What is Baptist Identity?
Posted byTo be honest, I cannot answer that question fully. In fact, our movement is varied among people who do differ on tertiary issues, but believe (according to Dr. Mohler’s theological triage) secondary issues that define us as Southern Baptists do matter in areas of planting churches. With all that said, while I don’t believe I can fully define this movement, I do know what the Baptist Identity movement is not. It is not any one person or web site. So, for those who may try to define it as either SBC Today, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS), Peter Lumpkins, Bart Barber, or any other array of persons individually or entities corporately, they will find that strategy lacking.
Also, the Baptist Identity movement is not anti-Calvinism. If that was the case, SBC Today would not have a five pointer (Scott Gordon) or a four pointer (Robin Foster) as resource managers. I might also add that SWBTS has more Calvinists on staff today than when I graduated with an MDiv in 2002. In fact, when I was a student at SWBTS, Calvinism was routinely treated as the wicked stepchild of the SBC by some of the professors. While I might step out on a limb here, I do believe that Baptist Identity is anti hyper – Calvinism which diminishes the proclamation of the gospel to all people everywhere.
In general within the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist Identity movement adheres to the confessional statement of faith for Southern Baptists, the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M). Also, there is a vision that many have adopted for Baptists called, “The Fifth Century Initiative” (FCI). In this FCI there is a clear vision of directives that made Southern Baptists a viable conduit of God’s grace since 1845. It is a call to once again focus on those directives so that the Glory of God can shine in a new and magnificent way as we begin this fifth century as Baptists.
What about the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR)? I believe that most if not all who are part of the Baptist Identity movement are primed and ready for any movement that enables the Great Commission to be accomplished in ways to reach the most people with the Gospel and build New Testament churches around the world. In fact the FCI has a section that deals with the Great Commission:
The Pursuit of the Great Commission: New Testament congregations are a construct universally relevant to all people, cultures, and ages. Southern Baptist congregations must visit afresh the Divine imperative to reproduce themselves throughout the world, embracing new opportunities to engage the task with greater vigor than ever before.
The goal of any GCR should be to help birth self perpetuating churches that engage in the global effort of the GCR. I personally appreciate Dr. Danny Akin for initiating this GCR concept in an effort to go the next step from the conservative resurgence that brought our convention to doctrinal accountability and fidelity to God’s Word. Any GCR that seeks to make disciples through the planting of local New Testament churches must be in agreement on the purpose and workings of a New Testament church. Without an understanding and unity in matters of Ecclesiology, the GCR is negatively affected and will ultimately lead to an adverse witness to the world around it.
In short, while I cannot fully define the term or movement, suffice it to say that Baptist Identity is an effort to pursue the Great Commission by joining with like minded confessional Baptists who desire to see God glorified in all the world.
118 Comments
February 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
While I agree with your call for the planting of churches with agreement on the purpose and inner workings of the NT church, how exactly do you see these inner workings being actually put into place? Looking at the FCI, I can see that there are many current SBC afiliated churches that don’t look like this. While I feel that current churches can and do change once they see a more correct way of ‘doing church’, there will always be others that don’t. For instance, many churches I have attended have put such a high emphasis on congregational governance that they have no actual pastor, elder, or deacon leadership and there is little or no place for any type of church discipline. I just don’t know how to get each individual church to at least consider these types of actions.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
For what it’s worth, I agree about hyper-calvinism. We were warned about hyper-calvinists when I was a Presbyterian, in fact!
We had a pejorative for them. We called them the TR’s. It was said they thought they were the only ones who were “Truly Reformed” and we laughed a lot about them.
Even though we never did actually SEE any of them.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Would someone familiar with the BI movement help me understand something, or perhaps try–Are there churches other than Southern Baptist Churches that would be considered bona fide New Testament Churches by BI folks?
Danke
joe blackmon
February 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Robin said: “the conservative resurgence that brought our convention to doctrinal accountability and fidelity to God’s Word.”
I must say I am having a huge belly laugh after reading that statement. It has NEVER been about doctrinal accountability, and discounts any part of God’s word that doesn’t agree with the platform set forth by those in charge. It has ALWAYS been about political power and influence. Now this is the part where you tell me I am imagining everything that I have observed and experienced and how wrong I must be because I don’t agree with you about everything.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Joe Blackmon,
I would accept any Church as a true Church if it holds to the essentials of the faith, even if they didnt have Baptist in their name, and/or were not a member of the SBC. I know of Churches right now that are not SBC Churches that are good, sound Churches.
We’re not talking about the trail of blood here.
Robert,
I was there…in the CR…it was all about doctrine for most of us. Maybe it was about politics for you and some of your friends, but it was about doctrine and the Word of God for a vast, vast majority of the conservatives.
David
February 20th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Robert, you couldn’t be more wrong. I have mostly written in disagreement with BI points of emphasis. But on this we agree – we did not want the SBC to fall into further doctrinal slide.
You can continue to perpetuate the myth of “power only” but you will continue to be wrong. We were genuinely concerned with doctrinal drift and did not want to see that continue.
As a veteran of the “Battle for the Bible” I can tell you that for me (and most other conservatives) it was ALL about the Bible.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Joe,
Let me go one step further. For me, personally, I would have no trouble accepting the baptism of someone who was baptised in a doctrinally sound Church…even if it was not a part of the SBC. Right now, the Church which I serve in, requires every member to be baptised in a SB Church. I can live with that, even though I dont totally agree with it. But, personally, I would have no trouble whatsoever accepting the baptism of someone who was immersed by a Church that believed in salvation by grace thru faith, and that it’s an eternal work of a Triune God, and baptism is a symbollic act of obedience.
David
February 20th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
“We’re not talking about the trail of blood here”.
I’m sorry…what?
February 20th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Joe
“Trail of Blood”? No one is talking of that. Please don’t set up straw men that aren’t even there. You are better than that.
BTW, I believe the ToB is in error.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Robin
David was actually the first to mention trail of blood in the comment thread when he responded to my original question. My question was directed to him asking him to explain the phrase since I had and have no idea what he was talking about. I was and still am just curious what he meant is all. I left the straw man back in Oz to keep up with the Tin Man’s oil can. Do you know what David was talking about? If so, enlighten me. I am truly ignorant of what he means in this context.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Joe
I missed David’s comment. My sincere apologies.
Robin
February 20th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
No biggie to me.
I still don’t know what he was talking about, though.
Oh well. C’est le vie.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Joe,
I’m assuming you’re asking an honest question with the intention of understanding.
