Closed Communion and Inerrancy Part II
Posted byAs you begin reading Part II, I need to remind you of a disclaimer. I am writing this taxonomy as if I were writing in 1980. The conclusion brings everything up to today, but the first part of this paper is presented as one writing during the Conservative Resurgence in order to identify the verbiage.
Southern Baptist and Inerrancy: Four Options
Option 1: Southern Baptists who believe the KJV is the scripture that is inerrant.
These Southern Baptists are proud of their belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture. They are so proud of this belief that their churches have it written in their constitutions that the KJV is the authorized translation. These churches are not very cooperative and see their commitment to the Cooperative Program as their missions mantra. These churches are not very cooperative within their associations. They may only give token support to their association because the Director of Missions came to their church and used a different translation; therefore, they believe he must be a liberal. These churches hold tenaciously to their desire that people come to Jesus, but that desire is not as strong as the desire to make certain it is the “right” people.
Option 2: Southern Baptists who retain KJV preeminence but believe the inerrancy of the scriptures refers to the original text.
I believe many would be surprised to find out that many who use the KJV do not believe in it as the only correct translation. These churches will present it as a preferred translation, but do not see it as something that should lead to controversy. These Southern Baptists still believe in the inerrancy of scripture and are mission minded. They will give to the Cooperative Program in large percentages, and they will also send mission teams. They determine where their mission monies go based on the belief of the mission organization concerning the Scriptures. They will always read the doctrinal statement of the mission organization concerning the Scriptures.
Option 3: Southern Baptists who affirm inerrancy in the original text and allow for errors by the copyists.
The majority of Southern Baptists would not do anything to negate the above positions as those who hold them do so based on a commitment to inerrancy. However, most Southern Baptists affirm that errors by the copyists exist, but no errors exist in the original manuscripts. These churches are very evangelistic in their outreach, and they give to the Cooperative Program. These Southern Baptists believe missions and evangelism are more than mere strategies. Missions and evangelism are the commission given to churches; so, in their desire to take the Gospel to the world, these Southern Baptist are all about “the call.” They see more than one vehicle through which their mission dollars can be used. They fund short term mission trips while also encouraging para-church involvement in order to take the Gospel to the world. These churches will determine their mission involvement based on full doctrinal statement of the organization that receives their money. For these Southern Baptists, missions is based on a complete doctrinal understanding, not just getting people to touch people. These Southern Baptists believe that it is no good to touch someone with a doctrine that is deficient. If one has a deficient doctrine concerning Scripture, then the end result will be a social ministry that does nothing but hug trees and makes everyone feel better about hugging the trees.
Option 4: Southern Baptists who will not affirm inerrancy and rather use the term inspiration, but believe that the text is full of errors based on modern research
These Southern Baptists are those who are entrenched in our seminaries and agencies. These men and women do not affirm inerrancy because they view it as a Fundamentalist phrase which is negative. There have always been some Baptist churches which affirm that the scriptures have error, but most of these are Southern Baptist churches engaged in the social gospel and believe in an ecumenical aspect of cooperation. This aspect says that doctrine does not matter and churches must bind together around the philosophy that God loves everyone and each individual as a priest can determine what the scriptures say. These individual Southern Baptists would bristle at someone who says; “thus says the Lord”. Their personal preferences are to hear “a talk” instead of a “sermon.” Many of these are more interested in their standing in the academy than they are concerning their relationship with their constituents. They see themselves as needing to educate those that do not know the more modern research. What makes these Southern Baptists especially hard to oppose is their standing within the convention. Many look to them as experts on subjects whose word is final. When another Southern Baptist opposes them, there is often a call to examine each man’s credentials, and the one with the greater academic credentials is the one whose belief is promoted.
CONCLUSION
The above taxonomy is used only to show a comparison. I am in no way relating someone who does not believe in closed communion to someone who does not believe Scripture. I am merely trying to show how the Conservative Resurgence would have stalled, and even died, had we employed the logic presented concerning closed versus open communion.
Dr. Finn strives to establish language that is palatable for all in the debate. There is one problem. When you take his logic and apply it to the inerrancy debate of the Conservative Resurgence, one finds the logic fails. Why? He seemingly negates the historical position of Southern Baptists as something that changed with the culture. While it is true that cultural influence changed this historical position there is a question that should be asked: “What are the surrounding factors that changed the Southern Baptist understanding of scripture?” The SBC fathers debated this article and came to the conclusion that according to their interpretation of Scripture, closed communion is what the scriptures teach.
Dr. Finn expresses a disregard for a term he used as recently as 2006—evangelical ecumenism. His reason for refusing to use this term again seems to have something to do with the response of those being referred to as evangelical ecumenicals. He says he quit using the term because these terms are also unhelpful, at least in popular discussions. Because those that display tendencies toward evangelical ecumenicism do not like the term and decry its use, Dr. Finn has decided to drop its use. That is his personal perspective and I honor his desire to drop it’s use. However, his descriptive perspective calls on everyone to stop using the term. There was a term in the 80’s that people said was unhelpful in popular discussion, and that term was Moderate. I wonder what Dr. Criswell said when the moderates/liberals complained about his use of that term? He did have something to say about it: “A skunk by any other name is still a skunk.” The Conservative Resurgence would have died the death of a thousand deaths had those who came before us stopped clearly articulating that with which we were dealing. Moderate/liberal theology was exactly what it was. In the same way one of the issues that is eroding the historical, scriptural position of closed communion is evangelical ecumenicism. We need not drop that term.
To be fair, Dr. Finn clearly articulated his personal position on closed church membership and closed communion. I take him at his word. He said his convictions were hammered out in seminary and are his personal beliefs. He presents a strong argument for closed communion in his 2006 paper. With that said, he seems to desire his latest article on closed communion to be only a descriptive paper, one that doesn’t draw conclusions or give directives. My concern lies in his silence concerning his findings as to why we as Southern Baptists have moved away from closed communion. According to his findings we have moved to this position because a majority of the churches practice it in order to enjoy the table of fellowship with non-immersed Christians. If we as Baptists believe the Bible commands us to baptize by immersion and that command comes from Jesus, and as Dr. Finn has pointed out, every denomination believes baptism (in some form) is a prerequisite to the Lord’s table, then enjoying the meal with non-baptized Christians is nothing more than denying what we believe Scripture to teach.
Not only does my concern lie in his findings but also in his seeming acceptance of positions that are outside of historical Southern Baptist beliefs, and what many Southern Baptists believe to be biblical standards. I want to be fair and state that Dr. Finn’s paper serves a descriptive function regarding where we find ourselves today. However, his latest article at Between the Times, also a descriptive paper, reveals he has no qualms at all calling for various changes that need to take place concerning something that has nothing to do with Scripture—getting younger pastors involved in the SBC. I am not against younger pastors being involved in the convention and I applaud Dr. Finn in his effort. I just do not understand how such conviction can come through that paper but on a paper that deals with how Southern Baptists have historically interpreted scripture, he doesn’t desire for it to be prescriptive. He clearly states; “Some Baptists just do not think about this issue at all, which becomes an open communion in practice if not conviction.” This statement is the very reason we need clear voices in our leaders to articulate the historical Southern Baptist view of what the Scripture says about closed communion.
I am not alarmed that we have one of our finest scholars advocating a civil discourse when expressing our differences. We should remain civil in all of our discourses and disagree agreeably. I am concerned that we have one of our finest scholars presenting a paper without advocating Southern Baptist historical position as a scriptural position which we have held tenaciously. He claims to do this based on scholarship. I would like to gently remind everyone that during the CR professors were using this same argument in order to present any position they wanted. Dr. Finn has personally stated he believes in closed communion and closed church membership. I ask him to take this personal conviction that was forged in our mother seminary and help students and others over whom he has influence to come to the same conviction. It seems that if our Southern Baptist forefathers advocated a biblical position and now the position is changing because others are offended due to a ‘cultural relevance’ interpretation of Scripture, we have succumbed to the relevancy of society and we are no longer confronting culture. We are casualties of the culture. If the Scripture was true as we developed our Baptist Faith and Message statements in 1925, 1963, & 2000, then what has changed? Do we interpret Scripture based on Culture or Christ? The Conservative Resurgence leaders were hit by all of the mud in the world because the Southern Baptist in the pew did not want professors merely placing the difference out there, they wanted professors to place the differences out there, then show why that dog will not hunt. I know Dr. Finn is an inerrantist and his personal beliefs are what historical Southern Baptist have always believed concerning doctrine derived from scripture. I have no problem with his Reformed soteriology and encourage him to present that view to all. However, I call on Dr. Finn and all professors to take their personal convictions concerning matters of Scripture and place it in front of the students and others. It is ok to be descriptive, but in that description there needs to be a point in which we say: “Here is where I stand and other historical Southern Baptists have stood.”
173 Comments
February 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Tim,
You act as if there is some 1st Tim Rogers chapter 8:13 that says that professors who have strong conviction must not only write a paper that is descriptive but prescriptive.
Nathan has “already” been prescriptive–white paper.
Nathan has been descriptive–recent post.
[Thanks Nathan for your scholarly opinion in both areas. Maybe folks can learn something from both even if they disagree with you.]
Tim, if you disagree with Nathan’s description, then fine. If you think that Nathan’s description is not fair in some way to the close communion position, then fine.
But Nathan does not have to accept 1st Tim Rogers 8:13.
God Bless,
Benji
P.S. Please go eat some Rocky Road and enjoy it.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Brother Benji,
Sorry, but I do not presume to be writing for God.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
The analogy is completely false, Tim.
The inerrancy scenario is different. The whole point of the CR was to say that we would not accept into fellowship those who do not accept the full trustworthiness of the Bible. Option 4 puts you outside the SBC fold. I’m not sure what the KJV has to do with any of this, but I know there are still a few KJV-worshippers out there.
Baptism is a different animal, something a small group seems unwilling to admit. Within the Baptist fold, people have (and historically have had) different views about open and closed communion.
Dr. Finn has articulately stated his opinion, without compromise. What he has also done is admit that you can hold another opinion and still be a good Baptist. He has pointed out that there is not one single historical position among Baptists that all must believe.
