Archive for SBC Issues
Thank God for the CR
Posted by: | CommentsOne of the reasons that the CR was needed is illustrated by the recent string of articles in the Associated Baptist Press on women pastors. There are some people in our SBC sphere of existence who wish to rewrite history, and who like to think that the CR was not really needed. They think that it was all purely political, and it was an evil grab for power and control. But, the issue was definitely theological. The leaders of the CR just represented what thousands and thousands of Pastors and people in the pews were wanting to happen; praying for; and longing for someone to lead the charge. Thank God for Dr. Page Patterson and Paul Pressler and Dr. Adrian Rogers and all the others, who had the guts and the faith to lead out in this incredible endeavor. God used it and blessed it greatly.
But, what I really want you to see in this post is some of the reasons that the CR had to be, and where the SBC would be today if it had not happened. The ABP is a good place to look when trying to see what the SBC would’ve been. Look at this article: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5411/53/ and this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/ So, clearly going against the teaching of the Bible does not seem to matter to these people. They could care less that the Bible clearly teaches that only men should be Pastors/Elders in a church. This just shows their total disregard for what the Bible teaches. They’d rather fit in with society. And, this is where the SBC was going before the CR.
Also, I’ve always thought that winning souls and worshipping Jesus was at the heart of Christian ministry? I always thought that fulfilling the Great Commission was at the heart of what a Christian should be about? I’ve always thought that people knowing God and loving Him would answer the problem of man. Is that not what the Bible teaches? But, according to the ABP, the heart of Christian ministry should be something else. Now, please, dont come in here telling me that I dont believe in helping the sick and the poor. Of course, Christian compassion should lead us to help people in need, and we’re commanded to do that in the Bible. But, is this the “heart” of Christian ministry? Is this the core of what we should be about? Look at this article: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/ Also, notice that it’s a woman that’s “preaching” it! lol. And again, this is where the SBC was going before the CR.
Also, the ABP has shown how the liberal/moderate crowd of the former SBC’ers disregard the clear teachings of the Scripture concerning homosexuality. Look at this: http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3469&Itemid=9 and this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5001/9/ And then, look at this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5281/53/ This is where the SBC would be today had not the CR taken place. This is the way we were going before the CR.
Folks, we need to thank the Lord that the leaders of the CR had the courage and the faith to lead our SBC back to the Bible. We need to thank God most of all for doing this great work in the SBC. God has blessed us in the SBC in great ways. God is using the SBC in tremendous ways to carry out His work on this Earth. And, we need to realize that being a people of the BOOK is the reason that God uses us and blesses us so greatly. The fact that we preach the Gospel and teach His Word is why He continues to choose to bless us and use us. And, if we ever drift away from a true faith….based on the Bible….then we’ll go the way of the other denominations and churches that left the faith. You dont have to look far to see how dead and dying these churches and denominations are.
Podcast Episode 29
Posted by: | Comments
Les Puryear joins us on the podcast to discuss the SBC Majority Initiative and his recent series of posts on the distinction between Reformed pastors and traditional Southern Baptist pastors who are Calvinists. A storm caused us to lose our connection with Les just as we are beginning to discuss his blog series, so you’ll notice a bit of disconnected dialogue in there, as we edited out the chatter that went on while we were working to get everyone reconnected.
This podcast also marks the beginning of a bit of a hiatus (or should that be “an hiatus”?) for us here at SBC Today. As we explain in the closing moments of the podcast, summer is in full swing, and everyone is busy with VBS, camps, mission trips, and the like, so we’ve decided it would be best to take a break. We plan to be back around the time state conventions begin having their annual meetings in the fall, and we will return with a renewed focus on the issues of ministry, evangelism, and ecclesiology that give us our distinctive identity as Baptists. We look forward to promoting and discussing these issues.
You can listen to the podcast using the player below, or you can subscribe in iTunes by clicking the image in this post or the link in the sidebar. Below are links to some of the items discussed in the podcast:
SBCMI’s online presence:
Les Puryear’s Reformed/Southern Baptist series:
- Introduction
- Pastors
- Why It’s Important
- Ordinances or Sacraments?
- Covenant Theology
- Polity
- Altar Calls
- Support of SBC/non-SBC ministry
- Final Thoughts
Article about the SBC
Enhanced Podcast [47:38m]: Kudos to Hunt and Floyd
Posted by: | CommentsI was definitely not for the 3rd component of the Great Commission Report. In fact, I was going to vote againt the GCR until #3 was tweaked. I felt that the 3rd component of the GCR would lead us away from the Cooperative Program, to a more societal approach to missions giving in the SBC. And, frankly, I did not understand the reasoning of including #3 in the GCR, and I really still don’t get why it was so important to have that included. But anyways, two men, whom I’ve admired thru the years, were on the task force; Johnny Hunt and Ronnie Floyd. In fact, when certain groups were attacking these men, I stood up for them. I commented on blogs to defend them. But, I’ve always not liked the fact that their churches gave such a tiny percent to the CP, and here they were on the Great Commission Task Force encouraging “Great Commission Giving” being reported, which I felt would undermine the CP. So, I admit that I wasn’t real happy about this, which I’m sure caused a lot of you to lose a lot of sleep! 