Reference to the “Trail of Blood” is a reference to Landmark Baptists.
It is a booklet written by J. M. Carroll which said that baptists can be traced all the way back to the time of Christ. When I was in Texas in the late 1990′s, Lifeway sold the booklet. I don’t know if they do now. The only Lifeway stores I have seen it sold was in texas. I have never seen it for sale in any of the North Carolina Lifeway stores.
Thus, if I’m interpreting David properly, he’s saying that he is not a Landmark Baptist.
Of course, David can speak for himself just fine.
Good day.
Les
February 21st, 2009 at 12:01 am
Robert in #4
Robin said “the conservative resurgence that brought our convention to doctrinal accountability and fidelity to God’s Word.”
Robin is partially correct. The resurgence did begin as a doctrinal debate as to the nature of the Bible. Early on, some were saying it was all about power and control. But, even Dr. Fisher Humphreys, (pressured to leave New Orleans partially because of PP) early identified the concerns mainly as one over the Nature of the Bible.
Robin is completely wrong in that “doctrinal accountability” was never in the early picture. Only later, when the burden of leadership fell on novice institutional greenhorns did other doctrinal concerns rise.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:09 am
Robin,
I have assumed that the BI’s think themselves as the “real” Southern Baptist. If that assumption is true, how can it be accurately said that it is a movement? I have always perceived the BI”s as the “old guard.” Do you perceive the BI as a movement and if so from what to where?
February 21st, 2009 at 12:11 am
Rick
Could you provide proof that Dr Patterson was parially responsible for the removal of Dr Humphrey’a? Second whether the movement focused on doctrinal accountability early or late does not matter. Doctrinal accountability was the end result with convention employees signing the BF&M.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:21 am
The issue with BI being movement is one that is Propaganda driven to drive a wedge in the SBC. BI is not old guard. It is not anti young Pastors or hold on to old.
BI as wrongly defined and promoted _______________ (whatever someone wants to say it is!)
The Landmark issues are the proof in the pudding as to what I am saying.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:22 am
Joe,
Go to wikipedia and you’ll learn more about it. But, Dr. Carroll basically said that the Baptist Church can trace it’s roots all the way back to Jesus, and thus the Baptist Church is the true Church, and the only Church that can baptise and ordain Ministers and Deacons. And, that the Baptist Church is the only one who can administer the Lord’s Supper. It’s also called Landmarkism.
David
February 21st, 2009 at 12:24 am
I have no dog in the PP or FH hunt.
Simply used that as a statement form FH’s books as someone on the other side of the debate agreeing with the conservatives that in the beginning it was about the nature of the Bible.
It does matter because it shows a progression and like it or not lends credence toward the argument that there is a narrowing….
So is the BI a movement? If so from what to were?
February 21st, 2009 at 12:30 am
Rick,
I got into this whole thing due to certain SBC Pastors saying that drinking alcohol was A-0k, and that it’s ok to ordain women as Pastors/Elders, and that we should do things like join with the New Baptist Covenant type groups. And, some began to say that baptism was a personal ordinance, rather than a Church ordinance, and that the only thing that mattered about baptism was that it was by immersion, etc.
So, if you want to call it a movement, or if you want to say that we’re a bunch of fellas who want the SBC to stay sound in doctrine…well… who can say? I can only tell you why I’m involved. I dont want to go back to the days of Pre-CR takeover.
David
February 21st, 2009 at 12:36 am
David,
Okay, you finally said that it is a movement away from the pre-cr days. I’ll buy that as your motivation. My 30 years of experience tells me that is not a threat, since in the pre-cr days alcohol, women ordination and baptism was not issues. At least not in my memory.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:08 am
Rick,
You can thank the Lord first of all for the CR, and then you can thank the men who had the guts to take a stand and push the Cr, secondly. It’s good that today we’re discussing the issues that I brought up…baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. rather than what it would’ve been if the CR had not taken place.
David
February 21st, 2009 at 1:16 am
Yes, and I guess we can thank the Lord for fewer baptism, less money for missions, deep petty divides within SBC and a general suspicion with everything cooperative.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:32 am
Rick,
What’s more important? Staying true and faithful to God? Or, money and inflated numbers that dont mean a whole lot? I had rather the SBC be true to God and to His Word, than to have a lot of money, or to have a lot of backsides in the pew!
Rick, I believe in the sovereignty of God. Our responsibility is to stay faithful to Him. He will take care of the money and numbers.
David
February 21st, 2009 at 6:21 am
Joe,
You asked about the Trail of Blood, and David (007) gave you the usual answer that brainwashes with their twisted take on the writing of J.M. Carroll as “Landmarkism”.
BTW David, I have the Trail of Blood, and Google has it. It’s true that Carroll traces the trail of blood back to Jesus, but can you give the page number and quotes where you blab blab your conclusions?
Joe,
Upon Carroll’s death in 1932, his great history library was given to SWBTS. A large picture of him was displayed.
This is why the “Trail of Blood” that once was the pride and joy of SWBTS was ‘thrown out the window’:
When the C/R took over fundamentalists could not have anyone cast doubts on Inerrancy since Carroll wrote:
“The Apostle John, according to history, was boiled in a great cauldron of oil. Some of the bishops or pastors began to assume authority not given them in the New Testament. They began to claim authority over other and smaller churches. They, with their many elders, began to lord it over God’s heritage (III John 9).”
Horrors! How dare Carroll say history records John being martyred (as Jesus said). That would mean (III John) was not written by the Apostle but by an Elder (as recorded). And insult to injury for Carroll to say the Elder was the ‘bad guy’ in (III John 9) is outrageous! Take his picture down from SWBTS and burn his book!
February 21st, 2009 at 7:17 am
Robin: Do you agree with some of the Landmarkers doctrine and if so, which ones?
February 21st, 2009 at 9:59 am
Rex,
Again, show me where I said anything wrong about Dr. JM Carroll? Where did I distort any truth of his landmarkism? It is what it is. So, how can you come in here and make the statement you made to me based on how I answered Joe?
Unbelievable.
I believe that if I said that the sky is blue and the grass is green, you’d attack me and call me names and give reasons why you think I said something so mean and ugly about the sky and the grass.
Unbelievable.
David
February 21st, 2009 at 10:34 am
David,
In your opinion—“it is what it is”.
Is asking you to put in quotes what Carroll said that would prove you right too hard to do?
In my opinion, you can’t do it because it’s not there.
You said, “how can you come in here…”
I guess you have a point if “here” does not allow someone to comment what they believe is true.
