When I entered seminary back in 1989, I was challenged by teaching that has come to be described as neo-orthodoxy. This teaching was presented as being open minded to what others believe. It was presented as the “humility” approach to understanding scripture without forcing one’s belief on another. I struggled with much of the teaching, such as, Jesus did not really walk on water because it cannot be reproduced thus it is only an embellished story of his followers. Some have called this teaching liberal, others called it moderate, and others called it heretical. When I struggled with the teaching my late father told me to hold onto the teaching that was validated with scripture and historically accepted and use that as a filter to determine if the new teaching was useful. I took his advice and it has worked very well as I do theology today.
With that in mind, I was reading Dr. Nathan Finn in his latest post at Between The Times. Dr. Finn certainly has the credentials to present what he has presented concerning the issues of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. However, his approach to the issue is one that, I believe, is full of flaws. Why? He seems to completely ignore the historical evidence of baptism being a prerequisite to the Lord’s Table. To be fair, he does express the historical record, but his summary seems to one built on sinking sand at least, and an apparent call to change the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) at the most.
In order to show where Dr. Finn’s suggestions will lead us, I would like to take his same assumptions and apply them to the Conservative Resurgence. In other words, I will borrow his outline and even a few of his words and logic in order to see where we would be had the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence taken Dr. Finn’s approach.
Southern Baptists were clearly divided on their views concerning the teaching of the sufficiency of scripture. Much was being written about this topic during that time in private papers, state papers, and other outlets. The Southern Baptist Convention Pastors Conference began addressing this matter, and competing conferences were started in order to address it, both directly and indirectly. In some of these venues, particularly the more popular ones, some terms were established that are either ambiguous or reflect more heat than light. Consider the examples below.
- Inerrancy. Not every Southern Baptist would affirm the inerrancy of the scripture. Some would quibble over the details by arguing over which translation is inerrant. Others would try to present themselves as affirming inerrancy by merely using the word, “inspired”. They would make statements such as, “I believe the Bible is inspired by God.” Using the word “inerrancy” was not seen as a test of who was or was not a baptist. The use of this word was about understanding the historical stance baptists have taken concerning the scripture. This process of quibbling over terminology brought us to an understanding of who was a historical orthodox baptist and who was a neo-orthodox baptist. Dr. David Dockery delivered the Page Lectures at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1994. In that series he defined how inerrancy was not a recent understanding of Southern Baptists. He offered that since it was not a recent doctrine it was one to which we needed to hold, and we needed to do so tenaciously. Norman O. Miller reported in The Baptist Banner what he said: “Some have asserted that the issue of inerrancy is a recent innovation, but that is just not the case,” Dockery said. “The historic Southern Baptist position was the commonly held conviction that the Bible is the inspired, written, and authoritative Word of God.” Dockery noted the “theological and political struggles” in the SBC during the last 14 years, saying, “The focal point of the struggle has been the affirmation or denial of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and the Southern Baptist convention of the ’90s has clearly decided that inerrancy cannot be ignored, de-emphasized, or eliminated from the discussion. … Theology is the bottom-line issue, and the core of that is the issue of the doctrine of Scripture.“
- Fundamentalist/Conservative. I think the term Fundamental-Conservative is a term that is not very helpful. First, it was established by state baptist editors in an effort to discredit others. This is because most Southern Baptists have been taught, for better or worse, that any type of fundamentalism was tied directly to Landmarkism. Second, I am not sure how someone can be a fundamentalist without being conservative. This term was meant to imply that “Fundamentalists” were Trojan horses, filled with Landmark convictions that will be turned loose and overthrow the city as soon as we let down our guard.
- Moderate/Liberal. Folks who used the above two terms have used these terms with the suffix “-Conservative”. The Moderate-Conservative or Liberal-Conservative loved to be part of the “ecumenical” movement and argued against evangelicals. However, they later came around and embraced evangelicals that did not know the theological debates and considered Southern Baptists to be doing nothing more than arguing over how many angels dance on the head of a pin. These Evangelicals were fodder for the Moderate/Liberal, “lets all feel good about ourselves by implementing the social gospel view and it makes no difference how you view Scripture because it is about helping others”. First, when most people hear something like this their first response is that it sounds correct. The problem is that if I give someone a sandwich and they desire to know about the Bread of Life, where will they hear about Him? They certainly will not speak about the scripture because not all believe the same concerning the sufficiency of the scripture. Second, most Moderate/Liberals are connected directly to National Council of Churches or even groups like Alliance of Baptists, or so-called Mainstream Baptists. Third, because of this association, the term “ecumenical” takes on the same character as Moderate/Liberal; the descriptor itself defines the one to whom it is being applied.
In an effort to try and facilitate greater accuracy when we debate the inerrancy of Scripture, I offer the following taxonomy. As with all taxonomies, it is admittedly general. But I still think churches that identify themselves as Southern Baptists embrace one of the following four options when it comes to their respective practices concerning inerrancy of scripture.