As many of us have said repeatedly, there is almost no similarity between the scenarios.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Brother Dave,
The whole point of the CR was to say that we would not accept into fellowship those who do not accept the full trustworthiness of the Bible. Option 4 puts you outside the SBC fold. One of us misunderstands the CR. It was not about fellowship it was about leadership. We accepted that there were among us those that fell into Option 4, we argued that those would not be in leadership. Remember the entire mantra of the Presidents elected were to place on boards those that affirmed the inerrancy of scripture. It was not about fellowship.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Brother Dave,
Also, He has pointed out that there is not one single historical position among Baptists that all must believe.
Uh, does 1925, 1963, & 2000 ring a bell for you?
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Tim,
A few initial observations, while I meditate further on what you write here:
1. There are many, like myself, who hold to a so-called “modified open communion” position, not merely because they are “changing because others are offended due to a ‘cultural relevance’ interpretation of Scripture,” but rather due to deeply held scriptural convictions regarding the unity of the Body of Christ.
2. Personally, I beg to differ with Dr. Finn, and others who hold to the argument that “every denomination believes baptism (in some form) is a prerequisite to the Lord’s table.” If what every denomination teaches or has taught happens to contradict what Scripture teaches, I choose to go with Scripture. Personally, I think that Christendom (and its various denominations) has been wrong on this particular matter, just as it was wrong on justification by grace through faith before the Protestant Reformation, and believers baptism before the Radical Reformation. Also, actually today, there are many churches, and even entire denominations, who do not hold to the position that baptism (in some form) is a prerequisite to the Lord’s table. I believe this is because many have been led to reflect further on this question, and chosen to accept Scripture as over against tradition.
3. You say: “If the Scripture was true as we developed our Baptist Faith and Message statements in 1925, 1963, & 2000, then what has changed? Do we interpret Scripture based on Culture or Christ?”
Does this same line of reasoning hold true for the BF&M wording on the Lord’s Day? Has the BF&M caved into the pressure of culture on this particular issue? Or is it possible that time and sincere reflection on what Scripture really teaches have taught us to interpret Scripture a bit differently on this issue?
4. Labels such as “evangelical ecumenism” and “moderate” are useful to the degree they help to communicate clearly the reality they attempt to describe. Because the term “evangelical ecumenism” is confused and conflated in the minds of many people with “conciliar ecumenism,” it can and often has led to many false stereotypes and assumptions. I believe it will be helpful for all of us who seek to honor the Lord, treat each other with charity, and understand what our brother or sister is truly saying, to be as careful as we can with the words we choose to use, and seek to ensure that others are understanding by our words the same thing we mean by them.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Brother Tim,
This post does help me see your direction as well. It seems that you are arguing that the Baptist forefathers have the biblical solution. It seems to me though you have over simplified what is deemed worthy when we participate in the supper of our Lord.
I do like that you have said we should be biblical in our approach though. The Apostle Paul was obviously not a closed communionist as some may define it. Romans 16 is a good and convincing example that he expected all saints, brother and sisters from all the churches to welcome with joy and celebrate Christ, which would include participating in communion as they met together. In fact, all of this letters are consistently the same in these matters. What else would be more important when they met together? One must ignore the simple reality of the church in order to arrive at some folks definition of closed.
Even though I don’t think that Dr. Finn was trying to determine how the supper is to be participated in by the article he wrote. I do see your concern that we must rightly divide the word of God…..even when our forefathers whether Baptist or Augustinian may err in their consensus view.
Blessings,
Chris
February 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Brother Chris,
I believe you would have to do some serious hoop jumping to get communion out of this Romans 16. Romans 16 is a good and convincing example that he expected all saints, brother and sisters from all the churches to welcome with joy and celebrate Christ, which would include participating in communion as they met together I also would encourage you to notice that Paul was insistent upon baptism and you are now arguing that he was addressing churches that did not baptize? I do not think so.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Tim,
No one is arguing that closed communion does not have historical support. What I am saying is that it is not the single, only, exclusive view that has historical support amongst Baptists. And David is right above – what is scriptural is ultimately what matters.
I have seen nothing in scripture that gives me the right as a pastor to exclude from the Table of the Lord those who belong to the Lord, even if they are not members of my church or denomination.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Brother Tim,
No hoop jumping required.
Certainly we are to baptize, we are commanded to baptize by our Lord. One thing that should be noticed about baptism though…. is that it is never spoken of relative to church discipline as some today are inclined to do. Additionally, I have never said that Paul was addressing churches that do not baptize. Not sure why you would say such a thing…. Baptism is a remarkable grace of our Lord and commanded to all that are in the body of Christ. I actually like what Paul has to say about baptism.
Blessings,
Chris
February 6th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Brother David,
1.) I agree with you. However, I am saying that as SB we have historically interpreted Scripture as promoting closed/close communion.
2.) I would agree that throughout Christendom there has been things done that had nothing to do with Scripture. However, if you go here you will find a digital form of a document believed to be around 150ad. Also known as The Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve. In that document it clearly outlines that Baptism is by immersion and that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. It seems that the apostles started us right.
3.) As I have shown in #2 this teaching is older than 1925. As to your Lord’s Day argument, I believe you would agree that the interpretation is not around if there is a day of rest, but how one interprets “rest”. Both of us would agree that Scripture is silent on exactly what “rest” means.
4.) Dr. Patterson said it well in the interview with Brother Wes–All sociology studies will reveal that every ecumenical movement hinges on the least common denominator. I believe “evangelical ecumenism” clearly articulates what we are speaking of–joining a movement that has the least to do with Scripture.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Brother Dave,
What I am saying is that it is not the single, only, exclusive view that has historical support amongst Baptists. I am not saying that either. I am saying that the majority of SB have always supported and practiced closed/close communion.
I have seen nothing in scripture that gives me the right as a pastor to exclude from the Table of the Lord those who belong to the Lord, even if they are not members of my church or denomination. As a pastor of a local congregation you have the right and freedom to practice open communion. That is your privilege as a local autonomous congregation. Just remember that your church is in a convention of churches, not a denomination. You, by being part of the SB, have said the majority is what we will follow. If your church practices open communion you should not require those in the majority to begin practicing open communion in order for you to feel accepted.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Brother Chris,
You are taking my points and seem to be confusing it with something else. I am merely pointing to the fact you said Romans 16 advocated communion. I only want to remind you that Paul was addressing a church that should accept others from other churches. Thus they were baptized believers.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Tim,
So, if the Didache is our guide for church practice, we ought to include all of the following in the BF&M as well?:
“Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”
You say: “As to your Lord’s Day argument, I believe you would agree that the interpretation is not around if there is a day of rest, but how one interprets ‘rest’. Both of us would agree that Scripture is silent on exactly what ‘rest’ means.”
I believe that is precisely what is at stake in the discussion about “closed communion.” We all agree (as Baptists) that baptism is for believers and by immersion. And we agree that the Lord’s Supper is for believers as well. But the specific relationship of baptism to the Lord’s Supper is something that Scripture is silent on.
I respectfully beg to differ with Dr. Patterson. Scripture itself teaches that we should accept as brothers and sisters, and as colaborers in the work Jesus has given us, all those who name the name of Christ, and who truly trust in Him to save them by grace through faith, and who do not teach a “a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all” (Gal. 1:6-7). Unfortunately, many of those in what has traditionally been known as the “ecumenical movement” have taught a different gospel, which really is no gospel at all.
Those, who like myself, favor cooperation with all those who are true born-again believers, do not argue for the “least common denominator,” but rather that what truly unites us, our common saving faith in Christ, and our “fellowship with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).
February 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Tim, when have you heard anyone demand that only open communion be practiced?
I don’t see the scriptures giving me the right to close communion.
The SBC has always been a “freedom of conscience” denomination, not a creedal one.
All I argue for is allowing convictional Baptists who believe in inerrancy to follow the scripture on issues not related to salvation or fundamental Christian doctrine.
February 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Tim,
If the majority voted to admit “open communion” or to strike the language favoring “closed communion” from the BF&M, what would you do? Would you seek another denomination to affiliate with?
Just curious.
February 6th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Dave,
As the pastor of an autonomous SBC church, you should follow the Scripture as your church understands it.
However, Tim was speaking to the context of a seminary professor who is employed by an agency responsible to all the churches. And they have spoken through their confession.
February 6th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
David,
Why change what is already correct? Southern Baptists don’t want to be ecumenists. That is why they hold to closed communion.
February 6th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
John 3:16,
1. I do not agree that “closed communion” is biblically correct.
2. I am a member of a cooperating Southern Baptist church. I do not want to be an “ecumenist,” if what you mean by that is sacrificing the fundamental truths of the gospel on the altar of unity. However, my views have been called by some “evangelical ecumenism.” I think it is important that we define our terms clearly, and not make straw-man arguments.
3. Who are you? And why do you choose to post anonymously?
February 6th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
1. The opposite of closed communion is open communion.
2. If you adopt open communion, you are an ecumenist.
3. I am a voice crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord. Actually, I am just a close friend of Tim Rogers, who must stand in for him as he has other pressing responsibilities. Call me, “From the Middle Eastern States,” if it makes you happy.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
David,
Why do you engage in conversations within the SBC if you think our beliefs are not biblically correct?
Personally, if I thought the SBC was not biblically correct, I would leave it. Not saying that you should, but saying that I would, out of a sense of personal integrity.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
John 3:16,
1. As the good Dr. Finn has already ably pointed out, there are more than just two positions on the open-closed communion spectrum.
2. Although I do not agree with more extreme open communion views, if you insist on calling me an “ecumenist,” so be it. I retain the right to clarify what I actually believe, though.
3. You still did not say why you choose to post anonymously. Personally, other than for security reasons that some international missionaries have, I can’t see why someone advocating your views would see the need to post anonymously. It doesn’t help your credibility.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
John 3:16,
In answer to your comment #9:
1. As a long-time member of SBC churches, and participant in the convention-supported ministries, what happens within the SBC is important to me.
2. I happen to believe that the majority of the SBC (churches and members) do not go along with the BF&M on this one particular issue of “closed communion.” If I were truly convinced that the majority supported the “closed communion” position, were not open to reconsidering, and did not welcome my position, I would likely do as you suggest.
3. I love the Lord, the Word of God, the work of the Great Commission, and the Body of Christ in general, of which the believers affiliated with the SBC are an important part. Thus, I try to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).