Why don’t you attack my words instead of me?
February 21st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Debbie
Which Landmark? The one fabricated by your pastor which he accuses BI folks being apart of, or the the true historic Landmarkers?
February 21st, 2009 at 11:06 am
David
Actually, the sky right now has some clouds and it is winter so the grass is not green.
Just kiddin my friend, I couldn’t resist.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:13 am
David,
Its a false dichotomy that faithfulness equals smaller blessings. Mission money is directly related to how many missionaries are preaching the gospel.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:51 am
I doubt that anyone would say you are wrong about everything, but you are certainly wrong about the origin of the CR.
cb
February 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Those who said it was about power early on were Liberals.
cb
February 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Yeah, back in the Pre-CR day alcohol and Baptism were not major issues other than alcohol being used on campus at our seminaries. Also we were concerned with the Sodomites in our seminaries.
cb
February 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Rex Ray,
Do you believe the Bible is perfect historically in all matters?
Do you believe the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be accurate as presented?
Do you believe there are any legitimate contradictions in the Scripture?
cb
February 21st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Robin,
This is a good post.
cb
February 21st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
A movement? Really?
When I blog, I don’t do much moving!!!
I think one of the dumbest things that the “other side” did was try to smear you kind (and some not so kind) fundamentalists (I use that non-pejoratively) with the tag Baptist Identity.
Frankly, this Baptist thinks Baptist identity is pretty dang important. We moderates and those you would dub as liberal have long championed a greater emphasis on the distinctives that forms our Baptist identity.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
CB
Thanks
February 21st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Debbie
After thinking on my last comment, I see no reason for you to answer. I disagree with both versions.
Second, I was hoping this post would focus more on what we are for rather than what we are against as a Baptist Identity movement.
Finally, to answer your question would require me to give a rather lengthy response. In short, I am not a Landmarker. I do not ascribe to a succession of churches from the time of Jesus, nor do I believe that Baptist churches are the only true churches. I hope and pray that will suffice for your curiosity, if not, I won’t be adding any more anytime soon.
BTW, why did you ask that question? Do you agree with some tenets of Landmarkism?
February 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
David
Again, pragmatism verses fidelity to the Word of God. You hit the nail on the head!
February 21st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
BDW,
You actually make a great point here. “The other guy(s)” have attacked BI while yet trying to define it themselves while then moving to degrade it.
For once, I agree with some of what you have said.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Robin: I’ll answer in that they are one in the same. Wade is no stranger to Landmarkers no matter what you may believe.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Brother Weave,
I’ll agree with you as well. I’m not sure I like, and have not accepted the designation, “Baptist Identity.” But I’m happy to be a Baptist. The Baptist Distinctive Doctrines are biblical and very important. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that you and I would disagree on some of those Distinctive Baptist Doctrines.
David R. Brumbelow
PS – Neither do I accept the term, “Fundamentalist,” although I do agree with the fundamental doctrines of the faith.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
cb,
Did you know or meet any drunken sodomites in the seminaries in the 60′s or 70′s?
February 21st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Rick,
Your question is two-fold.
Did I meet drunken Sodomites? No.
Yet, there were Sodomites in at least one seminary in the 70s and 80s.
cb
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 am
Yes.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 am
CB Scott,
I thought the subject was Trail of Blood. How did this get to be about me?
Is this the ‘woman at the well’ strategy in changing the subject?
Let’s see, in court when a lawyer can’t discredit the truth being said, he tries to discredit the reliability of the witness. Is this what’s you’re trying?
Can we trust some things that are said even by ‘bad’ people like the high priest that helped to crucify Jesus? He said it was better for one man to die than the whole world perish.
OK, I’ll play your mind games and try to answer your three questions, and you may tear your clothes in anguish.
Starting with a positive answer, I believe all fifty chapters of Geneses. If God can create Eve at one minute old and make Adam say, “At last!” (NLT), he can make a new rock appear a billion years old.
You asked, “Do you believe the Bible is perfect historically in all matters?
As far as I know it’s perfect, but I don’t feel qualified to answer since I don’t know much about history.
You asked, “Do you believe there are any legitimate contradictions in the Scripture?”
I heard someone wrote a book listing about one hundred contradictions in the Scripture.
I’ve never seen the book, but here are some contradictions or as the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy—page nine would call an “illusion”.
BTW CB, no one has ever replied to this question…maybe you’d like to give it a try.
Would you explain the difference between someone like me that sees a ‘contradiction’ in the Bible and someone else sees it being an ‘illusion one day’?
1. (1 Samuel 21:1-6 says when David ate the consecrated bread the high priest was Ahimelech (killed by Saul for allowing David to eat it), but Mark said the high priest was his son Abiathar. (Mark 2:26)
2. Girl dead or alive? (Matthew 9:18 vs. (Mark 5:22) and (Luke 8:42).
3. Judas or Pharisees bought field of blood? (Acts 1:18) vs. (Matthew 27:7).
4. Did the Centurion or others talk to Jesus? (Matthew 8:5) vs. (Luke 7:3-6)
5. Was God with Jesus on the Cross, or was He forsaken? (John 16:32) vs. (Mark 15: 34)
CB, I go on but you get what I mean. Then there are many questionable statements in the Bible such as:
1. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Christian husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:14)
2. “But she will be saved through childbearing…” (1 Timothy 2:15)
Many were burned at the stake because they believed the Lord’s Supper was a symbol. Wonder what they would have done with me?
Today?…aw that’s against the law.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 am
Robin: If memory serves me correctly wasn’t Paige Patterson’s father a Landmarker?
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 am
Debbie
If memory serves me correctly this post was not about Dr Patterson or his father. Please stick with the topic at hand.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 am
Trail of Blood is a small book of 56 pages measuring 4 inches by 6 inches and has over two million copies by 1995.
Carroll wrote his ‘lectures’ after he was 70, and Dr. J.W. Porter put them in a book after Carroll died.
The last three pages say in part:
1. During every period of the “Dark Ages” there were…many separate and independent Churches, some of them dating back to the times of the Apostles, which were never connected with the Catholic Church.
2. These Christians were…the objects of persecution. History shows that during the “Dark Ages”, about twelve centuries, beginning with 426 AD, there were about fifty million died martyr deaths.
3. They were called by many different names by their enemies such as Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses, Waldenses, and others, but the one most common was Ana-Baptists because they did not believe in “Infant Baptism” and demanded rebaptism by those joining them who had only been baptized as a baby.