Part 2 will identify these four options.
I’d be careful with how you use “neo-orthodox.” It is an overly broad term, like most terms, which some use to indicate liberal (=demythology) Protestant theologians like Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich. However, most people use “neo-orthodox” for the school of Karl Barth and those associated with him, such as Emil Brunner and Oscar Cullmann. These theologians were resolutely against liberal Protestantism (whether the “classical” liberalism of Harnack or the “existential” liberalism of Bultmann). These “neo-orthodox” theologians produced some of the most cogent defenses of classical Trinitarianism and Christology in the 20th century, especially the centrality of the Incarnation and Resurrection for shaping dogmatics. As well, the whole “biblical theology” movement (rediscovering the Hebraic roots of Christian faith) was born out of neo-orthodoxy. Of course, most evangelicals part with neo-orthodoxy on the nature of the Bible’s inspiration, but there is far more agreement than disagreement between the two approaches (hence “orthodoxy” in neo-orthodoxy).
Brother Kevin,
Thank you for raising this concern. It is well noted that many use “neo-orthodoxy” as a straw man. However, I believe you will notice from the example that I use it is one of demythologizing–something that comes from Bultmann. Also, I am not certain I cannot place Brunner in the neo-orthodoxy camp. Why? Brunner was adamant about the doctrine of inspiration not being useful. Brunner was also known as dismissing certain miraculous events in Scripture.
Thanks for your interaction and I look forward to more.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I read Dr. Finn’s paper and he is simply reporting on four positions held historically by Baptists. Help me understand your goal here. Is it to argue against his presentation philosophy or are you arguing against what he believes.
I am slower than most,…so help me see what your trying to point out.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
I am not questioning Dr. Finn’s position. I know he holds to closed communion and closed membership. My perspective on this paper is to point out where I believe Dr. Finn’s logic leaves a hole large enough to drive a two-horse wagon through. The second part will wrap up the first in a neater argument. I am merely using his argumentative style and applying it to the inerrancy debate of the past.
Blessings,
Tim
Chris
I don’t speak for Tim, but I don’t believe he is arguing against what Finn believes. I know that Finn is a closed communionist. I use his white paper in my church. I believe that Tim is arguing against the presentation.
I will let Tim better explain what he is doing with this post. I also believe that the second post will help some of your questions. BTW, you are not slower than most. :-)
Brunner was indeed slightly more liberal than Barth or Cullmann. The usually cited example is his agnosticism on the historicity of the virginal conception. He does, however, have a belief in the Bible’s inspiration to the extent that it gives soteriological revelation. Thus, he defended the bodily resurrection of Jesus as essential to the Christian faith because of its intrinsic relation to the doctrine of justification (see Paul!). Bultmann and Tillich denied Jesus’ bodily resurrection because of their reduction of faith to its subjective (existential) value, thus making the objective referent inessential. Brunner (with Barth, etc.) adamantly opposed this sort of existentialism, and, thus, they produced some of the finest (and important) work ever on Jesus’ homoousian with God. This fundamental difference between the ontologists (Barth, Brunner, etc.) and the existentialists (Bultmann, etc.) is why most people have abandoned categorizing both camps under one label (“neo-orthodox”).
Sorry to get passionate about this obscure matter of terms; but, I’m a student in systematics, so it’s my job to get passionate about terms and categories.
Back to Brunner: As a Southern Baptist, I think you would highly appreciate the third volume of Brunner’s Dogmatics — by far the best defense of Free Church ecclesiology that I’ve ever read. Also, the second volume is one of the clearest and inspiring presentations ever on the evangelical doctrine of the Atonement and sola fide. Don’t let his bit of liberalism dissuade you.
Brother Kevin,
Don’t let his bit of liberalism dissuade you.
I do not believe I am doing that. While I agree that Barth and Brunner have made great contributions as theologians, I still see flaws in their theology that would group them as neo-orthodox. They certainly have not gone to the extremes of a Bultmann or Tillich. Now, does that mean that I throw away their teaching? No! I read them and certainly will use their theology where it remains with scriptural content.
However, I was merely pointing to the fact that neo-orthodoxy was being promoted as the “conservative” view when I went through seminary. I even had a ST prof say, “This is what Dale Moody believes and he as conservative as anyone” I am not trying to be defensive or even antagonistic. I am just trying to point out that while you may not accept Brunner in the neo-orthodox camp, his views were mixed with the views of Bultmann and Tillich as orthodox views.
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks Tim and Robin,….that helps. So if I am reading you right Tim, you will be establishing a foundational pedagogical system to help explain how doctrine should be rightly taught?
Are you attempting to say that his Dr. Finn’s argument style will help to undo inerrancy of scripture as well… if given enough time and enough friends that take his approach?
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
Are you attempting to say that his Dr. Finn’s argument style will help to undo inerrancy of scripture as well… if given enough time and enough friends that take his approach?