Well, I want to give Johnny Hunt and Ronnie Floyd pats on the back for putting their money where their mouthes are. Johnny Hunt’s church has raised their CP giving already. And, according to Bart Barber, over at Praisegodbarebones, Johnny Hunt is tweeting often about the CP. He’s encouraging Pastors to lead their churches to give more to the CP. Also, Ronnie Floyd is leading his church to give more to the CP. Take a look at this report… http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=11921
So, I want to symbolically shake Johnny Hunt’s and Ronnie Floyd’s hands, and symbolically pat them on the back, and say, “Way to go! Thank you.” I really am happy to see these two leaders in the SBC encouraging more Pastors and churches to give more to the CP, and they’re actually doing it at their own churches, as well. In the words of that famous fella from Mayberry, “Thank ye, thank ye, thank ye!” And, may more churches follow their lead.
“To Clear from Accusation or Blame”
Posted by: | CommentsThe title of this post is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word “exoneration”. I used “exoneration” in the post announcing the completed investigation of Dr. Ergun Caner. In this post I would like to explain to our readers the thought process that went into that announcement.
First, I placed the announcement there without any consultation of the other managers here at SBC Today. That post was my doing and I accept full responsibility. I know that Brothers Wes, Scott, and David have taken some serious attacks on their characters and for this I am sorry. It was never my intention to place them in such a position as to have to defend their integrity as others have hammered away.
Old Preachers Never Die (Update)
Posted by: | Comments
That was the title of Dr. Jerry Vines last sermon at FBC Jacksonville. As he walked out the back door of that grand sanctuary you can still hear him saying, “old preachers never die”. (I must have been dreaming and that is what I get for relying on my memory. Just received word from both Dr. Vines and his son Jon, “Old Preachers Never Die” was not his last message at FBC Jax. It was “Glimpses of Glory”. Sorry for the mix-up and I will be more careful not to rely on my memory.) Dr. Vines has been our retired Southern Baptist Statesman that most seem to treat as an uncle. Some treat him as a beloved uncle. They only desire him around when they need to present a loving attitude. While others treat him as the crazy uncle that was locked away in the attic. Their attention is directed toward him when his chain rattling upsets the guest. Dr. Vines has worked tirelessly and cooperatively trying to give advice when asked and calling our convention leaders to accountability when they began down a different route. His style is one of graciousness and integrity. His heart is for the lost and his desire for Southern Baptist to win them was seen as he was one that placed his ministry on the line to see the convention turned back to an inerrant Scripture that would bring about sound doctrine to our entities. He has taken the hits and he has endured the unkind words and disrespect. It was in the 2006 convention that someone yelled something disrespectful of him and it surprised many that witnessed it. However, to my knowledge, Dr. Vines has never spoken a word about it.
I have been praying for sometime that we would see someone step forward and call the convention back to a balanced approach. I have a post I wanted to place here today concerning more of my thoughts about the GCRTF. However, after reading Dr. Vines article I feel our readers would benefit greatly from his thoughts today on balance. It seems that we have seen the pendulum swing full force from the side of cooperation to the side of independence. Well, the time has come to call our attention to the swinging of the pendulum. This call comes from none other than Dr. Jerry Vines as he calls us to balance. His latest blog article is copied in its entirety below. You can link to his latest blog Blessed Are the Balanced. I encourage you to go over and speak a word of encouragement to him. I believe he has stated it well and I pray that others will step forward to speak words of wisdom to our convention.
Matthew 6 and Great Commission Giving–Updated
Posted by: | CommentsMatthew 6:1-4 (NIV)
1 “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
In their final report the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCRTF) has certainly squelched some of my fears. I want to be on this Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) train!! I do not desire to be the one driving it and I do not want to be the one blowing the horn. I just want to be one of the 40,000 that are known as GCR pastors. Thank God, and I look forward to being part of this grand movement of God in the SBC.