4. Early in the sixteenth century, the “Ana” was left off, and they were called Baptists.
These churches went into the Dark Ages, came out, and hold today these fundamental doctrines:
1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
2. It ordinances, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are typical and memorial, not saving.
3. Its officers, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the church.
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
6. Its members. Believers only, they are saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
7. Its requirements: Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then obedience and loyalty to all New Testaments Laws.
8. The various churches—separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in their responsibilities to God—but cooperative in work.
9. Complete separation of Church and State.
10. Absolute Religions Liberty for all.
So David, why has Trail of Blood been rejected by our present leaders and the BI?
I believe because Carroll wrote on page 11: “Apostle John, according to history, was boiled in a great cauldron of oil.” Also on page 12 he wrote: “Some of the bishops or pastors began to assume authority not given them in the New Testament. They began to claim authority over other and smaller churches. They with their many elders, began to lord it over God’s heritage (3 John 9).”
(3 John 9 Living Bible): “I sent a brief letter to the church about this, but proud Diotrephes, who loves to push himself forward as the leader of the Christians there, does not admit my authority over him and refuses to listen to me.”
Paul said to curse anyone teaching another way to be saved. History records Diotrephes denouncing messengers from the Jerusalem Church in public.
What upset him? Could it have been (2 John 8-9 NLT)? “Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked so hard to achieve. [Salvation by works?] Anyone who wanders away from this teaching [stopped doing works?] has no relationship with God.” [Lost their salvation?]
I believe the small church in Third John was among the ‘roots’ that rejected the majority in baptizing babies for salvation in 251 AD.
I also believe unless ‘legalism’ is stopped in the SBC, Baptists will overtake Catholics in their rules or wither away like dust.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Rex Ray,
You wrote: “so why has Trail of Blood been rejected by our present leaders and the BI?”
I myself still use and recommend the Trail of Blood and I know of many other Southern Baptist pastors who do the same. Also every Lifeway store I’ve ever been in still sells the booklet.
Some Southern Baptist pastors reject the Trail of Blood because they feel it is too closely connected to landmarkism or it’s scholarship is poor. (I personally think both these criticisms are wrong.) Others have never read the booklet or have only heard negatives things about it.
All the book teaches is:
1. The New Testament church was Baptist in its doctrine. (examples: Salvation by grace through faith, eternal security, believer\’s baptism by immersion, etc.)
2. Churches holding these same doctrines have always existed in every age since the days of the N.T., however scattered and however few.
3. Baptist churches today are part of the lineage (A Trail of Blood) of these churches holding to N.T. doctrine down through the centuries.
That’s all J.M. Carroll’s booklet teaches. If you have never read the booklet before, you really should.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Rex,
So, you think that only Baptists Churches are the true Churches, and that the authority of the Baptist Church has been handed down thru the ages all the way back to John the Baptist? That all other Churches, that arent Baptist, are not true Churches? Because, Rex, that’s what Landmarkism came to be. I havent studied Dr. JM Carroll enough to talk about what he believed and didnt believe. But, I know a little about landmarkism being raised in West TN… the land of J R Graves and James Pendleton, etc. I can tell you what it came to mean in W. TN and W. KY.
So, do you accept what Dr. Carroll said? And, do you accept what Landmarkism came to mean?
Rex, and all this time I thought you were a liberal. You fooled me. I didnt know that you were a landmarkist?
David
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
That is why I always have a belly laugh when I hear people say “I was there…in the CR…it was all about doctrine for most of us.” That is what they wanted everyone to believe. Pressler and Patterson did not meet because they were concerned about docrine. They met to formulate a plan to gain control of the convention. Along the way they convinced many that is was really about doctrine.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Debbie,
Yes, Dr. T.A. Patterson was a Landmarker. I had him for a missions class and found him to be one of the most genuine, and kind men I have ever meet. He could not talk about lost people without weeping for their salvation. 30 years later I still remember his passion and tears.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I just noticed this question. Rick’s answer is true.
Yet, his son is not a Landmarker. He is of the Anabaptist tradition. Yet, he is not a pacifist by any means, thank the Lord.
cb
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Robert,
Sorry, but that dog just will not hunt. It never did and it never will.
BTW, did you ever read the Peace Committee Report?
cb
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Ben: Being that you are a self proclaimed Landmarker, the fact that you disagree with those criticisms shouldn’t be surprising.
Also I was taught as a teen and have read the Trail of Blood. It appears to teach more than you are saying from my reading comprehension. In fact the beginning reads:
The History of Baptist Churches
From the Time of Christ,
Their Founder, to the Present Day
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Paige Patterson, from the sermons I have listened to seems to have both Landmark and anabaptist leanings.
Robin: As for staying on topic, since you brought up my pastor, which was certainly off of topic, I went for it on my end.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
How’s the family there, Debbie?
What do you think about those Sooners for next year?
cb
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
No Debbie, you brought up the Landmark question first. I only sought clarification. I guess I should have deleted your comment originally. Trust me, I won’t make that mistake with your comments again.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
David (007),
You seem to have a knack for putting words in my mouth on what I think:
1. Only Baptist Churches are the true Churches. False
2. Authority of Baptist Church handed down from John the Baptist. False
3. All other Churches are not true Churches. False
You said, “I haven’t studied Dr. JM Carroll enough to talk about what he believed and didn’t believe.”
Duh? How then do you stand in judge of Trail of Blood?
Yes, I accept what Carroll said, and it has nothing to do with Landmarkism.
David, you’ve missed the whole point. The C/R removed Trail of Blood from SWBTS because it did not fall inline with inerrancy. So in my opinion, it was falsely accused of promoting Landmarkism.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Cb,
That dog doesn\’t just hunt, it fetches, rolls over, sits up, and speaks. You can use whatever funny little statement you want it does not change the facts. I see there they were successful in convincing you it was about doctrine. I just wish they would read the WHOLE bible instead of manipulating the parts that support their pet beliefs. I was at the 2000 convention and a fellow pastor from my church suggested the formation of a committee to bring peace to the convention and try to find a common ground. He was laughed out of the hall.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I believe I brought to the table a legitimate point, but it’s your blog Robin, you do as you see fit. You’ll get no argument from me being in your house.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I want to chime in on the CR thing, first.
I speak from the same personal perspective that Dave, Joe and CB bring. My motivations were the same as yours – theological.
I was a freshman at a Baptist college in 1979, and had Old Testament in the fall, and New Testament in the spring. The men teaching those classes believed that the Bible was inspired in concepts, in places. But to them the Bible was essentially a human book, which reflected what man thought God was doing in their midst.
