gold from your humor. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
July 17th, 2008 at 8:21 am
“Could you please provide some proof for your comments regarding a “double secret strategic plan for the political takeover of the convention”? Also, the alienation of “thousands of people” seems to beg for some objective loci as well.” -John Mann
John-
You have to be kidding, right? The secret meetings of Paige patterson and Judge Pressler in New Orleans are legendary. “double secret” may be the wrong term since they now have no problem sharing how they single handedly took over the SBC. You may start by reading “A Hill on Which To Die On”, Presslers autobiography. It pretty much lays out all the plans that were implemented. “The Fundamentalist Takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention” is also a good read, although I will admit it is not very objective.
As for the alienation issue, I can not provide hard evidence. I suggest you ask the hundred or so professors from our seminaries that were pushed out because they refused to sign a document that lifts scripture above Christ.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Brother RC,
I think signing documents is probably a waste of time as well…..
but how, can you lift Christ above Christ. Isn’t the scripture the Word and the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us?
Maybe some of the professors didn’t believe the Word was made Flesh…..and that God did not communicate to us by leaving his Word without error.
Blessings,
Chris
July 17th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Chris,
I agree with your statement about the impossibility of lifting Christ above Christ. I only wish someone could have explained this to the writers of the BFM 2000. The professors that I personally know who were pushed out, believed in inerrancy. They did not believe that we should worship the bible instead of Christ.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Brother RC,
Your right to say we do not worship the “bible” (i.e. various translations, etc.) Some men actually still believe the King James “version” is inspired…so I think I hear what you are saying….so if they (those professors) were pushed out because of someones insistence that they worship the “bible” and not Christ, then they should have stuck around and fought that battle.
But, I think there was a little more to the issue, …because I’m not very smart, and could have at least fought that battle.
Blessings,
Chris
July 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Brother RC,
I am sorry that you know prof’s that were pushed out for the sake of the CR. However, I know for a fact that when Dr. Patterson came to SEBTS, there was not one Prof that was pushed out.
As to the BF&M advocating the worship of the Bible, can you help me understand why you would imply such a thing in your statement?
Blessings,
Tim
July 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Chris,
No one was told to worship the Bible. That was a liberal “strawman” used to avoid the call to believe the Bible was the perfect Word of God.
You should give no quarter to that argument. it is simply not true.
(I have to say “not true” rather that “liar” because Tim told me I had to be kinder and gentler in the new era of blogging since everyone came home from Indy.)
cb
July 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Brother cb,
Yes, I can sense the kinder and gentler nature of everyone in the group hug…
I saw the pictures…..
-Chris
July 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am
CB is very correct. That worship the Bible instead of Christ was a strawman that was hoisted up often by the moderate/liberal crowd. And, in TN where I live, it’s still being used by some people at our TBC meetings.
We dont worship the Bible. We worship the Word in flesh. We worship Jesus. But, the Bible is God’s Word, and it should be revered and valued as such. This seems to be something that the moderates/liberals cant seem to grasp, or dont want to understand.
RC, JND, and ABC, CBS, and NBC,
Here’s a link that you might find informative. In fact, it pretty well sums up what was going on in the days before the CR finally took over the SBC in secret meetings and open meetings and meetings in the halls and around tables.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=5778
Here’s another quote from a former pre-CR, Southern Seminary prof, Glenn Hinson, from his book, Jesus Christ….
“Paul was convinced that the Christ who appeared to him belonged to another order of existence than the Christ the disciples had known in the flesh. The risen Christ has not a physical but a spiritual body.”
E. Glenn Hinson, Jesus Christ (Wilmington: Consortium Books, 1977), 111.
David
July 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I am coming late to the party, but as those who know me will say, I am always willing to chime in with my two cents worth.
The old line goes, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” I think that could have been written of Southern Baptists.
1) I think some of us who supported and participated in the CR can blindly romanticize the CR. I think we sometimes adopted an “ends justify the means” ethic and certainly good people got harmed in the crossfire.