February 6th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The one question I have concerning those who believe in closed communion is…doesn’t that put the church in the position of deeming who is fit to consume the Lord\’s table and who is not? Yet, scripture tells us to each examine him or herself. I offer up 1 Cor. 11:17-34 and Ephesians 1:6&7.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“You have to coach the team you have and not the one you wish you had”
I believe this is the kind of comment I heard a football coach say once.
Those who advocate that “only” those who hold to “close/closed” communion should be allowed to do missions through the IMB come across to me as if they are not satisfied with the team they have [i.e., current SB's].
And therefore a minority gets to play while the majority may pay on the sidelines.
I think.
If it is a matter of conscience that a person cannot support those SB’s who want to do missions through the IMB over a difference on communion, then I think those persons need to be the ones to leave.
Not trying to be mean. I just think that there are tons of open communion folks who give to the CP and if any of them want to do missions through the IMB, then affirming open communion should not disqualify them.
This does NOT mean those who believe in close/closed communion do not have a voice if they decided to stay if things were changed in the SBC. They may write articles, write a book, preach sermons, teach small groups, and personally attempt to “persuade” grassroots SB’s of their view if they want.
Grace to all,
Benji
February 6th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
John 3:16,
“Personally, if I thought the SBC was not biblically correct, I would leave it.”
Oh really? Maybe you would.
However, surely you would grant that it was not too long ago that there were plenty of SB’s who thought there were SBC seminaries that were not biblically correct on the Bible, but who nevertheless STAYED IN and advocated change.
I hope you are not advocating the “Well, if you stay in when you disagree, then that shows a lack of integrity” view when I think there were a boatload of folks who did exactly that in the past.
God Bless,
Benji
February 6th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
David,
On comment 11,
Is 1 telling me you are willing to put personal feelings and employment before your beliefs about the Bible?
Is 2 contradicted by the same churches approving the confession repeatedly through nearly a century? Didn’t my bud Tim say this to you or somebody like you before?
3 tells me your a really great guy, but I still don’t know how you can be a member of the SBC if it is unbiblical.
On comment 10,
No one is good but God.
Have you ever been to the middle eastern states? Guns are everywhere. My fear is that some angry ecumenicalist open communionalist might be packing.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Benji,
The history books say that the seminaries were not following the church’s confession. That is what the conservative reformation was about, at least that is what the history books say. Why should the people in the churches leave when the seminaries needed to change back to what they should have been teaching?
Sorry, Tim, this is getting boring. I might check in later.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
On #1, not at all. That is precisely why I am willing to put my name out publicly in places like this, disagreeing with the BF&M.
On #2, are you implying that the views of any particular group of churches throughout one century of church history should be taken as our guide of doctrinal correctness? Does the Holy Spirit not continue to guide the church into all truth, in accordance with the written Word of God?
Your answer on #3 shows you really do not understand my position. I do not believe any of us, myself included, nor any church, is 100% correct on all doctrine. However, the Bible teaches that we should be one with other believers and other churches. I, thus, do not demand 100% correctness on all doctrines as a condition for fellowship and cooperation.
On comment #10, we “ecumenicalist, open communionalist” types do not tend to be angry nor to carry guns, neither literally, nor metaphorically. I honestly don’t think you have anything to fear by openly identifying yourself. And, I think God would be better glorified, and the church better served.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
John 3:16,
Aw man [if you are a male--I'm really not sure], don’t leave the party.
Sorry we are boring to you. I better spice things up before you come back and give that “shut down the comment stream” speech to ole Wes.
If the confession was fine, then why 2000 [priesthood of believer(s)/Scripture--Christ/Lord's Day].
Com’on back, let’s have some fried chicken fun:)
Grace,
Benji
P.S. For some reason I have a hunch someone might come back and say “Well, we clarified what the confession had always meant”. If so, I hope you can defend that by actually getting into the “details” instead of just making a general statement.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
David,
You seem to care more about being nice than being biblical. So be it. God is glorified by speaking biblical truth, not by speaking smooth words. There is no use in me continuing a conversation with you where we keep coming back to the same points, is there?
Tim,
Really, I am sorry. I am gone now. You didn’t tell me how strange the conversation would be.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Benji,
If you offer fried chitlin, I might come back, but after dinner.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
John 3:16,
Actually, I am very concerned about being biblical, which I believe includes being nice, whenever possible.
If you don’t see the point in continuing the conversation, so be it.
I am still here to make known my position, and to defend what I understand the Word of God to teach.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
–chitlins
I accidentally ate that once.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
The correct spelling of “chitlins” is “chitterlings.” I have not, nor will I, ever eat Chitterlings unless I’m starving to death.
David
February 6th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
My man volfan breakin’ it down:)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
volfan,
Com’on volfan. I checked wikipedia before I gave my spelling–there are alternative spellings. Cut me some slack, eh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitterlings
I must say though, if eatin’ “chitterlings” together would help us SB’s get along better, then oh well…
February 6th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Sister Debbie,
Scripture also tells us to judge those within the church. How do you think we do church discipline? There has to be some “judgment” going one somewhere.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Brother David,
I would keep teaching my congregation what the Bible says about it and I would continue to support the CP.
Oh, and if it ever came up again I would argue in favor of closed communion being scriptural.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Tim,
I know you are trying to prove another point with the logic lesson,….but just for clarification…..and to get some kind of baseline here….are you advocating the definition for “closed communion” (which is evidently a clearly articulated SBC sanctioned process per John 3:16) is where a local church will only allow the members caused by baptism to engage in communion as the church gathers. So that, people like the Apostle Paul or Phoebe, or others (Romans 16) that do not live in the same community will be asked to sit it out and not partake when visiting?
Blessings,
Chris
February 6th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
John 3:16,
David is relentlessly cordial and kind. Kindness does happen to be a fruit of the Spirit.
Are you saying that being biblical and being nice are mutually exclusive?
Many bloggers certainly seem to believe that.
February 6th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
This comment is in honor of Wes, who got me good.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Tim: I am referring to these specific passages which I read as relating directly to the Lord’s supper.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I don’t mind eatin’ chitlins. We all might not mind eatin’ chitlins by the time the government bails everyone out but us.
cb
February 6th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Brother David,
You are pulling hard to place words on the paper that never came from my pen.
I never said the Didache was the guide for the BF&M. I merely pointed to the Didache as a historical document that verified Baptism by immersion was the mode and also was a prerequisite to the Lord’s table in the Disciples teaching.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Brother Chris,
I am advocating the scripture teaches close communion. I am saying that baptism by immersion is the prerequisite to the Lord’s table.
Blessings,
Tim
February 6th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Brother Benji,
No one has said anything about open communion beliefs leaving the convention. It seems you are the one advocating such nonsense.
I am merely arguing for our professors to teach and present as scriptural the beliefs of SB as defined in the BF&M.
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Tim,
Very well, then. It seems like you would take pretty much the same approach I take with my belief… though apparently the opposite approach from that advocated by our friend “John 3:16″ in comment #9.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Tim,
My point is, if you use the Didache as your source of authority, or even your historical point of reference, it is not consistent to just pick and choose the parts that happen to be most conducive to your argument. This is the same argument (which I support) used to point out the importance of inerrancy. If some parts are true and others false, on the basis of what do we decide what part is true and what part false?
February 7th, 2009 at 1:36 am
To all,
I simply refer you back to my comment–including you Tim.
God Bless,
Benji
February 7th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Brother David,
if you use the Didache as your source of authority, or even your historical point of reference, it is not consistent to just pick and choose the parts that happen to be most conducive to your argument. I do not believe that you can support your logic. According to your logic we should reject Karl Barth’s argument for the sufficiency of Scripture because he had other arguments that were more neo-orthodox. I am not picking and choosing, I am merely pointing to a document that is known as the teaching of the twelve that gives historical precedence of baptism by immersion and that being a prerequisite to the Lord’s Table.
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Brother David,
John 3:16 is my friend and we may come to different conclusions. However, I believe that you either mis-read him or you mis-represent his words. I have not seen where he said he would leave over this issue. As a matter of fact he advised me in a situation not to live or die over close/open communion. But, if I mis-read him, then it will not be the first time. Those boys From the Middle Eastern States are a pretty independent lot.
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Brother Benji,
Your words; If it is a matter of conscience that a person cannot support those SB’s who want to do missions through the IMB over a difference on communion, then I think those persons need to be the ones to leave. You are the only one that is advocating anyone to leave. John 3:16 has opined that he would leave if he did not believe the convention was operating according to Scripture. You are the one that has said your belief is that others should leave.
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Sister Debbie,
Are you saying that your church would invite someone under church discipline from another church to partake in the Lord’s Table?
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 7:50 am
David
I hope and pray that you challenge the anonymous commentors over at Wade’s place as equitably as you do here.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Ladies and Gentlemen
This is a momentous occassion. Our dear friend Volfan has corrected someone’s spelling.
First he started to use punctuation and now he has progresssed to correcting spelling. I believe we have created a monster.
February 7th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Robin,
To tell you the truth, it’s been quite a while since I’ve spent much time at all on the comment stream over at Wade’s place.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Brother Tim,
OK then…. So what is your problem with Nathan Finn’s teaching style again? Is it that he does not put his personal convictions before his history lesson, or is it something else? By your own testimony you seem to not follow or teach the SBC sanctioned process as outlined by John 3:16 (closed communion), which you may have termed “close” and Dr. Finn terms as “consistent communion”.
It seems the logic you pose will bring you to another question though….Is it symbolic water baptism that causes you to be a member of the body of Christ? Which if answered yes,…goes against the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1…where he explains that water baptism, not rightly understood, diminishes the baptism that Christ has done through the gospel. It is not that Paul argues against water baptism at all, but simply that some in the church at Corinth were beginning to depend upon the earthly administrators of water baptism as demonstrating their worthiness to participate in this society, instead of their true baptism by His (God’s) doing. The Apostle even goes to so far as to say….
1Corinthians 1:14-15 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, (15) so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
The Apostle clears up the confusion….