At this point I want to call attention to one obstacle that I see laying on the tracks. If this obstacle is not removed it will cause this GCR train to jump the tracks. It is the Great Commission Giving (GCG) aspect of this train. This particular aspect will bring a GCR to a halt faster than the Caner brothers can grow beards. It will be the death knell of the Cooperative Program (CP) just as sure as OS Hawkins has his shirt buttons in line with his belt buckle and his shoes shined with a mirrored glaze to the point one could shave with a dull razor. Why would I make such a statement of surety? I believe in the surety of this event for three reasons. Great Commission Giving relegates not accentuates the Cooperative Program. Also, Great Commission Giving discourages not encourages cooperation. And the motive of Great Commission Giving elevates selfish desires over the Scriptural directive of giving.
Landmarkists? Really?
Posted by: | CommentsJ. R. Graves, who was such a major influence for Landmarkism in W. TN and Western Kentucky, was also a major player in the development of Union University in Jackson, TN. Dr. James Pendleton was also a major influence for Landmarkism in Southern Baptist life, and he was a former President of Union University. These two men probably did more to influence the Mid South in the area of Landmarkism than anyone else. Of course, there are many others in SB history, who were real Landmarkists. Men like B.H. Carroll and J. M. Carroll, and many other, influential leaders in SB life held to this view of ecclesiology. Landmarkism slowly died in SB life, and sadly, its departure also meant that SB seemed to slowly ignore ecclesiology; began to look upon it as seemingly unimportant; or started to give it just a passing glance. That’s the way it almost appears, anyway. So, a group of people out there began to talk about good, sound ecclesiology. And, it seems in this day and age, that there are some people, who claim that Landmarkism is not dead in SB life; due to this group known as the BI(Baptist Identity) fellas stressing sound ecclesiology. They say that Landmarkism is being promoted by a group of SBC purifiers, who want the SBC to be a Landmark fortress. And, these decriers of Landmarkism claim that the so called “BI” fellas, or the “Bapstist Identity” crowd, are the ones, who are promoting this ecclesiological view. And, there have been all kinds of accusations and misconceptions floating around about what the “BI” crowd is promoting; what they actually believe. But, are the “BI” fellas really Landmarkists? Could they really be classified as Landmarkists, or do they just believe in good ecclesiology? I want us to take a look at how some of these fellas believe about doctrines that surrounds the basic beliefs of Landmarkism, and compare it to real Landmarkism. I’m going to ask a series of questions, and I’m going to ask each, so-called, “BI” fella to respond to the Landmark belief, or to the misconceptions of some people out there, with his view of these things. Then, let’s compare that to true, real Landmarkism. Answering these questions are: Robin Foster; Matt Brady; Wes Kenney; and David Worley(Me).
Question #1: Do you believe that a Southern Baptist Church can trace it’s beginning to the Lord Jesus Christ? that there’s been a trail of blood? that a true, SB Church has been in existence from Jesus until now; as the Landmarkists believed?
Robin: I don’t believe that JM Carroll’s trail of blood is correct in its theory. I do believe there has been a “free church” tradition witness throughout history, whether or not one can call it a “Baptist” tradition as we see it today I question. Baptist churches, as we know them today, I believe got their start from Smyth and Helwys, while we have a spiritual connection with the Anabaptist of the reformation.
Matt: True churches have existed from the time of Christ and will exist until He returns. I believe my Southern Baptist church to be one of those true churches. I am not so concerned with the ability to list the particular name of every true church that has ever existed in historical and geographical order back to the church at Jerusalem as the Roman church tries to do with popes back to Peter.
Wes: If by that do you mean that the baptism of everyone in my church can be traced back through churches authorized to baptize in an unbroken line all the way back to the Apostles, then no, I don’t believe that. I believe that there have always been, since the time of the Apostles, faithful New Testament churches in existence, and I base this belief on Jesus’ promise that He would build His church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18).
David: I agree with the others that the trail of blood idea of J.M. Carroll is not correct. I do believe that there has always been NT churches in existence thru out history. I don’t believe that they were Baptist churches, and I know that they weren’t Southern Baptist churches. But, they were NT churches, which preached the Gospel.
Question #2: Do you believe in closed communion? that only the members of a local Church should take the LS together, as Landmarkists believe?
Robin: No. We practice “close” communion which to our understanding is inviting anyone to the table who has received Jesus as their Lord and Savior and has participated in believers baptism by immersion. With this, I do believe that communion is a church ordinance and should only be practiced among the gathered local church.
Matt: Our church follows close communion. Just as a family gathers together around the meal table, it is the church family that should gather together around the Lord’s table. If we have others of like faith and practice in attendance, we do not forbid them as I suspect that the believers at Troas did not forbid the Apostle Paul when he met with them on the day they celebrated the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). Occasionally we will have guests that will be invited to eat with us at the table.
Wes: While I am sympathetic to this view based on Paul’s warning against partaking without “discerning the body” (1 Cor. 11:29), I am also in harmony with the Baptist Faith and Message on this point, and have no problem serving in churches which admit anyone who has been scripturally baptized to fellowship around the Lord’s table.