2) But, the theological blind-eye turned by many good people to the junk being taught in our educational system is astounding to me.
*The “we-were-just-loving-Jesus-and-preaching-the-gospel-until-the-mean-fundamentalists-came-along-and-hijacked-the-convention” concept is amazing. My Baptist college professors taught against the very concept of Christ’s propitiation for sins. They denied every doctrine that is foundational to the gospel.
A question: We have heard much of the levelling off of baptisms and the decline of membership in the SBC. Has the CBF been experiencing a Great Commission resurgence? How are their numbers? I don’t know, but I suspect that it is not
*The “mean, policital fundamentalists” assumption also flies in the face of reality. Yes, conservatives engaged in politics (and went too far many times) but the moderates were just as political and were probably more vocal and vicious in their rhetoric than the conservatives.
It was an ugly time, and the ugliness was coming from both sides, not one.
The essential question is was the CR needed? If the SBC did not want to follow the PCUSA, the UMC and other mainline denominations into open liberalism and spiritual impotence, it was necessary.
I think many of us may regret some of our words and actions during the CR. I will NEVER regret the CR itself.
So, I wish we could go back and change a few things. But the CR was necessary.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Chris,
Yeah, ain’t it a shame. I heard that Tim and Robbin are gonna take up ballet practice so they can be more sensitive in their appreciation of interpretative dance.
From Wes Kenney’s last post I guess he is going to take up snake handling in hopes of building a few bridges.
Be real careful if any of these SBCTODAY boys offer you any Kool-Aid. it might have Prozac in it like what the Army is now giving soldiers in Iraq to help them with the stress of war.
The new era Wes, Tim and Robbin should now be called CR-Lite.
If Villa Rica returns he will have an easy time with these new sissies.
Vol,
Thankfully you did not join the ranks of the new era boys of SBCTODAY. Don’t let them get to you.
cb
July 17th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Tim Rogers,
I am highly sympathetic with your having to moderate church conference. That happened to me only once, but, as it happened, it was in a business meeting in which the church discussed—and ultimately voted on—initiating a building campaign. I’d say once was enough for me.
Many thanks for your kind words of welcome. I’m retired from the US Army Reserve as an engineer, so I know a little something about landmines. You won’t find me using them on my Christian brothers, although I can’t speak for anyone else.
I’ll have to delay answering your question about the church budget. We just moved here two months ago; we joined the church two weeks ago, and there hasn’t been to a business meeting since.
If I may, I’d like to follow up on your comment at #41. It seems strange to me too that one part of one sentence in my first post more or less hijacked the entire thread—and I wasn’t even trying to! You DID ask some very good questions, and I tried to answer at least one of them as I understood it: the foundation of accomplishing the Great Commission is Jesus Christ. So, with your permission, I’ll repeat—verbatim—the last part of my original post.
Still, I’m in complete agreement with you that a GCR is needed. And I’m likewise in complete agreement with you that the foundation is Jesus Christ, not the CR.
I look forward to reading Dr. Akin’s perspective on how a GCR may be accomplished in our time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. May God bless your continued service in His name.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
CB,
I too have a tu tu and some tights. Would you like to see a pic of me dancing a ballet for my sensitivity training class?
David
July 17th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I add my agreement to those of you who speak in favor of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. It has made a huge positive difference in the SBC, the world, and eternity. To those who desire more information on it, read the books on the CR by James Hefley, Jerry Sutton, and Paul Pressler. Then teach it to your children. Believing the Bible does make a difference!
Some say the CR has hurt the growth and evangelism of the SBC. Well just look at those who oppose the CR. How are they doing in evangelism and church starting? The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Baptist Alliance, BGCV, & BGCT are not exactly setting records in growth, soul winning, and church starting.
Stop believing in, become wishy washy, or make optional, belief in inerrancy, Hell, personal faith in Jesus as the only way of salvation, and the passion to lead others to Jesus will decline.