1 Corinthians 1:22-24 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; (23) but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, (24) but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:30-31 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, (31) so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”
Last week, while preaching the gospel and teaching on baptism….I had two individuals in our fellowship, both believers and both wonderful blessings to our fellowship with one voice ambassadors for Christ bringing unity to the body of Christ (in other words the type of folks that bring glory to God) as the Apostle Paul would say….came to understand Christ’s view of baptism. Both are in their 50’s, one was raised Roman Catholic, and the other raise Presbyterian, …..each raised in denominations where baptism (as they define) causes membership. Once they understood that baptism (immersion) is identifying with Christ alone because of the power of the gospel…. the one gentleman somewhat reminded me of the Ethiopian as he was looking for water and the disciples in Acts that were identifying with the Holy Spirit. What a blessing!
Since we do not have a baptismal (we meet at a community center) I spoke with the pastor of Hermitage Hills Baptist in town while at the YMCA, and he was gracious to allow us to join him as he baptized eleven of their believers in just a few weeks. He understood this as Kingdom work…living out his understanding of unity of the Spirit.
Thank God that baptism is a believers’ biblical distinctive to identify with Christ alone to the glory of God!
Blessings,
Chris
February 7th, 2009 at 10:45 am
That’s funny
February 7th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Just keeping it real, my Brothers, just keeping it real. Do some of yall realize what chitterlings are? Also, I do not eat rooster fries, nor mountain oysters, nor do I suck the brains out of crawdads; as do some of my fellow Southerners enjoy.
I have belonged to Churches that were closed communion. I have belonged to Churches that were open communion. I guess I’m a closed communion guy, who will not be the Lord’s Supper police. I have never seen this as a huge issue before in my Christian life. I just preached what the Lord’s Supper was about…told people that only saved people should take it for it to mean something. But, I’ve always left it up to the conscience of those attending if they’re gonna take it, or not. I, personally, will not participate in the Lord’s Supper at another Church, unless I know their doctrine. But, I have just in the last few years really checked into this doctrine and practice more thoroughly. I’m ashamed to say that, but it’s true. So, I guess still learning about this. I can say, however, that the more I look into this, the more of a closed communion guy I become. But still, to quote the words of my famous friend, chitterlings eatin’ CB Scott, “I aint gonna be the Lord’s Supper police.” Well, he said it something like that.
David
February 7th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Wes or any of the SBC TODAY guys,
It has been stated that you have mass blocked anyone from Enid, OK from SBC TODAY. is that true?
It has also stated you changed the time stamps on the last two comments in the previous post containing the Paige Patterson interview. Is that true?
cb
February 7th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Tim,
Comment #9 by John 3:16 seems to me to be pretty straightforward and hard to misread.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
David
I am glad to hear that. I only wish I had your fortitude. Unfortunately when lies are being spread about those of us who are BI and even greater ones about Dr Patterson as confirmed by Dr Welty, one must keep a careful eye so as to defend oneself. But as Wade continues to alienate himself from most SBs, it will not matter. He has become the boy who has cried wolf too many times.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Lots of Drama going on in the Southern Baptist blogosphere….
Anyone know why your colleague Petey Lumpkins has closed his blog?
February 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Big Daddy Weave,
Peter is laboring under two writing deadlines as I understand it. I think one of them is for a published Bible Study, and the other is a manuscript of a book. I think the closing is temporary, to allow him time to not be distracted or have to police comments on his blog.
February 7th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Brother B’Diddy,
Allow me to answer you question by pointing you to where the question has already been asked and answered. I believe you would call it “original source” material.
Here is the question.
Here is the answer.
Enjoy.
I thought it was a great answer.
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Brother Byron,
You are correct as to his closing. He has a huge deadline to meet.
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Brother CB,
I believe what Brother Wes did was place a huge net up in order to keep the wild geese from flying into the propellers of the plane.
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Brother Chris,
Since my daughter has gone to stay with a friend, my wife and I are getting ready to enjoy the afternoon and evening together.
I do not have time to answer you now, but I promise I will.
Blessings,
Tim
February 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I hope you guys have a great time!
This is far less important!
Blessings,
Crhis
February 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Tim,
What about the time stamps?
cb
February 7th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
In addition to the time stamps, the originating IP addresses of the two comments differ only in the last number, signifying that the persons are on the same network (ISP?), and could even be the same person if a new IP address was assigned from the DHCP server to a modem in that time period. And if I remember correctly, there are only 50 seconds in time difference (about the time it takes to reboot a cable modem?). I have no idea, but I would love to hear an explanation from Wes Kenney, whom I consider a brother in Christ.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I retract that statement concerning the IP addresses due to my uncertainty in correctly interpreting the message sources.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Gentlemen, please hear me on this one. SBC Today’s credibility is being called into question is a direct way. The people doing this are laying out evidence in a very direct (if hostile) way.
I hope you will answer the charges directly, fully, and openly. If there is an explanation of the time stamp thing, I would love to hear it.
If you made mistakes, own them and repent. If you did not, please give the other side of this.
I am not accusing, I am asking. I do not understand what is going on, but it is getting nasty out there.
BTW, I am perfectly okay with my comment being deleted. I am making a personal appeal to you. Once you have read it and heard me, do as pleases you.
Hoping for the best…
February 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
C.B.,
In answer to your first question, yes. though it was intended to be more precise than that. I’m not as smart as I wish I was.
As to your second question, yes. Absolutely. Repeatedly.
February 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Dave, Big Daddy, Byroniac, and anyone else,
In answer to your questions about why SBC Today and others have fallen silent about the whole sad ordeal where accusations were leveled by Enid once again.
Read Titus 3:10-11
David
February 7th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Wes,
Thank you for the answers.
Also, thank you for the call prior to the funeral this afternoon. Those answers too, were reasonable.
As you know, it is in my nature to say; I think we could have handled all the questions. I think the interview was honest. I think Greg Welty’s comments will stand. I think Les Puryear did an excellent job in his seeking answers. I read the email from Thomas White. It is my strong conviction that Thomas White will not cover anything and the answer he gives as he did to Les is a righteous and proper answer. I believe if he could not answer, he would have simply stated such without apology.
I know Dr. Patterson hired Calvinists at SEBTS. I know he has done the same at SWBTS.
I also know that in Wade’s recent post relating to NOBTS he did not have the whole story of what had taken place there. I know that to be a fact.
I do not know the following to be a fact. But I have been associated with four seminaries and more than one SEC entity.
Therefore this is my opinion.
I believe Wade did receive communication from a person he would consider knowledgeable as to the situation at SWBTS. Having no reason to disbelieve his primary source and because he has a well documented mistrust of Dr. Paige Patterson and others, he posted the original post.
Later he found out that the original post was not completely accurate and he changed part of it.
I think he, like many of us, had gone so far with the thing, his ego would not let him back down. Also the Wild Geese who idolize him were most definitely a factor in the play.
Most of those people would not know a theological truth with capability to articulate it sufficiently if it bit them in the butt. Yet, their cheers have engulfed him and his thinking. (in His defense, I must say that is a great temptation for any of us and it has happened more than once to men I love and respect. No need to go into that here. All of you know the stories anyway. And I could really not care less what the Wild Geese know.)
This has been an unfortunate event. Yet, it is becoming more frequent from Enid than in the past. I actually think it would be a good thing for Dr. Patterson to talk to Wade Burleson face-to-face one day. Naturally, there would have to be an assurance Wade would not blog about the meeting later. That, in itself, may not be possible. For it seems Wade is committed to blog about everything related to the SBC. I hope I am wrong.
The bottom line, for me at least, is that we have the best teachers within the SBC right now than at any time in our history.(Yes, we do have a few bad ones, but they are so few they really do not hurt the finished product.) We once had some of the most godless, Bible denying, neo-pagans on earth teaching in SBC institutions. They are gone. (You children can thank the CR for that and be right in doing so)
We are also, as at no time in recent history, facing economic woes in the SBC. We all need to cowboy up and do what we can to help keep the faculties we have.
We are also facing the prince of hell and his minions like never before. We need to preach the gospel like never before and without any compromise and without any regard to personal loss.
That is my opinion. And that is all it is. Just my opinion.
cb
February 7th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
“As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Tit. 3:10-11).
Oh, brother.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Why, Hello Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle.
Since you’re slinging around B-I-B-L-E verses, how about I holla at you with a little Matthew 7:3-5. Someone give me a Boo-Yah.
To make Wes and all other blog posers everywhere feel a little better, I’m here to own up to something. Once (maybe twice), I logged in on my own blog under a false alias to do battle with an aggravating commenter. Sometimes its necessary to give the blog-owner the homefield advantage. I did not change the time stamp though!
February 7th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
volfan007, so a misapplication of Titus 3:10-11 is the strongest defense for your actions? For what it is worth, I believe Wade, and think him to be a man of integrity, and that he determines to do what is right, even if unpopular or personally inconvenient. If I did not, I would consider Titus 3:10-11. I think this is misapplied here because I believe you are accusing Wade in error, and compounding that error with the charge of heretic. However, I could be wrong, and I am open to good explanations and a strong defense. But without that, I am afraid I cannot agree as what I have seen and now heard myself (on the interview) leads me to believe differently. I submit that will all due respect.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Gentlemen,
You guys at SBCToday have been spanked – hard.
David Volfann, you ought to be ashamed. You and your brothers ought to repent of the lies, deceit, and hypocrisy required in falsely accusing a brother in Christ of the very things you so boldly have done for yourselves. Shame on all of you.
This blog and the operators of it have lost complete credibility. I came here to see if there would be an apology for using aliases and changing time stamps when caught.
Instead, I find David accusing those who have exposed your dupliciy of being “heritics.”
Sheeesh
February 7th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Observation, CB,
If we all stated our opinions as “opinions” things would be a lot better.
A big problem in this whole mess is the fact that people have presented their opinions as inarguable facts.
That is on both sides, too.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Pastor Kenny,
Let’s see…you just called SBC Today fellas and myself “hypocrites, liars, and false accusers.” Do you know me? Do you know about this situation first hand? I mean, do you know for 100% sure that everything Wade and the others at his blog said are true? What evidence do we have…except for anonymous sources? Whose stories have been proven false many times, and have been refuted by different people in the know.
So, let’s get all of this straight. You are getting onto to us by using some of the same words and phrases that you allege that we used about Wade? Do you see the hypocrisy in your statement? Do you see that you just got onto us for hunting with a loaded rifle in your hand while wearing camoflauge and having a dead, shot duck in your hand? Do you see this?