The Bible contained myth, completely inaccurate statements and pictures of God. The OT God is a mean, tribal God, but as man evolves, his picture of God becomes Jesus, which is a loftier notion of the way God truly is.
But the NT writers and the church glossed Jesus’ teachings to include concepts that they believed in, but were not actually taught by Jesus, and are therefore, not necessary for the Christian religion (e.g. the Virgin Birth).
All of the major Christian doctrines were called into question, and never affirmed by reference to conservative biblical scholarship.
The books selected by my professors (I learned later) varied from neoorthodox to liberal in their leanings.
In fact, I was never even exposed to the concept of conservative scholarship – Warfield, Bruce etc. at this school.
It was an either “what you heard in Sunday School” or “what the scholars say” type of approach.
When I got out of that school, I uncovered a hitherto unknown (to me) mass of conservative, biblically affirming scholarship that my profs did not mention, at least to Freshmen and Sophmores.
My profs were all graduates of SBC theology schools in the 1960s, most with PhDs from those schools.
The thing that helped me in the early years were experiential type groups (vs. doctrinal/theological) -Campus Crusade, Navigators, and my home church, who had a pastor that was theologically astute enough to understand the issues. He graduated from Southern in 1949, and said that even then he could not name any prof in the theology department that he had that would have affirmed the truth of creation. The creation account was a mythical story etc., as was much of the Bible.
So, that’s what motivated me to join the CR in 1979 as a Freshman in college. I found what this college taught in the religion department to be completely inconsistent with what my pastor preached on Sunday regarding basic Christian doctrine.
Dave Miller, Joe and CB, I agree with you. For me, participation in the CR was all about theology.
My profs were all then, and to my knowledge are today, active in local Baptist churches. They attended the convention every year, and did not want their right to teach what they had been teaching disturbed.
So, I decided that I had better start attending the convention, too.
And as history shows there were more of us who were concerned about these issues than there were those who were not – either because they did not know about the issues, or minimized the issues, or were sympathetic toward an alternate theological vision and wanted the convention to go in that direction.
But Dave, Joe, and CB, trying to talk people into that perspective is usually a waste of time. I have seen some converts over the years, but they are usually converted by some experience that they have, not talk.
Otherwise, it’s as if we are speaking English, and other people are speaking German. No amount of factual evidence or debate is going to change their feelings.
One thing that I hope can happen (but given the vitriol with which some people come at these issues, it may not be possible) is that we can recogninze:
1) the CR ended in about 1992 or so. The CBF has been formed, and most of the moderate leaders went to the CBF. They are supporting the theological schools that have the basic orientation that I mentioned above. So, there is no more CR. It is over. It ended 15 years or so ago.
2) Since the CR ended, we should be talking about where we go from here. Talking about the CR is interesting for historical reasons, but that’s all. The CR is not going to be reversed. There are lots of people who did not agree with the CR, but they agree with the theology of the CR. And they have the same perspective on missions. If that is the case, we would spend our time talking about what we agree on and move forward.
So, that is my hope.
With regard to the so-called BI issues, I do not oppose groups of people wanting to discuss and emphasize certain doctrinal or practical issues that they think affect the work of our convention. That is a very natural thing for religious bodies to do.
But I am a little more cautious in my approach when it comes to assigning motives and plans to people which they have not articulated.
I think that might be the biggest problem that we have in the convention right now.
Also, notwithstanding my appreciation for Dr. Akin and others who may have coined this term, but I do not like the term “Great Commission Resurgence” because it implies that the SBC has not been about the Great Commission for these last 30 years. It clearly has.
And, I don’t like the term because it can be used as a way of avoiding theological discussion and debate. Religious bodies should not avoid doing that. And they should not be scared of setting parameters whereever the body decides to set them. It is not healthy for a religious group to paper over significant differences that affect the carrying out of their mission.
I like the term to the extent it conveys that the emphasis will be about sharing the Gospel and making disciples.
I come from an SBC church that does not have “Baptist” in our name, that has elders (a plurality of leadership, hot a Presbytery), open communion and may do other things that some Baptist churches may not be comfortable with.
I know that there are people in the SBC world that would not agree with our church on some of these issues. That’s fine. And it’s fine for them to talk about it, and argue for their vision of what Baptist churches should look like. I do not at this time feel threatened by any of the discussions in the BI world.
I have written before that the only group that actually has tried to limit our church’s participation in the SBC are those who argue for a limit test on CP giving. They do so without understanding the history, context or budget of hundreds of churches. That effort is actually contrary to the SBC constitution and bylaws which gives full representation (and therefore, participation) by simply being a church “in friendly cooperation with” the SBC. The giving threshold there is minimal.
So, that’s my experience to date on people trying to exclude or limit our church’s participation in the SBC.
It is possible that someday, some in the SBC would not want to fellowship with my church. That would make me sad, and we would miss being part of the SBC. But I am confident that if the issues are fairly discussed, that we will have a seat at the table, and that things will work out.
I am not so fearful of my brethren who may disagree with me on these issues that I am going to prematurely start a fight or misrepresent their statements or guess at their true, hidden intentions.
Louis
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Robert,
I was not convinced. I promoted it. I was there from the beginning. It was always about the authority of Scripture.
The Liberals said we were seeking power. Were you part of that group? Or did you pick up their mantle and come later?
The committee suggested in 2000 would have been an action of redundancy.
The Peace Committee I mentioned earlier had already done the work you reference.
We were in a struggle for the authority of the Bible. Liberals did not believe the Bible. We rallied the grassroots Baptists. They came out in the thousands to vote. The rest is history. End of story.
cb
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“the CR ended in about 1992 or so. The CBF has been formed, and most of the moderate leaders went to the CBF. They are supporting the theological schools that have the basic orientation that I mentioned above. So, there is no more CR.
It is over. It ended 15 years or so ago.”
Louis,
You are wrong on this one.
I used to think it was over, but I remember something Bob Tenery (the first guy to ever use the words Conservative Resurgence) Told me back around 1988 just after San Antonio.
He said; This will never be over. Liberalism will return in different forms on a continual basis.
I know now he was right.
The players are new (for the most part). Some of the lyrics are different. But the music and the dance is exactly the same.
cb
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Louis,
You say:
“I come from an SBC church that does not have “Baptist” in our name, that has elders (a plurality of leadership, hot a Presbytery), open communion and may do other things that some Baptist churches may not be comfortable with.