David R. Brumbelow
July 17th, 2008 at 11:35 am
WOW! These responses are an interesting mixture of opinion, gossip, and reality (ableit one based on perspective), some by people who were barely beyond diapers in 1979.
Let me say up front: I became a Christian (as an adult) and a Baptist only in 1979, and it was at least a year, probably two, before I was anything like up to speed on denominational issues. There may well have been a “good ole’ boys” network which ran the denominational machinery prior to the CR, and if so, it should have been dismantled. But some of the “examples” given are just over the top, pure gossip, pure unsubstantiated tripe! Some of you need to read Matthew 5:37, Romans 9:1, and 2 Corinthians 12:20, and realize it always applies, and contains no exception for when you find the gossip attractive.
Let me go over a few of these items. For instance, ther was mention of porn from the ’80s hidden behind a panel at seminary. But it was according to a story passed on by a repairman, who told someone else, who told someone else, etc. Not exactly firsthand evidence–and its value and reliability, having been a police detective, not to mention a pastor, is zero. I once asked folks at our 8:30 service to bring things in to symbolize their life before Christ, abnd these items would be displayed at the 11 AM service, at which there was a baptism, in order for them to have a connection with the baptism and vica-versa. I don’t recall most of the items they brought, but I do two: one person brought in an empty gift box because their life was attractive on the outside but empty within, and another brought in an empty whiskey bottle because they were a hard drinker, and emptied many a bottle before being filled with Jesus. I set the box and the bottle in the office by my desk afterwards, because they so impressed me. A couple of weeks later, I had a visit from our chairman of deacons; someone had noticed the empty bottle and concluded that I not only drank (I don’t) but that I also had a drinking problem, and drank at work! That is how gossip works, folks. That is how unsubstantiated stories become one’s version (or perversion) of reality. Of course, if the question is, “Could some prof from pre-CR had porn?”, the answer is “Of course!” But you know something? Conservative or fundamental credentials are no barrier to Satan’s work, as the fall of prominent conservative pastors for sexual deviance shows. I will chime in about keg parties: I was at SEBTS 1984-87, and never saw, heard about, or even suspected one going on campus, at any professor’s house, or any student’s residence. And while one or two might have gotten past me, as a former detective and a former drinker, I would have known it had there been any regularly held.
Commenting on inerrancy, Chris Johnson in #43 asked, “Isn’t the scripture the Word and the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us?” Surely Chris, you are not suggesting that Jesus is the Bible incarnate rather than God incarnate, are you? If so, you have placed yourself well outside any historical or orthodox form of Christianity; but it is one of the traps that a person is prone to fall into when that try to justify inerrancy from the Bible where the word does not even appear. Now, if you hold my feet to the fire, I will affirm that the original autographs of the Bible were inerrant, at least in the areas of reality they affirmed (i.e., matters of faith and practice). And if anyone will show me an autograph copy, I will make a resolution at the next SBC to include inerrancy language in the BFM. Until then, it is a tempest in a teapot. We are arguing over something we do not possess, and speculating over what it says, attractive sound bites to the contrary notwithstanding.
Thwere wee some comments about “proof” of liberal leanings and professors based onvarious teachings. Rather than go through them, let me just ask: why is it liberal to explore, or even state, the meaning of Hebrew (or Greek) words just because it does not affirm what you prefer to believe they mean? Why is it liberal to postulate on the origins of the Sacred Text as long as one still affirms that it is sacred text? Why is it liberal to seek understanding of how the community of faith way back when understood the purpose of a given text instead of insisting that an utterly different culture unhderstood it the same way that our culture understands it?
Affirm the CR if you feel so led, but do it for the right reasons, not because of gossip or misunderstanding.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Brother CB,
Look at what you have gone and done. Volfan is out of the closet with a tutu and tights.
That is a sight that I do not want etched in my brain.