David
PS. Titus 3:10-11 is good advice when dealing with people, who just love to stir up trouble and division and strife, who are constantly attacking others, who seem to be just bent on being divisive.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Byroniac,
So, what do you think of me, Wes, Scott Gordon, Peter, Robin, Bart Barber, CB Scott, and Tim Rogers?
David
February 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Tim,
Do you want SB’s who believe in open communion and might want to do missions through the IMB to stay?
If so, then why?
February 7th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Tim,
Would “you” want believers to stay in cooperation with others if it caused them to violate their conscience?
February 8th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Also, I’m not calling anyone a heretic…geeeesh.
I was quoting this verse mainly for what it says…”As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him.”
David
February 8th, 2009 at 12:10 am
volfan007, I think all of you are mistaken on this issue. But I cannot prove it.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Byroniac,
Honest men such as Thomas White and Greg Welty, who work at SWBTS daily, and love Jesus and their families above their jobs, and would not want their families to think they are not honest and godly and who seek to be obedient to Christ have openly stated there is no plan to rid SWBTS of Calvinists.
Wade does not work at SWBTS. He does not have the same firsthand knowledge as do these men. He used secondary sources at best for his post.
Why is it not reasonable to believe White, Welty and others are telling the truth and Wade is mistaken in his rush to judgement?
cb
February 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Tim R
After reading your post and all the comments I wonder why you would want to differ with Pro Nathan Finn and make yourself look foolish?
Wally
February 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You know what’s amazing, and I see this happen often..especially at certain blogs which shall remain nameless…you let one of the so-called BI guys quote a Bible verse, or question someone about their anonymous sources, and the defenders come out of the woodwork calling the BI guys mean and nasty and radical, etc. But, let someone like Pastor Kenny, or Dr. Phil, and others call the BI guys liars, heretics, in need of psychiatric help, or mean, ignorant fundies; and you dont see those guys defending the BI guys, nor do they get onto the “other crowd” for accusations and bad insinuations and out and out name calling. They disappear. It’s almost like they’re glad to see the “BI” guys attacked and called all sorts of stuff. All of a sudden name calling and such is ok.
Interesting, and shows me some things.
David
February 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen (on both sides),
I have not enjoyed reading various SBC-related blogs this past week. I hope and pray that many of you feel the same way. We should not enjoy attacks on individuals, whether we feel like those people deserve it or not.
The blogosphere is a wonderful place to discuss issues if we can maintain civility. We can learn from each other during civil debates on substantive issues. I think that sometimes we believe that if we embarrass someone on the other side, our side wins. Even if we succeed in embarrassing someone, however, the idea that we oppose is not necessarily defeated. The issues with which we are concerned on SBC-related blogs should be related to the exegesis of Scripture. When we leave exegesis behind, we enter an arena that is not our strength. We should exegete Scriptural issues, not other Christians. I am not innocent in this regard; I’ve made my share of mistakes. If we reach the point where we can no longer have a civil discussion with those people with whom we disagree, then we are indeed to be pitied.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Since the post I intended to comment on seems to have closed comments, I’ll leave my comment here and let it be deleted.
It is quite obvious from the interview with Patterson demonstrates that he doesn’t want Calvinists at SWBTS. I don’t have the quote so I will paraphrase what I remember. When he said that SWBTS will not build its ministry around anyone who cannot say to any person on the plant that “Jesus died for you”. No Calvinist could make that statement if they were 5 pointers due to the doctrine of Limited or Definite Attonement. Therefore, while I have no idea if Patterson was planning on firing Calvinists his statement was quite obviously anti-Calvinist.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Joe,
Certainly if you’re looking for a reason to be critical of Dr. Patterson’s intentions, that’s a logical observation. I have, however, had conversations about it with Calvinists who, in light of scripture passages such as 1 John 2, see it not as an anti-Calvinist statement, but as a pro-evangelism statement.
Thanks for your comment.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
wes,
Praying for your Wife and Family
Amen
February 8th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Thank you.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Wes:
Please know that your Brothers and Sisters in Christ here — and elsewhere around the net are praying for you and your wife. The sites from which prayers are being lifted up include at least one with whom you have had differences of late. Despite our family squabbles we love you, Brother!
We pray a swift recovery for your wife and our sister.
In His Service,
-jack-
PS: The anti-spam word is “Kindness.”
February 8th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Thanks…actually I have no prejudice towards Paige and wasn’t looking for a reason to be critical of his statement. I simply took his plain statement and compared it to what I believe as a Calvinist and recognized the fact that he very obviously was saying SWBTS would not be building itself around anyone who would disagree with that statement. As to whether he had meetings with folks and had planned on terminating those on staff who were Calvinists I have no idea. However, you would have to do some impressive linguistic gymnastics to demonstrate that his statement was not anti-Calvinist.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Thank you, Jack.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Dave Miller,
I defend your right to keep that wonderful Gravatar picture next to your name!
Sola Gratia!
February 9th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Finally, someone in blogdom with class!!
February 9th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
David,
I’ve noticed that it works astonishingly well both ways. I know that we took a lot of flack at SBC Outpost from some of you guys over anonymity issues yet when they are your personal friends (John 3:16, for example), they seem to get a free pass – and even your defense here.
Inconsistency has no party affiliation.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Paul,
At least the anonymous person in this case just asked that this talk be stopped… he wasnt calling people names and falsely accusing people and ridiculing people.
David
February 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Well, let’s see…John 3:16 has called people who believe the Bible advocates open communion as ecumenicalists – which is generally meant in an unflattering way, if not a slur, he has implied that open communion advocates are angry and pack guns (yeah, I know, it’s a joke. But most jokes are at someone else’s expense, as is this one) and he suggests David Rogers is more concerned with “smooth words” than with integrity.
Yes, I’d say that guy’s a regular Barnabas of encouragement. But hey, you keep on defending all of that. It just continues to make your own point, it seems to me.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Paul,
You are extremely precise, which, of course always makes your blade so very sharp in these little set-tos. Therefore, my question.
Did J3:16 really say David Rogers was more concerned about smooth words than integrity>
cb
February 9th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
John 3:16
February 6th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
David,
You seem to care more about being nice than being biblical. So be it. God is glorified by speaking biblical truth, not by speaking smooth words.
It seems he questioned David’s commitment to truth, not his integrity, though the two are somewhat intertwined.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Brother Wally,
After reading your post and all the comments I wonder why you would want to differ with Pro Nathan Finn and make yourself look foolish?
Probably due to the fact that I naively thought people would debate the issues.
I would also encourage you to commit to memory 1 Corinthians 1:27.
Blessings,
Tim
February 9th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Dave,
OK. I can see why you would say that when you compare J3:16 to what Paul’s interpretation is.
And that may be why Paul stated it as he did. For Paul never misses on a quote. That is one reason one has to duel with him with great care. He is a proven master.
Now let us examine it J3:16 actually said it.
No one seems to be questioning david as to his truthfulness or to his belief of Scripture. The thrust of J3:16’s statement seems to be that David is overly concerned about being nice.
J3:16 is saying it is far more needful to speak biblical truth than to be concerned if those who do not adhere to biblical truth think us to be nice.
It seems that the highest of Christian character to many is to be nice and above all things tolerant.
Yet, it must be remembered that to be nice and tolerant is not sufficient to relate the truth of God that will change the soul of a man. It is only the truth from the Word of God that will be useful to the Spirit in the changing the souls of men.
I think that is what J3:16 was presenting to David. If I am wrong I would seek for J3:16 to tell me so. If I am not wrong I would seek David to see the admonition as proper and to be earnestly considered.
cb
February 9th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
CB,
If you go back and read comment #9, you will see that John 3:16 also used the “integrity” word, insinuating that I (or, at least, my position and/or actions) am lacking in it. But, in the big scheme of things, that is beside the point. John 3:16 is just one person. And one person whose name we don’t even know. If he (or she) wants to post anonymously, that is his (or her) prerogative. I was just pointing out that he (or she) loses credibility by doing so.
In any case, whatever John 3:16 actually meant to communicate, my point all along has been that my “modified open communion” position has nothing to do with capitulation, being “nice,” or tolerance, but rather with my best efforts to be faithful to the teaching of Scripture as I understand it. I believe Christian unity, and the practical application of it in such things as our observance of the Lord’s Supper, is a doctrinal matter. It is, in the grand scheme of things (at least as I understand it) one of the most important and emphasized doctrines of the New Testament, yet sadly under-emphasized, misinterpreted, and even distorted, in certain Baptist circles today.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
David,
You are correct. J3:16 did use the word integrity. Yet, it was in the following context:
“Personally, if I thought the SBC was not biblically correct, I would leave it. Not saying that you should, but saying that I would, out of a sense of personal integrity.”
That context does reveal a different idea than what Paul presented, in my opinion.
Now, you are also correct relating to unity being is “one of the most and emphasized doctrines of the New Testament….”
I agree with you. But that is also correct only in context. That context is to have unity in accord with the plain teachings of Scripture.
If unity cannot be achieved in accord with the Scripture, then we are admonished by the same One God to contend for the faith.
David, obedience is better than sacrifice. We must never sacrifice obedience to the Word for unity. For without obedience to the Word, our unity will diminish to chaos as it did in the years prior to the rising of your father, along with many others, to restore unity based upon obedience to the Word of God.
cb
February 10th, 2009 at 12:04 am
CB,
To me, the clear implication of 3:16’s statement is that, if his/her integrity would lead him/her to leave the SBC, I must have a lesser degree of integrity if I do not leave.
I agree with you that unity must be “in accord with the plain teachings of Scripture.” Where we perhaps do not agree is on whether or not “closed communion” is a “plain teaching of Scripture.” Personally, I think the so-called Scriptural argument in favor of “closed communion” is convoluted, and based upon 2+2=5 types of assumptions, and not anything close to “plain teaching.”
If you can show me where the Scripture “plainly teaches” closed communion, though, I will be all ears.
I desire nothing more than to be consistently obedient to the Word of God. That, at the core, IS the issue, for me. I believe that when we divide the Body of Christ over issues that are biblically unwarranted, we are being disobedient to the Word of God.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:19 am
CB,
I can’t add a whole lot to what Dave Miller and David Rogers have said just above. I (knowingly) conflated the two quotes(the one Dave Miller addresses and the one David Rogers addresses) because I think they are related. John 3:16 did contrast smooth words and biblical faithfulness, as if they were, in David’s case, exclusive of one another. If that’s not what he meant he at the least left it out there for such a conclusion to be drawn. You and I and everyone else around here know that such an accusation could be made about many in blogdom, but least of all about David Rogers.