I know that there are people in the SBC world that would not agree with our church on some of these issues. That’s fine. And it’s fine for them to talk about it, and argue for their vision of what Baptist churches should look like. I do not at this time feel threatened by any of the discussions in the BI world.”
Basically, I agree with your assessment of the CR here. However, I think your assessment of the “threat” of the “BI movement” here is a bit naive. You are correct, in that, if all you want is for your church to be able to financially contribute to the CP, and have a voice and vote on the floor of the convention, you have nothing to fear. If, however, you (or people from your church), believe in open communion, accept “alien immersions,” or practice PPL, and those in the “BI movement” have their way, then you (or the people from your church) would not be able to serve in denominational offices or denominationally-funded ministries.
That, as I understand it, is what this is all about.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
CB,
Thank the Lord!
David
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Louis
And if those in the ecumenical movement of the SBC have their way, then any doctrinal parameters (outside of the “essentials” of the gospel) we have will be null and void. The BF&M will be worthless and we will have those baptized by anyone in any church or cult to be allowed to participate in our mission sending endeavors.
This is not how I see it, but this is how it is.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Louis
Allow me also to add, nothing from your description would prevent anyone from your church to be allowed to serve in the SBC as a missionary.
David Rogers is living proof that you can disagree with the BF&M’s minimum of close communion (At a minimum those who have baptized by immersion as believers may participate) and still serve as a missionary.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
CB,
Instead of your opinions only, why don’t you back them up with events or statements?
I believe the leaders of the SBC don’t trust the Holy Spirit to control Christians without building walls of legalism to keep sin out. The walls restrict freedom, autonomy of the church, and make prisoners within.
For events and statements to prove my statement:
1. They made a creed of the BFM 2000 by forcing signatures that removed over 100 long time missionaries from the field. (The devil couldn’t remove them but their employers’ did.)
2. The 2000 is tooted as the guideline for our doctrine which replaced the Bible for being our guideline.
3. The 2000 states no religious authority can force a confession of faith upon churches, but hypocritically mandates only males can be pastors.
4. Applicants to be a missionary must pray a certain way.
5. The one that baptized applicants must be qualified and backed by a certain church. Never mind the one doing the baptizing may prove in time to be lost, a pedophile, or whatever.
Again, can you explain how “illusion” on page nine of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy works?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
CB,
I agree that we must have a constant vigilance against liberalism. But, on another note some of the concerns of the BI’s do strike me as narcissistic antics of hyper indy fundys. I guess I think this way because I have seen real liberals up close and personal.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 am
Rex Ray,
The following is simply an opinion:
“I believe the leaders of the SBC don’t trust the Holy Spirit to control Christians without building walls of legalism to keep sin out. The walls restrict freedom, autonomy of the church, and make prisoners within.”
You have no facts or events to validate any part of the above statement.
You are simply angry that the Liberal element of the past no longer controls the SBC.
Now if you want “events” or “statements” to “back” this up; Read your own statements relating to Scripture, events of the past and your general attitude toward anything of a conservative Southern Baptist position in the last thirty-five years.
You, Rex Ray, are as Hank Williams Jr. said; “Living Proof.”
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 am
Caveats and all.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:54 am
Rick,
Surely then, if you have seen Liberals “up close and personal” you know no one is looking into a pool at a reflection.
Rather you would know; we are simply looking into the Scripture and realizing some do not seek to follow it and desire us to support then in their rebellion.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 am
BTW, Rick,
If you consider our positions as that of “hyper indy fundys” you have certainly never really seen any of “those” fellows “up close and personal.”
That is rather humorous of you.
It kinda sounds like a Formula One Car on 100% jet fuel.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:42 am
Robin,
Are you saying that you (and others in the “BI movement”) are fine with someone who accepts open communion serving as an SBC employee? I will be happy to know it, if that is the case. It will be a glorious day, and we can fold our cards, and go home (at least, as far as this issue is concerned).
Also, I don’t know who you are referring to when you talk about those in the “ecumenical movement” of the SBC. But I, for one, have never said that I would like for any doctrinal parameters outside of the essentials of the gospel to become “null and void” within the SBC. I have on various occasions defended the validity of Baptist doctrinal distinctives as a criterion for cooperation in ministry projects. I just don’t think that “close/closed communion,” non-acceptance of “alien immersion,” and rejection of PPL, should be among these distinctives, since they do not represent well the collective view of SBC members and churches.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 am
There is still that little matter of accepting a Baptism administered by Mormons.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
CB,
Do you not think that red herring has already been beat to death enough?
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
You promoted it from the beginning? So you must have been one of the bus drivers that picked up people from the nursing homes to come and vote. Just so you know, I am about as far from liberal as you can get. I am a Baptist, except I am one who thinks for himself and uses all of scripture to determine what He believes. I was not against any CR from the beginning. The Liberals, as you call them, were crying foul long before I got into the fray. I had a wise friend that once said, “No one is dumb enough to be %100 wrong” so I did my own research and found their accusations to be true.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
Funny, I see my fight against the CR group as a “Battle for the Bible” as you call it. I would like to see correct interpretation and not a piece-meal theology that only supports what the majority believes.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
It will never be over because a Fundamentalist can never rest. They must always invent something to fight against. Just tag it liberal and go after it. You know the Pharisees thought Jesus was a liberal.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
Rex- Amen
CB- Rex’s statement is probably the single most provable statement ever spoken by the opposition. Just visit a church or two or interview a few hundred pastors. The truth hurts.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
I have done just that and still do all over the US.
And my statement has been only reinforced.
Rex Ray is living proof.
Who have you interviewed lately, Robert?
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
David,
It is you that keeps coming and demanding people accept everything you say as acceptable. Its not.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Rex and Robert,
I agree with CB on this. You two both sound like angry liberals who are mad that the CR took place, and you still havent gotten over it. The CBF awaits you with open arms.
David
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Robert,
No one has to “tag” anything.
All one has to do is know the truth. When liberalism comes along in new clothes of any kind or stripe it is easily recognized.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
CB,
I thought we had already established that we have a difference of opinion on these issues. You have every right and prerogative to argue your point of view. And believe I have mine. And people are free to take what I say, and free to take what you say. That’s all I see going on here.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 am
Rex and Robert,
One more thing, the Churches that I know…which is a lot of them in TN and MS and KY and MO and Arkansas…would not welcome your point of view at all. Now, I do know some that would welcome you, but the vast majority would not. They’d love to hear CB and Robin preach.
David
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
I have done just that and still do all over the US.