Blessings,
Tim
July 17th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
John,
I know there have been some false accusations of liberalism in the SBC in the 1970s and before. But there are many definite instances that did occur. I know. I was there. And I have talked in detail with other ones who were there.
The books I mentioned above document some but not nearly all of them. While I was there and involved in the CR, you needn’t have been to know. I know of historical facts that occurred long before my birth.
By the way, there have also been plenty of false accusations from the other side of ultra-conservatism and fundamentalism.
Sometimes it seems conservatives just can’t win. When conservatives mention liberalism without naming names they are “spreading gossip and sowing discord.” When they name names they are guilty of character assassination. And the moderate to liberal professor would usually not answer the charges or questions, but rather tell about how he went to church as a barefoot boy when he was eight years old. That’s great, but are you teaching these questionable doctrines or not? Probably all of these professors would have agreed the Bible is a “sacred text,” just one that was not inerrant, or totally true and trustworthy.
The Conservative Resurgence was one of the most essential, positive movements in the SBC.
David R. Brumbelow
July 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
John-
VERY well said.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“I am sorry that you know prof’s that were pushed out for the sake of the CR. However, I know for a fact that when Dr. Patterson came to SEBTS, there was not one Prof that was pushed out.
As to the BF&M advocating the worship of the Bible, can you help me understand why you would imply such a thing in your statement?”
Tim-
When Paige is involved, you can bet that someone is being pushed out, burned, or manipulated.
Language changed in the first article of the BFM 2000 dangerously weakens the relationship between Christ and the bible.
Cb Scott-
“No one was told to worship the Bible. That was a liberal “strawman” used to avoid the call to believe the Bible was the perfect Word of God”
I believe the Bible is the perfect word of God. No one was told to worship the Bible. I was at the convention in Orlando in 2000. I assure you the point is no “strawman” to me. There was simply wording added in the BFM that weakened the position of Christ in relation to scripture.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Disagreement does not denote liberalism. Kind of like, sitting in a garage doesn’t make me a car. I am still very conservative in my theology. I just choose to read scripture for myself and interpret it the way God leads me. You know, priesthood of the believer.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Brother John,
You make an interesting argument…when you asked, “Surely Chris, you are not suggesting that Jesus is the Bible incarnate rather than God incarnate, are you?”
John,…I answered that clearly in the comment, but your assessment seems to insist that it is “liberal” to postulate on the origins or the meanings and etymology of certain Greek or Hebrew terms or contextual cultural based meanings of passages. I don’t think it is liberal to do those things at all. To argue over the existence of God’s script is neither liberal or conservative it is simply lacking faith that has been delivered from the time of the Moses forward.
What “is” unfortunate is that men and women that are not “mature” in the faith, begin to use their theories and postulations as truth (even when corrected), and those postulations become a great distraction without this correction which directly impact the training of students and the order of the commission of our Lord. I should hold your feet to the fire on this one….if God chooses to leave us with evidence of how he communicates to man, then we must affirm it or get out of the way. It’s not good enough to guess, or postulate, or build theories without teaching the solid foundation of what is known. That was the problem with some professors,…and it still exists today, everyone knows that. I attend the National ETS meetings and there are professors from seminaries that are extremely confused and should not even be near students. In fact, those professors need to be engaged in discipleship as a “receiver” before they get into their hobby of postulating theories about faith to eager and hungry students in a seminary.
So your theory is… “that we are arguing over something that we do not possess”. I would disagree. I believe it does exist. We (God’s Called out Ones) do not have the autograph copy in our hands and may never have that in our hands much like the disciples. Yet even God said,
Mark 12:10-11 “Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; (11) THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?”
His disciples had the same deficit of belief in the tangible auto / script that was actually written by the prophets…. Have you not even read this γραφή (graphe)
Why in the world should anyone have to hold feet to the fire for those that know the faith that was once for all delivered to the Saints? It should be very simple. If you don’t believe God in His Word, then take a step back and learn,….don’t try to lead, because those that lead without the truth of His Word will be disappointed.