Regarding integrity I take John 3:16 to believe that what he would do, out of integrity, is what any person with integrity would do, whether he prescribes the action specifically for David Rogers or not. I don’t remember who said it (probably Ghandi or the Buddah or someone like that): act in such a way that what you do could be a universal rule for all.
Now, if she would like to come clear all of this up that would be fine. I’m just telling you how it sounds on this side of the monitor. At the risk of being called a wild goose, I’ll simply say that when Wade says what he says and says that he’s not attacking people but dealing with issues and others holler that he’s attacking people then perhaps you can understand how David volfan can say John 3:16 is just standing for the truth as she sees it and I can say that it sure sounds a lot like what so many on David volfan’s side of the aisle have been complaining of when it isn’t one of their friends.
Surely we can acknowledge that we all struggle with inconsistency in this area.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:25 am
David,
I recently said over at Wade’s place that I considered you to be one of the few truly humble blogger in Blogtown. I meant that.
I accept your understanding of J3:16’s comment. I shared with you mine.
You and I have argued the tenets of ecclesiology more than once. I think you will agree to that. I also think you will also agree we came to an impasse and left it there.
I also believe you seek with all your being to be obedient to the Word of God. I think you might believe me to be of the same desire.
Thus far the conclusions to which we have arrived has separated us relating to ecclesiology. I know my position will not change. I seriously doubt yours will.
Therein, is our impasse.
Yet, I still believe you to be a truly humble guy and I respect you for it. And we both know I am not so very humble.
But< I will be glad to buy your lunch one day and try again, face-to-face to share with you what I believe to be a biblical ecclesiology.
I trust you consider this to be one of our more peaceful set-tos. And with that I say Good-night, David.
cb
February 10th, 2009 at 12:25 am
CB,
David Rogers posted his last comment as I was typing mine and I missed it, so I’ll just second what he said and go back to listening to Stevie Ray Vaughan on my iPod.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Paul,
You Ole Sword Fighter, you.
I just love Stevie Ray:-)
Good-night to you also.
cb
February 10th, 2009 at 1:58 am
‘Will the real ‘John 3:16’ stand up?’
Believing Dr. Phil’s humor, I set out to prove that ‘John 3:16’ was Wes Kidney by reading all the 109 comments of SBC Today post of February 5.
The fourteen comments about ‘John 3:16” or by ‘John 3:16 were by David Rogers, Tim Rogers, and Benji Ramsaur.
David Rogers asked ‘John 3:16’: “Who are you?”
Tim Rogers replied: “‘John 3:16’ is my friend.”
‘John 3:16’ said: “I am a voice crying in the wilderness…close friend of Tim Rogers.” And another comment was: “Didn’t my bud Tim say this to you?”
‘John 3:16’ last comment is below:
John 3:16
February 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Benji,
The history books say that the seminaries were not following the church’s confession. That is what the conservative reformation was about, at least that is what the history books say. Why should the people in the churches leave when the seminaries needed to change back to what they should have been teaching?
Sorry, Tim, this is getting boring. I might check in later.
All this time, I’m thinking ‘John 3:16’ is Wes Kidney, but the reply by Benji Ramsaur threw my thinking out the window:
Benji Ramsaur
February 6th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
John 3:16,
Aw man [if you are a male--I'm really not sure], don’t leave the party.
Sorry we are boring to you. I better spice things up before you come back and give that “shut down the comment stream” speech to ole Wes.
So it looks like:
1. Benji called Wes to “shut down the comment stream”.
2. Wes asked him to write an email requesting to shut it down.
3. Wes posted the email and signed ‘John 3:16’ to ‘protect’ Benji.
4. After replying “Granted” less than a minute later, he realized people would think he was ‘John 3:16’.
5. If Wes had not panicked, he would have deleted “Granted’ and posted it later.
6. But he went the route he did, and proved the old saying, “What a tangle web we weave when we set out to deceive” or something like that.
7. I believe Wes was trying to convey truth by telling untruth. If he was as old as me, he’d relate to Digger Odell, the friendly undertaker, saying: “What a revolting development that turned out to be!”
Wes, I hope all is well with your wife. Several years ago, back surgery helped my wife of 52 years, but she walks with a cane
Tue Feb 10, 02:47:00 AM 2009
February 10th, 2009 at 8:36 am
CB,
Now this comment thread has really gotten out of hand. I will probably one day be called to account for what you are saying about me. Really, all the “nice” and “humble” bit is just my blog persona, not the real me. Just ask my wife, if you want to know the truth.
And, to top it off, you had to go and get my name in the mix over at Wade’e blog. Now, I’ll have to go and read the comment thread, and I won’t be able to tell Robin anymore that I don’t do that.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Aw Rex, ya had to drag me into this.
Or did you?
Take Care,
Benji[?]
P.S. Roof! Roof!
February 10th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
February 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Tim said,
Brother Wally,
After reading your post and all the comments I wonder why you would want to differ with Pro Nathan Finn and make yourself look foolish?
Probably due to the fact that I naively thought people would debate the issues.
WHAT ISSUES?
WALLY
T
Tim said,
I would also encourage you to commit to memory 1 Corinthians 1:27
Tim, I would encourage you to read all of 1 Corinthians 1 and these other Bible verses also.
1 Cor. 1:27 God chose what is weak . . . to shame the strong. The themes of the lifting up of the downtrodden and the reversal of human status are prophesied in the OT (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:1–8; Isa. 61:1; cf. Luke 1:52; John 9:39).
TIM WHAT ISSUES
WALLY
February 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Rex Ray said:
February 10th, 2009 at 1:58 am
‘Will the real ‘John 3:16’ stand up?’
Believing Dr. Phil’s humor, I set out to prove that ‘John 3:16’ was Wes Kidney by reading all the 109 comments of SBC Today post of February 5.
Rex
I believe you are wrong, if it isn’t wes Kenney then it has to be one of those giving direction from SWBTS
Dr Paige, Dr White or Dr Malcolm.
Rex, for you fussiness you might want to consult with the Good Dr Phil.
Wally
February 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Wally,
You need to identify yourself before you begin trying to identify another “anonymous” commenter.
If you would like to discuss the issues, ok. However, when you (as an anonymous person) begin calling into question another anonymous person you have crossed the line.
You are wrong on your guesses. SWBTS nor any other entity controls this blog. SBC Today is committed to restoring unity by calling us back to Baptist Identity. You and those that are calling us away from our Baptist Identity are the ones destroying unity within the convention.
Blessings,
Tim
February 10th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“You and those that are calling us away from our Baptist Identity are the ones destroying unity within the convention.”
Baptist Identity as defined by you? To dissent from your version of Baptist Identity is to destroy the unity of the convention? Did you really want to claim that agreeing with your position is the source of disunity?
That’s a pretty strong statement. It makes me very nervous when I hear statements like that.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I understand that Wes has spoken about who John 3:16 is in the “other” comment stream.
I’d like to know who John 3:16 is in “this” comment stream.
Wes, Tim, or anyone else like to comment on this matter?
February 10th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
A source told me that the original Villa Rica is J:3:16
February 10th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Tim,
Please forgive me, as I am new to this blogging. I have been all over these blogs and reading what has happened within the SBC in the past and it sure is revealing what has been going on. This Rex fellow seems to have a good handle on all of this. By the way did you see my comment to you above?
Wally
February 10th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Tim Rogers,
It is possible to create and maintain artificial unity in doctrinal distinctives. But true unity will always be found in Christ. As for the convention, I do not consider myself part of it any more (except technically by church membership, and even then, our church is minimally SBC at best), so I am not trying to call people away from Baptist Identity (whatever that is). I am just trying to make a point. I understand you seek to serve and worship Christ, just please remember He came first before any man-made inventions such as denominations.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
G’day Dave,
I guess there are some things that are “doctrines” that make us baptists by conviction.
The soul liberty of the individual and therefore the individual’s responsibility to repent and be converted to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Believers’ baptism as an expression of that faith in the Lord jesus Christ.
Flowing from these beliefs, the belief that the church is the gathered community of like minded believers, and therefore each church is autonomous, and each church is to be congregationally governed.
This matter therefore naturally includes the concept of the priestood of believers in their lives of worship and service in the local church.
In a nutshell these ideas are our Baptist distinctives, and provide an understanding of our church practises. Among Baptists, we divide over other doctrinal issues (free will baptists, particular and general baptists etc etc).
As someone from outside the SBC, these Baptist distinctives do mark us out in our common practises.
We may dispute whether some Baptists are christians or not, but those holding such practises are definitely baptists. Neither SBC TOday nor anybody else has defined these beliefs, hsitorically they just are, (or for southerners ‘they is’).
Pray for us with our bushfires.. many are suffering.
Every Blessing
Steve
February 11th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Byroniac,
Baptist identity is Biblical identity. You wanna know what Baptist identity is..it’s salvation by grace thru faith; it’s baptism of Believers only by immersion only; it’s eternal security of the Believer; it’s the Lord’s Supper taken by Believers only who have been baptised; it’s believe in God’s Word as the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God; it’s taking the Gospel to the world; it’s the priesthood of Believers; it’s the autonomy of the local Church….
That’s what Baptist identity is…it’s Biblical identity.
Which of those do you have a problem with?
David
February 11th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Baptist identity is Biblical identity. You wanna know what Baptist identity is..it’s salvation by grace thru faith; it’s baptism of Believers only by immersion only; it’s eternal security of the Believer; it’s the Lord’s Supper taken by Believers only who have been baptised; it’s believe in God’s Word as the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God; it’s taking the Gospel to the world; it’s the priesthood of Believers; it’s the autonomy of the local Church….
Dave,
That’s what Baptist identity is…it’s Biblical identity.
Which of those do you have a problem with?
David
February 11th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Wally,
Rex has a good handle on this? Are you serious?
You really need to talk to CB a little more.
David
February 11th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Steve,
Good word.
Hope the fires are staying way, way, way from you, Brother.
BTW, we’re all doin’ good down here in the South. Hope to see yall come down here sometime, Steve.