And my Rex\’s statement has been only reinforced.
Rex Said-
“I believe the leaders of the SBC don’t trust the Holy Spirit to control Christians without building walls of legalism to keep sin out. The walls restrict freedom, autonomy of the church, and make prisoners within.”
And just for the record, I\’ll say it again. I am not a liberal. I believe the whole Bible. I believe that ALL have the ability to interpret God’s word, not just a few seminary presidents or convention big wigs. Scripture must be taken as a whole, not just as a proof text for pet projects.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
CB,
You are so funny, (just an opinion of course) maybe the sad part is you may believe that I gave no facts or event to validate my words.
Oh, I’ve got it! What I said was just an “illusion” like the Chicago thing, so you don’t believe I wrote any facts or events.
I’ll try again:
I was a happy go lucky Baptists like most are today when in 1997 my missionary son forward an email by Ranking asking missionaries to have:
“A confidence and willingness to follow the wisdom and guidance of God-appointed leadership, whether we necessarily understand or agree.” (Fact or illusion?)
My son and 4,000 others were told they would not have to sign the BFM 2000 because they were ‘grandfathered’. (Fact or illusion?)
Then they were told if they did not sign, they would not be fired. (Fact or illusion?)
Those that did not sign were forced to retire or be fired—many were fired. (Fact or illusion?)
Patterson had a list of the liberal professors and they could all ride in one Volkswagen (Fact or illusion?)
CB, have you seen the ‘body count’ or a list of all those ‘liberals’ that ran the SBC, or is that just a sales pitch?
Maybe, it was ‘anyone’ not ‘one of us’ was considered a liberal?
In my opinion, fundamentalist stole the name conservative, considered anyone not of them a liberal or moderate, made the Bible a political football, and high-jacked the SBC for the main reason for control and power which they continue to legalize today.
CB, your last comment is an example of one with no defense can only attack.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Very well said Rex Ray. That has been my experience as well. The definition for liberal for this group is anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Even if you can provide Bilical evidence. The Bible only matters if you use their interpretation. The average church member is simply not smart enough or mature enough to understand the Bible. Sounds alot like the catholic church heirarhy. All we need now is a pope.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 am
Rex Ray,
I did not attack you. You simply make the case yourself by what you say.
BTW, I don’t care how many Liberals Dr. Patterson or anyone else said were in the SBC back in the day. There were many. Many were at the BSSB when I got there. There were far less when I left along with some other trustees who understood our accountability to the SBC.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
BTW, Rex Ray,
This will be considered by you and others as a bold and arrogant statement, but my lot was cast years ago so why not:
I wish I, along with some of those same fellows who were at the BSSB had been at the FMB back around 1992-93.
If we had been, some things that have happened in recent years would never have happened. You can take that to the bank.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:45 am
I say Rex Ray makes good points that prove his argument. You say he makes his case by what he says. I agree.
Also, using my previous definition of Liberal as someone who disagrees with you, I imagine you find quite a few Liberals wherever you go. My accountability is to God and His word. That accountability and accountability to the SBC is not the same by a longshot.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Robert,
Where have you been? You must be relatively new.
Most Liberals from “back in the day” have always said we had a Pope and an Archbishop.
They even said we had the Antichrist, Prince of Persia and several other major demons, gremlins and imps.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Robert,
I did not say he made “his” case. I said he made “the” case.
But, you are right about one thing and that is for sure; You are accountable to God.
And I don’t look for Liberals. You guys just keep popping up.
cb
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The interesting thing to me in this dialogue is that is taking place among self-proclaimed Baptists. We are not Presbyterians in that we baptize infants, we are not Pentecostals in that we believes tongues is the sign of the fullness of the Spirit, we are Baptists…and more specifically aren’t we Southern Baptists that want to partner together?!
Now we all have our own subjective and personally held positions about debatable issues. But isn’t it true that the best objective evidence we have of what Southern Baptist are really thinking and believe has been the statistical research done by Stetzer and his staff? And doesn’t it also appear clear that the majority of Southern Baptists are tired of dividing over debatable matters?
For instance, I am not a cessationist and I do believe in the legitimate existence of a PPL. But I don’t have a problem partnering in contributions to the CP with those fellow Baptists who believe otherwise, even though of what I believe is bad IMB policy. I know and respect churches who believe in and hold to closed communion in our area. They love the Bible, love Jesus, and do missions. I know and respect churches who do not practice closed communion and they too love the Bible, love Jesus, and do mission. Both are Baptists.
OK, that’s enough…I’m starting to sound like “Rodney King”
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
CB,
I will grant you that Paige Patterson is in the Anabaptist tradition for the following reasons. While it seems overwhelmingly apparent that one of the key historical markers of the Anabaptist movement is pacifism (in fact, only the second generation of Anabaptists rejected pacifism before the third generation reclaimed it), it is also recognized that Hubmaier was just such an Anabaptist who was not a pacifist. Therefore, we can historically find at least one Anabaptist by name and one generation that is largely nameless, who were not pacifists – even though every other generation of Anabaptists up to our own day has embraced pacifism. Yet I will recognize Patterson’s ties to Anabaptism, trophies on the wall and all.
But if you guys are going to claim him as an Anabaptist, then shouldn’t you, out of consistency, also claim your open communion brethren as legitimate Baptists? So the confessional statements overwhelmingly support close/closed communion. So the typical practice of historic Baptists has supported close/closed communion. There can still be named those Baptists who did not advocate and/or practice close/closed communion. Doesn’t that make our present day open communionists as Baptist as it makes Paige Patterson an Anabaptist?
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Funny, It seems on more than one post you have “tagged” me as liberal without knowing one thing about what I believe. I am saying that over the last 20 years or so, people in power have been quick to “tag” the liberal label without knowing anything about their theology. They just know that they disgree. I am a conservative. I believe in the Entire Bible, not just the parts that make me feel good or give me power over others.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Robin,
It is a shame that you turned comments off on the Patterson post, in my opinion. It would have been interesting to see how people reacted. The Baptist Blogosphere is so stratified these days that good discussion is almost impossible. I would encourage you to reconsider your “comments off” position on that post, but I also understand why you chose to do that. Just a thought.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
G’day CB,
I’ll never forget the day when our news reporteres interviewed a liberal when Jerry Vines was elected President of the SBC. Here they reported that “Baptists worship their president as God”. this made evangelistic work among Australians difficult, where less than 1% of the population are Baptists until people forgot the news story. All because some nong of a liberal thought he would stir the pot by taking a shot at conservatives. Well done!