Blessings,
Chris
July 17th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Positive?
I guess that depends on how you define positive. Your Convention is in decline. Your baptism numbers are down. For half of you, the “fight” known as the so-called Conservative Resurgence never ended. For most of the other half, you’re itching, just itching for a new fight. Instead of obsessing on small, moderate organizations like the CBF, Southern Baptists might be well served to focus on what ails your Convention and quite romanticizing the past and present.
Enjoyed these anecdotal “stories” - apparently the Conservative Resurgence was needed because college kids at Baptist schools hid nudie mags and Trojans in the ceiling. Surely most of you realize that *some* college kids at your Southern Baptist colleges still climb out of their dorm windows at night to attend an off-campus kegger, climb into an open dorm window to “hook up” with a member of the opposite sex. Your homosexuals just walk through the front door to “hook up.” Sin is sin. The same junk that happened on Baptist college campuses before 1979 happens on those same college campuses three decades later. No moderate has advocated on behalf of or tried to justify pre-marital sex and pornography.
The attempt to create a correlation between moderate theology and such “sin” is truly despicable. It’s about as despicable as someone trying to create a correlation between “conservative theology” and the many recent public instances of sex abuse among Southern Baptist ministers.
But to get back to one of the original comments by Ken Coffee, #7. Ken Coffee stated that Paige Patterson once conceded that there were only five or six liberal profs in all six seminaries. In response, Ken was jumped on by a few commenters including the author of this post, Tim Rogers. Tim cites a bit of anecdotal evidence to defend Brother Paige. The problem here is that Ken Coffee remembers things a bit better than Tim.
Patterson wrote a booklet a while back titled “The Southern Baptist Reformation - A First Hand Account.” Here in this booklet, Patterson conceded that the so-called “liberals” consisted mostly of neo-orthodox professors and leaders. I must say, it seems rather intellectually dishonest to libel by label a group of people as “liberals” then only to concede years later that they were really neo-orthodox.
And thanks to John Mann for providing a link to that article on inerrancy written by a great Sunday School teacher and I hear an excellent professor.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
RC and Big Daddy,
I noticed that you avoided Dave Miller, David Brumbelow, John Mann, and my facts about the condition of the SBC in pre-CR times…like in comments #49 and #50. Why dont you deal with the facts instead of jumping on a few rumors and stories of nudie mags and condoms that were shared?
Tim,
Here’s the mental image….I’m wearing tights and a tutu…spinning around joyfully, lightly to the Sound of Music tune “I am 16, going on 17…”
Now, get that mental image out of your head!
David
July 17th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Chris,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the kind spirit which it evidenced.
First, just to clarify: is it your position that the “CHIEF CORNER STONE” of Mark 12: 10-11 is Scripture (the Written Word) rather than Jesus Christ (the Living Word)? Do you see the two as equivilent? If so, I suppose that is what is at the heart of our debate.
Second, my questions (”Why is it liberal. . . ?”) were not directed specificially at anything you wrote, but rather at comments such as volfan007’s at #9 and Tim Rogers’s at #27. They (it seems to me) make the assertation, or at least imply, that it is liberal to do so. If that is not their intent, then I apologize for misunderstanding them.
Third, I suppose we just have to agree to disagree about my “tempest in a teapot” comment. I again say: show me an autograph manuscript of any book of the Bible, and (1) we will no longer have to speculate on what it says, but (2) until that time, we are arguing about what we suppose it says, and (3) taking what we believe it says “on faith” seems to me a misuse of the phrase “taking it on faith.” My faith is centered on Jesus Christ, the incarnate living Word, God the Son, not on Scripture, regardless of how reliable the Scriptures we possess may be. Existing ancient copies of Scripture differ one from another; about this there is no debate. Some omit lines of text, others repeat lines. Occasionally, a particular episode will be altered in some detail. Sometimes the differences are as trivial as a pronoun, sometimes slightly more important, such as whether Jesus spoke of a camel going through he eye of a needle, or a cable going through it (as you know, the difference in Greek is simply whether the fourth letter of the word is an iota or an eta, and in pronouncing it, the difference would be very small), and none of the differences affect any of the major doctrines of the Christian faith. My point is that to accurately describe the text we posess as “inerrant” requires me to qualify it several ways, and while that may be one of the ways in which “inerrant” is defined in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, it does not seem intellectually honest to me.