I do not believe his style will undo inerrancy. I believe if the CR leaders would have taken Dr. Finn’s stance–there are these different beliefs so we all just need to keep quiet and co-exist–inerrancy would not have prevailed.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Thanks,…that helps as well. I agree with you that all of us should not simply be quiet on biblical teachings that are more steeped in tradition and/or distinctives, but should measure those teachings based upon the inerrant Word of God.
I’m not sure that Nathan is calling for quietness and necessarily co-existency in his methods.
I could be wrong though…
Blessing,
Chris
Gentlemen,
Nathan Finn is not the enemy. I have emailed Wes to share with you where your focus should be. Have you boys become so elite now that you can no longer fight in the trenches?
Get them suits off and get back into your tunnel-rat attire and get back to draggin’ the bad boys out of their holes.
Nathan Finn is one of your own.
cb
Brother CB,
I am not advocating that Dr. Finn is the enemy. I know Dr. Finn is an inerrantist he does not have a moderate bone in his body. I know his personal convictions are of closed communion and closed membership. I am merely taking his argument and applying it to the inerrancy debate of the 70′s-90′s. You were involved in those debates. What would have happened at the Sunday School Board had you and Bob Tenery sat back and said, “other Southern Baptist have different beliefs and we need to stop calling it moderate beliefs because that word does not accurately reflect everyone?”
This is not personal toward Dr. Finn, it is theological. He acknowledges the historical stand Southern Baptist have always taken, but then seemingly disregards it as just another stand. I encourage you to read his paper.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I read the paper. Do you remember who called us Neo-landmarkers in the first place?
Today he is gathering up all the wild geese to read a post that says Paige is going to fire all the Calvinistic faculty at SEBTS. You know that is a lie straight out of hell.
You guys need to leave Nathan alone and deal with this.
You can go buy Nathan a cup of coffee and have a little set-to about these little things and then tell some old tells and go home happy.
The guy over at the Wild Geese Farm is setting your barns on fire and you guys are off over throwing rocks in Blogtown pond.
Get busy.
Now, I gotta go to work. I’ll talk to you later.
cb
That should be SWBTS. Not SEBTS.
Brother CB,
No one is throwing rocks in a pond. This is a theological issue not a personal one.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I simply do not understand the point that you are trying to make. I read Nathan’s paper. It is what he presents it to be … simply an informational presentation of different views (i.e. open -vs- closed and variations thereof) that exist or have existed in Southern Baptist churches. Your application of his simple, historical, organizational presentation to that of labeling various views with regard to inerrancy (i.e. moderate, liberal, neo-orthodox) is a bit “apples and oranges.” It just doesn’t compute. You took his paper and have somehow sought to change the subject. (?)
You referred to his conclusion thusly, ” … but his summary seems to one built on sinking sand at least, and an apparent call to change the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) at the most.”
That particular statement is mystifying to me. It seems to be a misunderstanding of his goal, at best, and putting words into his mouth, at worst.
Here is the conclusion to his paper, in his own words …
Sorry, the block quote didn’t work at all. The statement in the block is mine, not his (obviously). Please feel free to “fix” it.
Here is his conclusion, which I think is important. …
“This paper has not been written with the intent of persuading anyone to embrace a particular position,
though I have made my personal convictions clear. Nor have I attempted very much by way of exegesis
or theological argumentation; I leave that for more polemical works. The sole purpose of this paper is
informational. It is my desire to help all Southern Baptists, regardless of which of the above options we
prefer, to better understand those with whom we differ. This issue will likely continue to be a point of
debate in the SBC. It is my hope it does not also become a point of division.
It is my fervent prayer that in these matters—and all of our intradenominational debates—Southern
Baptists will model Christ-like courtesy, a vigorous commitment to truth-telling, and an obsession for
accuracy. And as we do so, I pray the Lord will allow us to experience the Great Commission Resurgence
that is so desperately needed by our churches, our boards, and all of our other ministries.”
Brother Geoff,
You question my statement; but his summary seems to one built on sinking sand at least, and an apparent call to change the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) at the most.
Just to show you that I am not pulling words from the clouds in my empty head and placing them in his mouth, the following is a direct quote from his paper.
It seems at least possible that communion is one doctrine where
the Baptist Faith and Message takes a position that is not affirmed by many—maybe even most—of our
churches. What this means for the Convention’s future remains to be seen. While this is not a clarion call for a change to the BF&M, it certainly appears to tacitly approve of such a move.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I think that the statement by Nathan can be taken any way you want to take it. But in the context of the entire paper,…it would appear that the statement is more from history than one of leaning or calling for change of any kind. The fact being, that if most of the churches practice something other than what the BFM2000 implies, then the statement is simply being dismissed.
I don’t see that as Nathan’s doing or wanting.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
I don’t see that as Nathan’s doing or wanting.