Steve
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Alan,
Thank you for understanding.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Robin Foster:
That’s been our experience so far. We have had several people go to the mission field, as short term and long term, we have hosted an IMB conference in our city, and our pastor has spoken at IMB regional meetings probably a half a dozen times.
Nothing we are doing has been a bar so far.
We HAVE experienced some rejections regarding how we give to the CP. We give most of our money directly to Nashville, rather than through the state. We are not opposed to the state. Just really believe in the national programs and want to maximize our dollars there.
David Rogers:
I sure hope you are wrong and that I am not naive. Time will tell. I am optimistic so far. That may be because I know lots of people who are more into the Baptist distincitves, and they know me, so they know that I would only want to proclaim Christ and would never criticize a church for what it wants to do with regard to what might be called BI issues.
Again, time will tell.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Louis
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Paul,
You well know what I meant by Anabaptist “tradition.”
He believes they were our forefathers. That does not make him an Anabaptist. Paige Patterson is a Southern Baptist who has a valid understanding of our history.
You know, Paul; You are good and there is no person I would rather have help plan a coup, But no cigar on this one brother.
cb
February 24th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Yes, CB. I thought I acknowledged that in the first sentence.
So, are you saying that open communionists may be of the “Baptist tradition,” yet not fully Baptist?
You know, CB, so many of these discussions remind me of the debates that went on a generation after Luther and Melanchthon over who was more “Lutheran” than who, the Lutherans or the Phillipists?
You know your Christian history, CB. Tell me, how did all of that end up?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Well Paul,
I always felt like the Missouri Synod Lutherans are the most Lutheran Lutherans.
But, maybe I feel that way because they are more Baptist than Lutheran.
cb
February 24th, 2009 at 5:28 am
I can understand why the comments are turned off too:
“There a lot of things that we can do, even with others who aren’t Great Commission Christians,” he said, referring to standing against abortion or for family values with Roman Catholics.
Great Commission Christian or Christian? There is no difference, never has been…never will. I would question this statement regardless of who said it, even the fine gents who run this blog so personality is NOT the issue. I’m simply looking at this specific sentence. One could have simply said with those of other religions and that would have been fine.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:16 am
David 007,
You said the vast majority of churches would not welcome Robert and me.
You sound like the words told to Paul:
“You see…how many thousands of Jews [fundamentalists/conservatives] there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law [C/R].”
Robert and I are lucky in not being “welcome”—the majority wanted to kill Paul.
What I’m trying to say, David; the majority is not always right.
Robin,
Thanks.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Brother John,
“Great Commission Christian” (GCC) is a termed commonly used by the IMB for those who are not IMB/SB, but are evangelicals. There is a different type of partnership that can take place between GCCs and SBs than can take place between SBs and, say, Roman Catholics. This is all well defined by the IMB’s concentric circles of cooperation – at least it was when I was a part of the organization. In a world where everyone uses words differently we often have to define them in a way that makes sense to all… though I would prefer all who name the Name of Jesus to be focused on the Great Commission!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
February 24th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Rex,
Goodness gracious, you’re distorting that verse very badly to make it say what you want it to say. Shame, shame, shame!
These Churches would reject preachers because of their low view of Scripture, and their departure from sound, clear Bible teaching.
And, you are correct, the majority is not always correct. But, in this case, the majority of the Churches in W. TN, and W. KY and Arkansas and the bootheel of MO and MS would be correct. I have advised Churches in most of these states to watch out for people who deny the clear teachings of Scripture, and who do not believe in the infallible, inerrant Word of God.
David
February 24th, 2009 at 10:28 am
But see, That is our whole point We are in total agreement with sound, clear bible teaching. The WHOLE Bible, not just those that support our pet beliefs. I have read this blog for sometime now and am convinced that most, including yourself, do not take a full view of scripture especially when it doesn’t support the fundamentalist bent. In fact you discount anyone and any scripture that could put your views in question. I know that I may not be right, but I am familiar with what the entire Bible says about my beliefs and make my decisions based on the whole. And as I keep saying, I am a conservative that believes in the entire teachings of scripture as the inerrant word of God.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Volfan said- “Goodness gracious, you’re distorting that verse very badly to make it say what you want it to say.” You are the ranking expert on distorting scripture to make it say what you want.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I believe the whole Bible, and I study it, meditate on it, beleive it, and try to live it.
I can assure you that Robin and Wes and Bart and Dr. Yarnell and the others in the so-called BI group do the same. We do not pull out our pet Scriptures and just hang our hats on them. I really dont see how you could even say that, or what would make you think that. It’s bizarre that you would even say that.
Also, even more bizarre is that you would say that I distort Scripture. How mean of you to say that to me, and how untrue it is. I base everything about my life on what the Bible says. I have tried very, very hard to make sure that everything I believe lines up with the clear teachings of Scripture. So, I really take offense to what you are saying here. It’s untrue. It’s slanderous.
God bless you, Robert.
David
February 24th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Volfan-
My statement was not meant to be malicious but was simply an observation of my last year or so here on this blog. I would hope you do take offense. While I may have taken a harsh route to my point it remains for me true. For all the main issues argued on this blog I have seen good biblical support for beliefs other than your own, and the group you mention, laughed at (not always but more often than not) and discounted as some ridiculous misinterpretation. This to me is actually worse than distorting scripture. It is cheapening the gift that we have as Christians to read and understand the word through the power of the Holy Spirit. That is what I fight for the most, not the issues in which we disagree, but the ability to determine what I believe based on the whole Bible and not be considered an idiot and someone to be made sport of. The same way that I said you have distorted scripture has been implied to me more times than I can count just because I have a differing view. I am truly sorry if you consider me mean. Welcome to how I feel everytime I try to begin a positive dialogue with anyone on this site who holds an opposing view to me.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Well, So long guys. It has been fun. But no more comments means the end of the party I reckon. You boys watch out for bad outlaws. They are everywhere.
cb
February 25th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Alan,
You said, “It is a shame that you turned comments off…”
I believe it’s more than a shame. I believe it reflects the attitude of dictators. The way I retaliate is not read them.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:31 am
I’m with CB, you can’t do a drive-by post and then not expect to either get some props or some challenge. Now Wes, I know you are sooooo busy that it’s nigh impossible to keep up with “fast-moving comment streams.”
Sorry gents, I’m with you theologically and you’re pretty cool dudes to boot…but I see this as a cop-out and a retreat. That’s okay, you stay in the tower and leave the fighting to us.