Yall take care now, ya hear?
David
February 11th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Volfan007,
I understand where you are coming from, and I used to be there too. It is very easy to conflate Baptist with Christian especially when you are at a point where everything Baptist seems Biblical and you are infatuated with all things Baptist, as I was. I could just say no in response to what you wrote, but I will just say that some do not agree with you.
Acts 11:26b
“And the disciples were called Baptists first in Antioch.”
Just remember what the verse actually says!
February 11th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Brother Steve,
From what I read from your interactions on the blogs, and on your website over the year, you are definitely an encouragement as a brother in Christ.
When you gave the list of things that are “Baptist” distinctives though, it appears to me that some are really biblical distinctives that Baptist’s may have adopted or may have redefined to fit a system.
For instance,
1. Baptism is a biblical distinctive, not a Baptist one.
2. I would beg to differ with you on soul liberty…. It may be a Baptist distinctive to think somewhat along the lines of freedom of the soul, but the biblical distinctive is that we are slaves….and slaves are not as free as many have been taught to think….there is a difference in being purchased vs. accepting (individual’s responsibility). Slaves do not choose to be slaves, in other words. God chooses, we don’t. We obey.
3. The biblical distinctive for baptism is identification with Christ Jesus. It is primary as identification with Him and the Holy Spirit. An “expression of faith” may be too vague when describing baptism. Baptism is not “the good confession” for instance (that would be Jesus is Lord / King), but it is “a” confession as a believer identifies with Christ alone and the person of the Holy Spirit.
4. Autonomy is not a biblical distinctive, but it has become a Baptist distinctive and in some cases has worked against the various church that demands autonomy in their unbiblical practices. Autonomy is a nice word I think to express that we can get back as a local church to the precepts of our King, but it has been used for other distinctive reasons.
5. Congregational submission in the church is a biblical distinctive, not a Baptist one. Every believer, since the church was called out to gather locally in the power of the Spirit is responsible to recognize its qualified leaders and servants to carry out the ministry to the glory of God.
So, I think it is important not to get too excited about what some perceive as Baptist distinctives, but we should remain focused on biblical truth. Again, from the past blogs, I realize you do love the Lord and the work of His church,….so I hear where your coming from,…. but we shouldn’t confuse biblical with Baptist, nor think they are necessarily the same.
Blessings,
Chris
February 11th, 2009 at 11:15 am
David
From what I have read on these blogs, it seems this CB Scott fellow and Villa Rica are one and the same. The hurrahs comments and insults by this CB are not Christ like coming from a pastor, so there is no way he can be John 3:16. I think he would be a good candidate for Dr Phil.
Wally
February 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Chris
Very good observation of what seems to be one of the problems with this Baptist Identity thing a jig.
2 Peter has something to say about this.
The apostle Paul also wrote to these same readers at some point prior to the composition of 2 Peter, and apparently the false teachers of ch. 2 used a twisted version of Paul’s gospel of freedom (see 2:19; also Rom. 8:1–5; 2 Cor. 3:1–18; Gal. 5:1–6) to entice some of them into sin.
2 Pet. 3:16 In all his letters shows awareness of some kind of collection of Paul’s letters, with the number unspecified here. Some things . . . hard to understand does not say that everything in Paul’s letters is hard to understand, nor does it say that anything is “impossible to understand,” but it does imply that correctly interpreting some hard passages of Scripture requires much effort and God-given wisdom. The ignorant and unstable twist Paul’s teachings as they do the other Scriptures, implying that Paul’s writings were also considered Scripture in NT times, on the same level of divine authority as the OT Scripture. Greek graphē, here translated “Scriptures,” occurs 51 times in the NT, and every time it refers to the canonical OT Scripture, and not to any other writings, except that twice (here and 1 Tim. 5:18) some NT writings are also included. This indicates that NT books written or authorized by Christ’s apostles were recognized, at a very early date, to be God’s Word.
2 Pet. 3:17–18 Concerning the Proper Response to Paul’s Teaching. The fourth use of beloved in ch. 3 (cf. vv. 1, 8, 14). knowing this beforehand. The readers now know, if they did not know previously, that the false teachers are distorting Paul’s teaching. Paul advocates neither sin nor lawlessness, so they should take care not to be carried away by the false teaching, even if it appeals to Paul as the authority. They should not lose their own stability by following after a false interpretation of Paul; rather, they should cultivate stability through Christian growth, especially growing in Christ’s grace (Gk. charis, “favor, esp. unmerited favor”) and knowledge (Gk. gnōsis).
Wally
February 11th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Byron,
You seem to be missing what I’m saying entirely. I asked you what distinctive, Baptist doctrines…which I mentioned…would you say are not Biblical doctrines?
David
February 11th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
So, Wally, again, in English, let me ask you….
Baptist identity is Biblical identity. You wanna know what Baptist identity is..it’s salvation by grace thru faith; it’s baptism of Believers only by immersion only; it’s eternal security of the Believer; it’s the Lord’s Supper taken by Believers only who have been baptised; it’s believe in God’s Word as the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God; it’s taking the Gospel to the world; it’s the priesthood of Believers; it’s the autonomy of the local Church….
That’s what Baptist identity is…it’s Biblical identity. So, why wouldnt we be concerned with sound, Biblical teachings..understanding the Scripture in the best way…which is Baptist identity.
David
February 11th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Volfie
Dont forget, it is also – the Baptizer is as important as the one being Baptized, it is no PPL it is no alcoholic beverages (though big meals and cigarettes are ok). Remind me if 5 pointers are ok in BI land – I havent figured that one out yet. Women deacons may be ok (nothing in the BFM 2000 against them – but of course it is a minimal document), but no women history professors or hebrew professors – and forget about women pastors (how about women youth or education ministers?) I guess women childrens ministers are ok, but even they have to teach their volunteer leaders, some of whom may be men – so that gets touchy.
Almost forgot – we have to be careful about how we share our faith, anything that smacks of the camel or uses words that SBCers south of the mason dixon line dont use may throw us out of BI land as well.
Thats what I come up with from reading our various BI posts of the past year or so – did I miss any?
Jim
February 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Volfan007:
I’m not missing you at all. I used to stand exactly where you are now. I no longer believe that Baptist and Biblical are synonyms (in every extent, though I remain Baptistic). I don’t know if I’m right or not, but some of the things you slap the label “Baptist” on were believed by Christians before any critter known as “Baptist” existed. I won’t argue with you whether your so-called Baptist Identity is Biblical or not. I believe you will follow the Bible as honestly and carefully as you can, and that is sufficient for me.
BTW, I would have replied to your reply above, but that option was not available.
Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Steve,
I agree that there are Fundamental Doctrines of the Faith, and then there are Baptist Distinctives. All biblical Christianity embraces the Fundamental Doctrines such as Divine Inspiration of the Bible, Virgin Birth, Christ’s Sacrificial Death and Resurrection.
Baptist Distinctives are the doctrines that define us as Baptists. They set us apart from other Christians. Baptist Distinctives are biblical, though not necessarily fundamental or basic Christian doctrine. In other words, you can be a Christian and not believe in the Baptist Distinctive Doctrines, but they are important to being a Baptist.
Some other groups or denominations may agree with us on some of the Baptist Distinctive Doctrines. One or two groups may agree with us on all of them. They are the ones that I believe are Baptist and just don’t know it J.
Examples of Baptist Distinctives would include local church autonomy, believer’s baptism by immersion, religious liberty, a saved church membership, symbolism of the elements in the Lord’s Supper, etc.
Praying for you guys in Australia.
David R. Brumbelow
February 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
it’s believe in God’s Word as the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God
David: Other denominations believe this too, and possibly put it in reality, aka practice it, more than we Baptists do. This is not just a Baptist distinctive. I would refer to Chris Johnson’s post, that hit on some really well thought out points.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Byroniac,
The point is…these are distinctives that we hold dear as Baptists! Yet, they are also Biblical! That’s why we hold to these teachings.
Assembly of God and other Pentecostal types dont hold to the eternal security of the Believer. But, we, as SB’s do!
The Methodists and the Presbyterians dont hold to correct views of baptism(paedobaptism and sprinkling), but we SB’s do!
So, when you quote Acts 11:26, you’re acting as if we’d rather be called Baptists than Christians, and that’s ridiculous to even say. But, we are the Baptist kind of Christian, which we believe is more close to the Scriptures than any other kind.
David
February 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
David Brumbelow,
As usual, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Excellent comment and excellent insight in comment #57.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Brother Vol,
I do agree with David B. as well. There are Baptist distinctives….but some of what Baptist’s have coined as their own are simply Christian distinctives. He is right to say that other denominations have adopted biblical distinctives as well that are much in line with Baptists.
Of those David has attributed, the Christian distinctive would be:
• Baptism by immersion
• Religious liberty
• The Lord’s supper
Baptist Distinctive could include:
• A saved church membership (as if there is any other option, since those that Christ has adopted are saved), but I think I do understand what goal is trying to be obtained.
• Local church autonomy,… which is defined and acted out in many different ways.
Blessings,
Chris
February 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Debbie,
I believe the Baptist Distinctive Doctrines are also true and biblical. Of course, the argument then becomes, which doctrines are important Baptist Distinctives and which ones are not? Southern Baptists as a convention, however, do a pretty good job conveying those distinctives.
I’m not sure of the purpose of your reference to inerrancy, but, I believe the Bible is divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible, truth without any mixture of error, totally true and trustworthy.
David 007, Thanks. Sometimes I hit the nail, sometimes I hit my thumb
.
David R. Brumbelow
February 11th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Chris,
I think we mainly agree. Some difference is just the way we might word certain issues.
I would not list baptism by immersion, religious liberty, and symbolism of the elements of the Lord’s Supper as Christian distinctives, rather Baptist Distinctives. You can be a Christian and not believe them. Baptists, however, have been known for them. Just because another group steals one of our distinctive doctrines, doesn’t mean it isn’t one of ours
. Of course, those doctrines come from the Bible, as well as the fundamental, basic Christian doctrines.
I believe a saved church membership is a Baptist Distinctive. When modern day Baptists were forming and growing, the common practice was for you to automatically be a member of the state church. We were automatically baptized as a baby. Baptists said, no, you need to be saved and baptized to be a part of our church. Anyway, that’s the way I look at it.