That is fine if you see it that way. However, you asked and I gave a specific statement showing where I derived my statement. Whether you agree or not, is not the issue. I provided a basis.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Sorry I didn’t see the response under this this new format….
But fair enough, I will wait for the next post,…it will probably help me understand your motive better.
Blessings,
Chris
You said, “While this is not a clarion call for a change to the BF&M, it certainly appears to tacitly approve of such a move.”
I say, “No it doesn’t.” How in the world can you make such an inference from that benign statement?
Brother Geoff,
How in the world can you make such an inference from that benign statement?
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I certainly do not see this as a “benign” statement made by someone that has said he will teach in accordance with the BF&M.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Geoff,
One other thing. This statement is not expressing a position, it is expressing something that may happen in the future. At the least he could have stated that it would not be something he could support.
Blessings,
Tim
Sorry I tried to use block quote code. I though it would work on the site.
Tim,
do you not distinguish between a person’s view of inerrancy and their view of open and closed communion?
There are some issues on which all Christians MUST agree, because they are fundamental to our faith. Inerrancy is such an issue, to me.
There are other issues on which Baptists must agree, because they are fundamental to our denominational identity. Immersion of believers, for instance.
Other issues, we can disagree on and still be Baptist Christians. Eschatology. Private Prayer language. Open/closed communion. Practice your conviction and let others practice theirs.
Why try to equate closed communion and inerrancy. Logically, that seems to me to be the sinking sand!
Brother Dave,
You seem to be pushing this post to the ‘nth degree based on the title of the post. I know that you do not know this, but the title is not mine it is my editors. (Yes I have an editor for the very reason some of my grammar is like, well–redneckish.) View the content of the paper not the title. I am merely trying to point out that the stance taken by Dr. Finn–though he says he is merely expressing different views without giving an opinion–there is no call, neither in this paper nor his 2006 paper, for the convention to return to her biblical/historical position.
Blessings,
Tim
Sorry, I should clarify: I’m not saying that Brunner etc. should not be considered “neo-orthodox”; I am saying that Bultmann etc. should not be considered “neo-orthodox.” The broad label of “neo-orthodox” is usually now only applied to the former, not the latter, because the latter depart so radically from classical orthodoxy. I have no problem with using the neo-orthodox label, as long as we do not conflate it with existential liberalism or demythology.
And in the contemporary theological academy (e.g., university-based divinity schools), neo-orthodoxy is certainly considered (and rightly so) on the conservative side of the broader spectrum. However, within evangelicalism, it would be considered on the liberal side of the (conservative) spectrum. So, it is all about context (limits) when saying neo-orthodoxy is conservative or liberal.
What stance? He was merely fleshing out a coherent summary of the various views and practices among Southern Baptist churches past and present.
Why should any type of “call to return” to anything be a necessity?
Brother Geoff,
Are you seriously telling me that you have read over his paper and everything in it only advocates a position taken by various others within the SBC? I do not have time right now, have to go get my daughter from school, but I will later give you examples where Dr. Finn leaves positions and points to future items that could result.
Blessings,
Tim
Yes. Exactly. It is a historical review, with reference to the potential (and hope?)for dialog among those who hold opposing views.
I still cannot understand where you’re coming from.
Tim wrote:
“To be fair, he does express the historical record, but his summary seems to one built on sinking sand at least, and an apparent call to change the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) at the most.”
I’m really trying to wrap my head around someone could draw that conclusion. Perhaps you don’t understand the role of a historian?
Finn did a good job of expressing the different positions embraced by Southern Baptists (and other Baptists). This white paper was written by a historian who was writing as a historian! Finn’s opinions were limited to his own personal theological convictions. My fellow south Georgian was merely giving a survey of the Southern Baptist landscape. You, on the other hand, clearly wanted him to take a strong position one way or the other. The fact that Finn did not does not mean that he made an “apparent call to change the BFM200.”
You obviously wanted an op-ed and what you got was a fair and balanced survey by a Baptist historian.
Brother B’Diddy,
I do not think that you realize it, but you are making my point. See Part 2.
Blessings,
Tim
?
Dave Miller: People who don’t believe in inerrancy are not Christians?
The Word of God is our source of truth. Belief in a perfect Word is essential to the maintenance of truth. So, I consider the truthfulness of the Word of God to be an essential of the Christian faith.
I think people can be saved without believing it, but I think the church must hold the line on inerrancy.
Does that make sense, Bill? (Even if you don’t agree)
Tim, is it your contention that Dr. Finn was incorrect to even acknowledge that four views exist? Do they not exist? I’m trying to understand the ultimate point of your post. I see that you clearly disagree with Dr. Finn and perhaps it is merely over the manner in which he presents his paper. Are you suggesting that one cannot practice open communion and remain an innerantist? Are you suggesting that we should not attempt to understand other points of view (even within the Baptist family)? I guess I am looking for your intended connection between “Inerrancy” and “Closed Communion”. I’m not intending to challenge you at this point but rather to understand you. I, of course, retain the right to challenge once I understand…lol.