Finally: to me, the “faith once delivered to the saints” was not faith in the Bible, but faith in Jesus Christ. Of course, the Bible testifies to Christ, and I would agree that as a divinely inspired book, the Bible participates in the revelation of God in Christ. Is that conservative enough? Funny: I picked it up in Systematic Theology at SEBTS under supposedly “liberal” professors.
John
July 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
John,
If we dont have a reliable Bible, then we have no faith. If the Bible that we have is not God’s inerrant Word, if it even contains the possibility of errors, then we need to all lock the doors of our Churches and find a big bottle of Jack Daniels and live in all the pleasurable sin that we can do. If we dont have God’s infallible, inerrant Word to show us who Jesus Christ is, and how to know Him, and how to be forgiven of our sins, then we have nothing. Nothing!
John, you seem to have many doubts and waverings concerning the Bible. You seem to have skepticism that we can know clear, concise teachings of Scripture. Yet, there are many, many scholars out there who would disagree with you. I feel sorry for you, John. And yes, John, Jesus is the Word of God in the flesh. You cant divorce Jesus from His Word. You cant have Jesus without the Bible. I really feel sorry for people who have such a weak, watered down, doubting view of the Scriptures.
David
July 17th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
”If the Bible that we have is not God’s inerrant Word, if it even contains the possibility of errors, then we need to all lock the doors of our Churches and find a big bottle of Jack Daniels and live in all the pleasurable sin that we can do.”
Oh yea of little faith.
Statements like this sadden me.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
BWD,
Statements like that sadden you because you just don’t know any better. You don’t know any better because you went to Baylor and swallowed the Kool-Aid.
BWD is one link of the evidence you sought RC. Just think what a guy with a brain like his could do if he had gotten a good education.
cb
July 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Brother John,
I too thank you for your kind spirit in this exchange.
I agree that we think about these written documents differently. A question that is difficult to affirm, yet by no means impossible to affirm is that scripture was actually written down. Does it make a difference, …I think it does. For instance,…If scripture can merely be thought of as inspired, without affirming the mode or reality of the autographs, then we (Christianity) simple fall into the same cultish activities as the Mormons. So if God actually meant to convey His message through prophets in writing, there is no option but to believe that they exist, whether I physically see a notarized original or not.
So I agree, that your first question is at the heart of the issue, because we are told that Jesus was made,
Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 5:8-10 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. (9) And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, (10) being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
And the script that He commanded to be written was made by His creation,
Exodus 34:27-28 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” (28) So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
So this helps us to understand an important truth. The scripture was made as was Jesus, both created distinct, yet none-the-less both distinctly made for a purpose.
John 1:12-14 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (14) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
It is interesting that the Lord (eternal) would have shown us himself by written Word (distinct) to immerge through Moses,…and then the Word appears as Christ Jesus (distinct)…..and the Word (distinct) was expressed plenary by way of the Apostles through the Spirit of Truth.
John 14:15-21 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. (16) “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; (17) that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. (18) “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. (19) “After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. (20) “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. (21) “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
Pro 30:5-6 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. (6) Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
The “Word” of God is eternal and expressed through what is made and as is commanded by God. We should not take lightly Paul’s instruction to Timothy…. The Apostle teaches us that the lερός writings, in other words those writings that are “delivered” once by God alone are able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation.