David R. Brumbelow
February 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Would any of you agree that although baptistic theology is not perfect; it is closer to a biblical theology than any other theology among current Christian theologies?
cb
February 11th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
David,
In John 17:21, when Jesus prayed that His followers might be one, do you think He was just praying for Baptists? Or do you perhaps think He was praying that they would all become Baptists?
If we are to be one together with Assembly of God and other Pentecostal types, and Methodists, and Presbyterians (I am assuming you will agree with me on this), then what do you think this oneness entails?
I will grant that it perhaps does not necessarily mean always teaching together on the same denominationally-funded seminary faculties, or planting the same denominationally-funded local congregations.
But, what I am interested to hear from you is what, besides these things, do you think it means?
February 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
CB,
“Baptistic Theology” is a term that may imply a number of different things. Just as “dispensational theology” may imply different things, or “reformed theology,” etc.
As I understand it, most people would use the term “baptistic theology” in distinction from generally “evangelical theology” to refer to specific views of ecclesiology. It is not necessarily opposed to “evangelical theology,” but rather, a smaller subset of “evangelical theology.” At least, sometimes. Because, there are also “Baptists” who are not necessarily “evangelical” in their basic convictions.
For me, basic “evangelical” convictions are more important than “baptistic” convictions. I can more easily fellowship and cooperate together with truly evangelical, non-baptistic brothers and sisters, than I can with non-evangelical, yet baptistic, individuals.
Having said all that, my personal views of ecclesiology could be described as generally “baptistic” (though you might beg to differ). So, in my fallible opinion, in a general way, I do believe “baptistic ecclesiology” to be more biblical than other “competing” ecclesiologies. However, that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that, as Baptists, we are beyond the need for further reform and application of the truths of Scripture, in the areas of ecclesiology, and, perhaps, some other areas. Semper reformanda.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
David R
You make the fallacy of removing that text straight from its context. Oneness comes from being sanctified in the Word. True oneness in Christ does not only come from trying to be one with each other because Jesus commanded it. It comes from the Word making us into Jesus’ image. It is a process that supernaturally happens in submission to God’s Word.
No one is advocating total separation from any other group that proclaims Christ. But when a group believes differently than we do on essential doctrines that bring us together as a church, then we must adhere ourselves to God’s true Word.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
David,
We both know I will beg to differ in relation to ecclesiology with you. It was and still is the reason I couched my question be the reference “baptistic theology” I actually used the term “baptistic” rather than Baptist to give some wiggle room for those among us (you, my brother) who would vary to some degree on matters of ecclesiology, soteriology and eschatology.
Therefore, David, with this commentary added to my question I will let it stand and continue to seek answers.
cb
February 11th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Robin,
You make an interesting, thoughtful observation here.
I am well aware of the context of the passage, and of the need to be sanctified in the truth, which is the word of God. And, I agree that, as each of us, as God’s children, and Christ’s disciples, abide in God’s Word, and adjust our lives according to what it says, we will grow closer to one another, as we grow closer to Jesus.
I also realize you, and David W., and others are not advocating “total separation” from other Christian groups. I hope you also realize I am not advocating “ecumenism” in the traditional sense of the word. I think that, between the two extremes (or characterizations of each others’ positions), there are various other mediating positions.
What I asked David W., I will ask you as well. In what ways, specifically, do you believe we are to practice unity with other true believers who may differ with us on this secondary doctrine or that tertiary practice? What was Jesus praying for, when He prayed that we might be one? Was He praying that we all might walk in lock-step agreement on every minute doctrinal detail? Or was He praying for something else?
February 11th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
CB,
Fair enough. Though we may not have any real difference on soteriology or eschatology. I don’t know enough about what you believe in these areas, to be sure quite yet.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
David,
I will give you the exact, time, place and way of the end of time after I get back from church.
cb
February 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
David R
I am glad you brought up the word “ecumenism.” My next post will focus on that subject in the SBC.
I consider church organization and practice (regenerate baptized membership only, Lord’s Supper, Baptism, congregationalism) a secondary issue. First order issues are what makes us Christian, while secondary issues makes us particularly Baptist. This is what Dr. Mohler presented in his theological triage. Therefore if I was starting a church, I would seek a BF&M confessional Southern Baptist with which to do so. On the other hand, I would have no issue with showing the Jesus film, working on a moral issue, or helping the needy of my community with those who I only find agreement on first tier issues. Yet, for planting a church, I would have to find someone of like faith concerning ecclesiology. To do so otherwise would create either compromise or conflict which would not facilitate a healthy church.
I am not asking that we work together and agree on every minute detail. I would plant a church with an amillennialist, a Calvinist (5 or 4 pointer), a non-Calvinist, or even a progressive dispensationalist.
I believe Jesus was praying that we would be one under the transforming power of His Word. As the Word transforms us, we will become one in passion, belief, and mission.
What do you think for which Jesus was praying? What are you willing to accept as tertiary and where do you draw the line concerning church planting?
February 11th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I have to leave the conversation for now. My laptop is having a repair and I am leaving the office after a long day that started at 3:30a in Jacksonville FL this morning.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Robin,
I cannot find anything I really disagree with in paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 of your 9:18 pm reply.
As to the answers to your questions:
#1. I believe Jesus was praying that all those who are truly His would recognize one another as brothers and sisters, treat each other with agape love, and practice the various “one another” exhortations of the NT in a godly and consistent manner with each other. This would involve making an effort to get to know one another (to the degree it is realistically possible), praying for one another, encouraging one another, blessing one another, etc.
#2. The question of tertiary matters and church planting is a bit complex. I have previously written about these matters on the following posts. If you have any specific questions regarding details or interpretations, I will be happy to respond.
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/milking-triage.html
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/milking-triage-even-further.html
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/getting-every-last-drop-out-of-triage.html
February 11th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Priesthood of the Believer Defines Baptists Differences November 24, 2003 by Marv Knox but his 1000 words in the Baptist Standard were reduced to 250 by Rex
Since Adam and Eve, all people are sinners. Each person is born with a soul that relates him directly to God. We have a free will, to accept or reject God’s love. No one needs a human go-between but is a priest who can approach God with needs and repentance.
The easy half of individual priesthood is privilege. Who wouldn’t feel proud to relate directly to God? The other half is responsibility. The emphasis that different Baptists place on responsibility is what divides Baptists.
Some emphasize that “me and Jesus” are sufficient to make all decisions. They discount the value of the Christian community by being the Lone Ranger who rides off alone with God.
Fundamentalists assume Christians will take advantage of Jesus’ goodwill and ignore responsibility. They think that signing a paper of doctrine will insure responsibility. Instead of their theological wall preventing sin from entering, it captures those within.
Nicked-named moderates or real conservatives believe both extremes miss the mark. We exist in a community of believers, and we’re to serve and be accountable to them as Hebrews 10:25 “Not forsaking our own assembling together…but encouraging one another.” Christ makes Christians new creatures and the Holy Spirit teaches and guides more than any theological wall of laws.
Confessions of faith may be theologically accurate, but if they are coerced, they become creeds that imprison souls and deny spiritual freedom.
Rex
February 12th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Notice to blog moderators:
My answer to Robin is in comment moderation. This is probably because I included 3 links. I thought they were helpful to answer his questions to me.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Rex you might look at comment # 47.
Walley
February 12th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Thank you David B that was a well thought through explanation. Chris, it would probably be appropriate to use the term freedom of conscience rather than soul liberty as it probably more directly impacts on the historical scenario that made this a baptist distinctive. I grew up as a nominal episcoplaian where the episcoplaian and catholic churches were by early land grants the “established” churches supported by governments. Baptists as “free” churches constituted less than 1% of the population, and through this conviction of liberty of conscience, rejected the land grants to preserve the disestablishment of all churches from government “favour”. While we may seem distant from these historical debates, we preserve those baptist distinctives for the sake of those who suffer under regimes that oppress free churches such as in Russia or Ethiopia, and to encourage those free churches that do not receive government support such as in Greece.
Steve
February 12th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Dave Miller,
I was cleaning the car and found an old ‘love letter’. It said:
“Rex Ray, are you dodging me? I would like to think my erudite logic so overwhelmed you that you decided there was no way you could respond! I am waiting like a maiden at the dance for your response. February 18, 2008”
It’s almost our anniversary, but has our ‘love’ faded so quickly? I had hoped we would have enjoyed ‘chewing’ on each other much longer.
Your going away without saying goodbye, saddens my heart. I thought you would have at least given me a little dig on this post.:)
February 12th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Wally,
The # 47 comment tells me to consult the Good Dr. Phil. ??
Your # 50 comment got you in trouble with another friend of mine, Volfan 007.
You better watch what you say around here as it seems ‘freedom of speech’ is limited since I saw two of my ‘best’ comments (my opinion) disappear with no explanation.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Wally,
You are without a clue.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:58 am
R.Duke,
PLease stay off of my computer.
Sorry Wally.
cb
February 12th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Yes Sir!!!
February 12th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Brother David,
That’s a good point. I think our wording is somewhat different, but all in all we agree. Thanks for the explanation!
Blessings,
Chris
February 12th, 2009 at 9:49 am
CB,
David
February 12th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Vol,
You know how it is. A kid get a little older and comes to visit and thinks he can do as he pleases around your house.
I do hope Wally was not offended. I guess time will tell.
cb
February 12th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Vol,
I am sorry. That was not Ronnie Duke. That was me. I forgot to remove his name.
I think I am going to send that kid back home sooner than planned.
Do you remember when he was here before and threw up all over Tim Rogers and Tim had to go in the hospital?
That was a bad day. But, you have to admit; It was kinda funny.
cb
February 12th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Volfan007,
I am sorry for not responding to you sooner. David Rogers and Chris Johnson said everything I wanted to say (and more than I knew to say). On the other hand, David Brumbelow’s comment 57 was excellent. I have learned from this discussion, but I have not finished reading all of it, and I hope to do so later.
I also understand (I think) where Rex Ray is coming from.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Rex
Yes this seem to be a hotbed for comments going away and time stamps being changed.
These fellows Ronnie Duke Cb scott and vol seem to know their way around. I havn’t seen thhis ronnie duke fellow on other blogs. Maybe he will visit my bkog for the saad news on the death pf my good friend.
Wally