Brother Dave,
I will answer your questions as you asked them.
is it your contention that Dr. Finn was incorrect to even acknowledge that four views exist? No!
Do they not exist? Yes!
Are you suggesting that one cannot practice open communion and remain an innerantist? No!
Are you suggesting that we should not attempt to understand other points of view (even within the Baptist family)? No!
As to your looking for your intended connection between “Inerrancy” and “Closed Communion” here is what I am trying to do. Dr. Finn presented a paper outlining the various points that we have among us. Everyone acknowledged that it was a great paper clearly acknowledging the various areas of disagreement we have. I present paper using his same method and everyone is now accusing me of trying to say that if you practice open communion you are not an inerrantist. I have even been sent a private message from someone that charges me with placing Dr. Finn as a moderate. That is not what I have done. I am merely presenting the inerrancy issue from the same method Dr. Finn presents the Closed Communion view.
Blessings,
Tim
But to do so you have to consider both issues to be of equal importance, do you not?
Brother Paul,
No. I will say that while they are not of the same importance the same logic applies.
Blessings,
Tim
But you would agree, would you not, that if they are not of equal importance then one would be appropriate (arguing that we should be able to agree to disagree and maintain fellowship re: open vs. closed communion) and the other would not (same stance re: inerrancy). I mean, you would agree that it is appropriate to agree to disagree re: eschatology would you not? The same logic applies there as well.
Brother Tim,
I am quite confused by this post as well… but am still listening.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother FTME,
Read my reply to Brother Dave Samples.
Blessings,
Tim
Yes, that makes sense. I was hoping I wasn’t hearing that those who don’t hold to inerrancy are not Christians.
Tim,
It seems that the “danger” that you fear is that if we follow Dr. Finn’s desire to peacefully coexist with differing views on communion that it might lead to a desire to peacefully coexist with differing views on inerrancy. Is that what you are getting at? If so then Dave Miller is correct in asking if you don’t view them as equally important issues.
Or, let me ask it this way: are there any theological issues on which we can agree to disagree and remain good, cooperating, fellowshiping Southern Baptists? What would those issues be? Would eschatology be one of those issues? If so on what basis?
Now, as soon as you formulate a basis for agreeing to disagree and still cooperate on the issue of eschatology is it then possible to use your reasoning on the issue of inerrancy? If not then you will understand how Dr. Finn is not guilty of what you accuse him of here.
Bill, I always mean what I say, but sometimes I struggle to say what I mean.
Tim -
Do us all a favor and spare us Part II in your “series.” I haven’t understood a thing you’ve said thus far. I know I’m just a dumb Southern Baptist woman (a complimentarian just in case you and your boys were wondering), but I hold a Ph.D. and still can’t get your analogy. Perhaps you need to go back to your “editor” for help.
Thanks -
Kelly
Sister Dr. Kelly,
When you become one of the Resource Managers here at SBC Today you have every right to make your demand. Until then, I will graciously hear your advice, but understand that I will not accept it. Your PhD. does not impress me that you cannot get my analogy. It may be your pride in that PhD. that keeps you from understanding the analogy. (Just a thought)
Blessings,
Tim
Wasn’t Dr. Finn taken to the CR woodshed and censored for his views on alcohol not long ago?
Bill,
Who exactly is the “CR” group that would’ve “censored” Dr. Finn?
David
David: To quote a wise man who was featured not long ago on this very blog: It fits who it fits.
Tim,
1. The nature of Finn’s article was descriptive.
2. Therefore, it was not necessary for him to offer anything prescriptive.
3. You wanted Nathan to not merely be descriptive, but prescriptive.
4. Nathan was not this way on close/open communion.
5. Therefore, upon what basis can you “infer” that Nathan is approving _________________________?
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Benji,
Seeing you are willing to believe Wade concerning SWBTS, I am no so sure how open you are to hearing my critique of Dr. Finn. But here goes to your points.
1.–No it wasn’t. The majority of it was descriptive but he had some prescriptive items.
2–I believe–It seems at least possible that communion is one doctrine where
the Baptist Faith and Message takes a position that is not affirmed by many—maybe even most—of our
churches. What this means for the Convention’s future remains to be seen.–can be considered a prescriptive statement.
3.–Read his current paper vs. his 2006 White Paper. Once the two are compared one will see there is a softening of a position.
4.–Dr. Finn personally affirms closed communion and closed membership. His historical “descriptive” paper affirms history shows that open communion leads to open membership. Something, I believe you would not have a problem with.
5.–Others will become frustrated that the majority of Convention churches
remain committed to closed membership and will align with other groups that do not take as firm a stance on a closed membership, like the Evangelical Free churches or the Bible Church movement. I believe he has prescribed a future movement. Something he did not say whether he approved of this or not.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, maybe it is not as ominous as you present. You assume that because he doesn’t condemn those who disagree with him, that he has changed his position.