2 Timothy 3:13-17 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (14) You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, (15) and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (16) All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
How can what God gave and was actually written by Prophets and Apostles be in error?
Blessings,
Chris
July 17th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Actually, I learned that those who reject the inerrantist label and all its political connotations can have an equally high view or higher view of Scripture than those who proudly wear the Inerrantist name tag years before I made my graduate journey to Baylor.
If anyone gets the blame - blame the BSU at the University of Georgia, my alma mater, or First Baptist Church, Lyons, Georgia - a tried and true Southern Baptist church.
Glad to see current Southern Baptist voices like David Dockery (see Dockery’s past hiring of/relationship with Baptist ethicist David Gushee) and Timothy George (see George’s recent hiring of Steve Harmon at Beeson) recognize that one need not use the inerrancy buzzword in order to have a high view of Scripture and be qualified to teach young seminary students that our Baptist faith should always be rooted in the authority of the Bible.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Chris,
“Jesus was made”? Chris, do you realize how incredibly heretical that statement is? It denies the Trinity, it denies John 1, it denies the full diety of Christ, and so much more. It make Him into a Greek demi-god like Hercules. Of course, if you maintain that He was made, then I suppose it is easy to equate the Written and Living Words, as well as the Spoken Word. No statement of orthodox Christianity would accomodate this view, no historic creed, much less any Baptist confession that I know of. Surely this is not what you meant by the statement, and surely it is not what our seminaries are now teaching. Plenty of folks have been saved without a written copy of the Bible (especially those before the NT was written, as well as illiterates and those in non-literate cultures even today) but no one can be saved without Jesus. (John 14:6, in the unlikely case you need a reference.)
You made a statement I do not understand, “If scripture can merely be thought of as inspired, without affirming the mode or reality of the autographs.” Can you flesh that out a bit, can you state it some other way that maybe I can understand? BTW, I would never agree that the Mormon “scriptures,” or for that matter, the JW’s, or Islam, or any other so-called “scripture” is truely inspired. What we may disagree on is the definition of “inspired.” I gather that for you, since the word literally means “God breathed,” you think it it is equivilent to “inerrant.” (Am I correct?) Since there is only that one use in the Bible of the word, we have little to compare it to. The sources I have consulted in the past (and I make no claim to be a Greek scholar, although I took it in seminary) say it means “divinely authoritative.” If so, that answers volfan007’s objection to me as one who does not “have” a reliable Bible–mine is reliable and authoritative without having to claim it to be inerrant. I have no problem affirming what the Bible says about itself, you see.
Volfan007, thanks for your pity. Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, there were three friends strolling down a pier, and low and behold, when they looked out in the water, they saw a man drowning. As he went down for the first time, the first of the three friends said, “Oh no, that’s terrible. I feel so bad for him. What can I do? I know: I’ll send some flowers to his next of kin.” So off he ran to find a florist. As the drowning man went down for the second time, the second friend said, “I know exactly how he feels. I’ve got to share the moment with him, I need to be there with him.” So he took a flying leap off the pier, and just before he hit the water, he remember that he couldn’t swim either. Then, as the drowning man went down for the third time (and the second friend for the first, I suppose), the third friend looked around, and found a life preserver, and threw it down into the water, saving them both. The third friend was named “Empathy,” the second was “Sympathy,” and the first was “Pity.” Which of the three do you think was a Christian, or at least was a loving, mature Christian? I hope that, at least in your own community, you are more committed to empathy than you are to the pity you offered me.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
BTW, I forgot to include this tidbit: the opposite of an inerrantist is NOT an “errorist,” i.e., one who believes the Bible is full of, or even has errors. As BDW points out, one does not have to be a proclaimed inerrantist in order to have a high view of Scripture or to affirm (and teach) the reliable and authoritative nature of Scripture.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
John,
No one has called BWD an “errorist” whatever that is. BWD is just wrong about the Bible.
If you believe the Bible not to be inerrant, you are also wrong.
That does not mean you ar