Perhaps he just has a gracious spirit, believes and practices what he thinks is right on this issue, and accepts that other good Baptist Christians disagree.
Bill,
I think you need to distinguish between the broad conservative movement in the SBC, which majors on the belief in inerrancy and the fundamental doctrines of the faith, and a narrow version of the CR which demands conformity on all issues of Baptist tradition.
Most of us just want people to believe the Bible and practice Baptism by immersion, etc. We are willing to accept differences on issues that are fundamental neither to the faith nor to our fellowship as Baptists.
I do not think it is fair to paint the entire CR movement with one brush, or to assume that certain viewpoints represent the whole movement.
Tim,
* Most of the quotes come from you:
“Seeing you are willing to believe Wade concerning SWBTS, I am no so sure how open you are to hearing my critique of Dr. Finn.”
?
“1.–No it wasn’t. The majority of it was descriptive but he had some prescriptive items.”
Let’s go ahead and grant this for argment’s sake [not necessarily saying you are wrong by the way].
“2–I believe–It seems at least possible that communion is one doctrine where
the Baptist Faith and Message takes a position that is not affirmed by many—maybe even most—of our
churches. What this means for the Convention’s future remains to be seen.–can be considered a prescriptive statement.”
You give no reason for this assertion. Therefore, you have not proven your point.
“3.–Read his current paper vs. his 2006 White Paper. Once the two are compared one will see there is a softening of a position.”
My #3 related to his recent post, not his white paper.
“4.–Dr. Finn personally affirms closed communion and closed membership. His historical “descriptive” paper affirms history shows that open communion leads to open membership. Something, I believe you would not have a problem with.”
How this relates to my #4 I am not sure.
“5.–Others will become frustrated that the majority of Convention churches
remain committed to closed membership and will align with other groups that do not take as firm a stance on a closed membership, like the Evangelical Free churches or the Bible Church movement. I believe he has prescribed a future movement. Something he did not say whether he approved of this or not.”
A Prescriptive statement would be “Others will become frustrated…and ‘should’ align with other groups”, not “‘will’ align with other groups…” [that's descriptive].
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Benji,
See my opening statement to your comment. Your entire response makes my point.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Not saying that Dr. Finn necessarily agrees with me on this. He will have to speak for himself.
But, I am curious what you think on whether it makes sense for the convention to enforce a position by way of the BF&M that is contrary to the convictions and practice of the majority of the churches of the SBC. What about a position that is accepted by 50% of the churches, and rejected by 50% of the churches?
Put another way, is the role of the BF&M to enforce conformance to a pre-established norm of interpreting Scripture? Or is it rather to reflect the views of the majority of the churches, who each are responsible to go to Scripture and decide on their own how to best interpret what it says?
Brother David,
I am curious what you think on whether it makes sense for the convention to enforce a position by way of the BF&M that is contrary to the convictions and practice of the majority of the churches of the SBC I am not sure your logic concerning document voted overwhelmingly as our doctrines of belief in 2000 represents a minority of beliefs. You say that the BF&M represents something that is contrary to the convictions and practice of the majority of the churches
I am sorry but your logic does not make sense. If the majority of churches practice open communion there certainly was a great opportunity missed in 2000 when we still had moderates standing up speaking against the BF&M. According to Dr. Finn’s latest paper we have many moderates that practiced open communion.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I suppose that the actual beliefs and practice of SBC churches on open communion are something that would need to be documented by further study.
However, what I was really asking was, in the theoretical case of a belief or practice that was that of a majority of the churches, but which contradicted the wording of the BF&M, what do you think the best response should be?
In theory, is the BF&M intended to set doctrine for the convention, or rather to reflect the doctrinal views of the churches that comprise the SBC?
Brother David,
Certainly the doctrinal view of the church should be reflected in the BF&M. Why not try and change the BF&M to go along with the views you believe the majority of the churches support.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
In your reply to Geoff Baggett in comment #8, you say, “Just to show you that I am not pulling words from the clouds in my empty head and placing them in his mouth, the following is a direct quote from his paper.
It seems at least possible that communion is one doctrine where
the Baptist Faith and Message takes a position that is not affirmed by many—maybe even most—of our
churches. What this means for the Convention’s future remains to be seen. While this is not a clarion call for a change to the BF&M, it certainly appears to tacitly approve of such a move.”
Personally. I don’t see how what you have answered me here is any different than what Dr. Finn said in his paper. If anything, it more prescriptive. You are making suggestions. Dr. Finn is merely making observations and asking questions.
If I could influence the convention to change the BF&M on this one point, I would. I like to think that, every now and then, by what I write and say to others, I contribute my “grain of sand” to seeing this take place. As it is, I think we have an anomalous BF&M that is out of step with the views of the convention on this one point. As long as no one is wanting to press this point, and make it a bone of contention, and enforce conformance on it as a requirement for cooperation and denominational service, it is probably not that big of a deal. However, inasmuch as the BI movement has begun to do just this, I think it may well be necessary to change the BF&M on this point. Having said that, I realize that it would probably provoke a lot of controversy, and that may not be a good thing.
It seems to me, though, that your real gripe is with people like me, and not with Dr. Finn. If you want to take swipes at Dr. Finn, though, you are really painting yourself into a corner on this one.
Brother David,
Let me remind you of one thing. You and Dr. Finn are employees of the convention and have signed the BF&M 2k. You signed it stating that you would operate within its parameters, Dr. Finn signed it stating he would not teach anything contrary to the BF&M.
I am not suggesting that either of you are doing anything that you have said that you would not do. However, your statement; “If I could influence the convention to change the BF&M on this one point, I would. I like to think that, every now and then, by what I write and say to others, I contribute my “grain of sand” to seeing this take place.” borders on a violation of what you signed as a missionary. I am in no way suggesting you have violated it, I am merely saying that as employees of a convention of churches that signed a statement you, as well as Dr. Finn, should be advocating doctrine within the parameters of the BF&M.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
If I undestand you correctly here, you are saying it would be out of line for any denominational employee to ever seek to exercise influence toward any change in the BF&M. It would be very interesting to see where that would lead, if that line of thinking were followed out consistently, don’t you think?
Tim,
* The quotes are yours.
“Seeing you are willing to believe Wade concerning SWBTS, I am no so sure how open you are to hearing my critique of Dr. Finn”
Then you say in relation to the quote above “See my opening statement to your comment. Your entire response makes my point.”
Your statement “Your entire response makes my point” is a general one that gives no specific examples and gives no evidence–just an assertion.
But enough about me. Let’s get back to Nathan.
Could you please provide one example of a “prescriptive” statement that he said in relation to close/open communion [from the blog post, not white paper] that would fit with a WEBSTER’S dictionary definition [that we all could agree on] of prescription instead of you making statements [without any reason given] like this:
“I believe…can be considered a prescriptive statement”
“I believe he has prescribed a future movement.”
?
Tim,
You said “If the majority of churches practice open communion there certainly was a great opportunity missed in 2000 when we still had moderates standing up speaking against the BF&M.”
Do you believe the majority of Southern Baptist churches in 2000 or in 2009 practice close communion?
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Benji,
I believe a majority of the pastors lead their churches to practice open communion. If you ask the people in the pew, I believe you will find that the BF&M would support their beliefs.
Blessings,
Tim
A plain reading of the BF&M 2000 does NOT take a position giving preference to either “open” or “closed” communion.
All it says is that baptism is a “prerequisite for the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s supper”. According to the BF&M baptism is “immersion of a believer in water”.
There is nothing is the BF&M that says that the baptism has to have been performed by the same congregation that administers the Lord’s Supper. The baptising church does not even have to be a Baptist church as long as it practices BELIEVER’S baptism using immersion.
I believe “open vs. closed” communion should be argued independently of the BF&M since the BF&M is silent on that issue.
As a practical matter, I think the liklihood of ammending the BF&M within the next ten years is zero. Also, I think any attempt to modify the BF&M would stir up a hornet’s nest of debate which would be more distructive than any percieved benefit from making the BF&M “more explicit”.
Also, a BF&M change is not likely to have any significant result in terms of causing individual congregations to reverse their stance from “open to closed” or “closed to open”.
The wording of the BF&M is fine as it is. I say if its not broke then don’t fix it.
Roger,
You said “All it says is that baptism is a ‘prerequisite for the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s supper’”.
That’s all it has to say.
“…of church membership AND to the Lord’s Supper” (emphasis mine)
It is a statement in the confession that I believe is inconsistent with both the practice and the belief of Southern Baptists.
Visiting nonimmersed Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. should not be participating in the Lord’s Supper during the assembly of a Baptist congregation according to the confession.
God Bless,
Benji
Clarifications Roger:
It is a statement in the confession that I believe is inconsistent with both the practice and the belief of [many or most] Southern Baptists.
Visiting nonimmersed Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. should not be participating in the Lord’s Supper WITH the assembly of a Baptist congregation according to the confession.
Benji:
I think our problem is that there are several definitions of “open” and “closed”
This is my understanding of the terms:
1. Only a person who is a member of local congregation (and who therefore has received believer’s baptism by immersion) is elgible for communion — CLOSED COMMUNION Type 1
2. A person who is a member of some Baptist church (and who therefore has received believer’s baptism by immersion) is elgible for communion — CLOSED COMMUNION Type 2 [sometimes called "close" communion]
3. A person who is a member of church of “like faith and order” [not necessarily Baptist] (and who has therefore received believers baptism by immersion) is elgible for communion — OPEN COMMUNION
4. You have extend the examples by including a category in which visiting Christians who were not immersed are involved. I don’t know what term applies to this — maybe is is — EXTREMELY OPEN COMMUNION This class is clearly not elgible for the Lord’s Supper according to the BF&M.
5. I guess there could be even another class. Allowing communion to anyone who is in attendance. Even if they don’t even claim to be Christians. i.e. they are Buddists, Atheists, Muslims, or “seekers” who don’t know what they are. Maybe this is VERY EXTREMELY OPEN COMMUNION.
The problem is that ‘open’ vs. ‘closed’ presupposes two states when in reality there are probably a half-dozen or more different situations.
I don’t know of any SBC congregation that actually polices who takes communion when the elements are passed. Maybe you are arguing that the de-facto situation is #5 and you are bringing up the point that this practice violates both the letter and the spirit of the BF&M.
Brother Roger,
The reason that I did not respond to Brother Benji is that his description is not even close to what closed/close communion is saying. While I appreciate your attempt to help define the terms, I will concede to Dr. Finn’s White Paper of 2006. He clearly defines the terms there. I also refer you to his articles at Between the Times found here. He does a great job explaining the differences there as well.
Blessings,
Tim
Roger,
Nathan said in his white paper “Where many Baptists have often been controversial is in their insistence that only those Christians who have been properly baptized can participate in the Lord’s Supper.”
I said “Visiting nonimmersed Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. should not be participating in the Lord’s Supper WITH the assembly of a Baptist congregation according to the confession.”
Let me give this example. Bob the sprinkled Presbyterian and Bill the immersed Baptist are friends. Bill invites Bob to worship with him on Sunday along with the rest of the Baptist church Bill is a member of. Bob comes. Communion is served. Bill may partake according to the BF&M. Bob may not.
I’m not talking about Buddists. I’m talking about Bob the sprinkled Presbyterian for example.
Tim,
Let’s grant what you said to Roger for argument’s sake. Please answer this modified/revised question.
Could you please provide one example of a “prescriptive” statement that he said in relation to close communion/open communion ACCORDING TO NATHAN’S OWN DEFINITION from the blog post entitled “Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Southern Baptists” that would fit with a WEBSTER’S dictionary definition [that we all could agree on] of prescription instead of you making statements [without any reason given] like this:
“I believe…can be considered a prescriptive statement”
“I believe he has prescribed a future movement.”
?
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Benji,
Just because you do not agree with me does not mean that I have to follow your guidelines. I have expressed my thoughts and that is, as I was told in a private message by an un-named person, all I am going to say concerning this issue that you want to pursue.
I have given where I got my understanding using Dr. Finn’s words. Now go back to him and ask him what else he wants you to ask me.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I did not say you “had” to follow my guidelines.
I said “PLEASE answer this modified/revised question” (emphasis mine), not “you MUST answer…”
I said “Could you PLEASE provide one example…” (emphasis mine), not “You MUST orivide one example…”
I have not communicated with Nathan at all this week.
God Bless,
Benji
I went back and read Dr. Finn’s white paper carefully.
Dr Finn, in his paper (second full paragraph on page four) states that “there is also some diversity in this camp” [i.e. what constitutes "closed" communion].
If the root requirement for “closed” communion is that a person must be baptised by immersion, then then there could be some churches holding to “closed” communion do NOT follow the BF&M. This is because the BF&M — in addition to requiring the person receiving the Lord’s supper having been baptized by immersion — ALSO REQUIRES a certain type of baptism by immersion — namely believer’s baptism.
When I joined a Southern Baptist church many years ago as a teenager at First Southern Baptist Church Downey, California I had to be baptized again because even though I was baptized by immersion before, it was deemed to not be believer’s baptism. I found out years later that the problem was that the Dispicles of Christ baptism was “invalid” because the Disciples of Christ hold that baptism is part of the salvation package — not an ordanince that follows salvation.
Even though I didn’t know the nuanced theological details regarding Disciples of Christ baptism vis a vis Baptist baptism there was an assumption by the Baptist church that because some theology book or doctrine book used by the Disciples of Christ was wrong that therefore that “error” was imputed to me by osmosis.
I don’t know how the SBC church could have known the state of my belief or “non-belief” before or after my baptism in the Disciples of Christ chruch. They didn’t ask me and if they would have asked I couldn’t have given them a precise answer.
Thinking back on this I’m not asserting now that baptism is necessary for salvation. Notwithstanding whatever the Disciples of Christ may believe I have never knowingly adhered to the view that baptism is needed for salvation. I guess I just thought that baptism was needed to “join the church”.
Implicit in the implementation of “rules” by some SBC churches is the idea that if a person was a member of some given church or denomination then that means he both understands the doctrines of that church and agrees with them.
In any case, I don’t see that trying to clarify or ammend the BF&M is advisable. It would bee too divisive for “negligible” (if any) gain.
Roger,
If nothing is done [ammend, change, "replace", etc.], I think the SBC might die.
Roger,
I am in favor of replacing the whole thing.