David: I believe in a modified close communion view. I do believe that the LS is a Church ordinance. I do believe that it should be observed by the Church, with others of like faith being welcomed to participate. I do believe that baptised Believers should participate in it. I do not believe in being so rigid that we’d have the LS police making sure that only baptised Believers of like faith are taking the LS with us. I would not make a big deal out of who should, and who should not be taking it. But, when I preached on it, and when we begin the LS; I would gently remind everyone about these things.
Question #3: Do you believe that SB Churches are the only true Churches out there in our world today, as Landmarkists believe that Baptist churches are the only true churches?
Robin: No.
Matt: By definition a Southern Baptist church is one that gives money to missions through the Southern Baptist Convention. Giving through the SBC cannot possibly be the measure of a true church as true churches existed long before 1845.
Wes: No
David: No
Question #4: Do you think that only SB’s are going to Heaven? that they’re the only ones that are really saved? (This is a misconception that I continue to hear from people concerning the BI fellas)
Robin: That is just simply ridiculous. Salvation is by grace through faith and is lived out among the saints in a local New Testament Church.
Matt: Had the Conservative Resurgence not taken place, I probably would not be a Southern Baptist today, but I would still be a Christian. Salvation is determined by grace through faith and not by any organization of man.
Wes: No
David: I have to agree with Robin that it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’d even have to respond to this kind of a question, yet I keep hearing it from people. My answer is “NO.”
Question #5: What baptisms would you accept? In other words, what would be the bare, basic things that would have to be true before you would consider it a true baptism? that you would accept without asking the person to be baptised? (Landmarkists would accept only Baptist baptisms; baptisms done by another Baptist church)
Robin: Baptism by a local church, by immersion, as a symbolic representation of union to Christ, death to sin, and resurrection to eternal life, “never to die again.” Romans 6:3-11
Matt: A member of our church must be baptized by immersion after conversion by a church whose baptism is an ordinance of symbolism and obedience to our Lord’s command and not a means of grace.
Wes: I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, which defines scriptural baptism as “the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the beliefer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.” The BF&M also identifies baptism as a church ordinance. So as long as someone’s baptismal experience fits this definition, and took place under the authority of a local church, then I believe it to be biblical and would encourage my church to accept it as such.
David: I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, as well.
So, hopefully this will clear things up just a little bit about who these “BI” guys are, and what they really believe. Maybe? I hope so.
Harmony…Unity…Fellowship in the SBC
Posted by: | CommentsA conversation I had the other night, a good and productive conversation, got me to thinking about something. It got me to thinking about disagreements on doctrines in the Bible. And, I just wanted to let all of you know that I believe that it’s okay to disagree on minor issues; on the finer points of theology. In fact, I’d bet you a Krispy Kreme doughnut that none of us, Baptists, agree on every point of doctrine and theology, and that’s okay. We don’t have to agree on every jot and tittle. We can still love each other, and worship together, and fellowship with each other, and serve God together; even if we disagree on the minor, finer points of theology.
Now, on the main things, we must agree. On the main truths of the Bible, we must believe the same. On those things that are clearly spelled out in the Bible, there must be conformity. We must all surrender and yield our hearts and minds to the foundational truths of the Christian faith. We must all believe the fundamentals of the faith. Things like the virgin birth; the atoning death of Jesus; salvation by grace thru faith; the Trinity of God; etc. These are the things that would mean whether we’re even truly a Christian, or not. If someone denied the foundational truths of Christianity, then I wouldn’t even consider them to be a true Believer. But, those people that do hold to the main doctrines of the faith, I call my brother, or sister in Christ; even though they may not be Southern Baptist.
And, as Baptists, we must agree to the doctrinal distinctives which we hold dear; that we believe the Bible clearly teaches; in order to really be considered a Baptist Church. There are things that we must believe; doctrines that make us a Baptist Church. Theology that makes us a Baptist kind of Christian. Things like Believers baptism by immersion; the Lord’s Supper being a symbolic act; once saved, always saved; congregational polity, or governance; etc. If a Church can’t even agree to the BFM2K, is it really a Baptist Church? Is it really a Church that holds to what we consider to be the clear teachings of the Bible? that holds to the doctrines that would make us consider them a good, sound church? I would contend that churches must…in the least…hold to the BFM2K, in order to considered a cooperatiing, Southern Baptist Church.
But, on many, many other things, we can disagree on them all day long; and still worship and serve God together. My friends, there are many, many, finer points of doctrine that we can not see eye to eye on, and it’s okay. We can just have fun trying to convince the other fella that we’re right! Lol. But, these minor things should not cause separation, nor should they cause us to divide. They should not cause strife, nor should they be the source of contention. On the finer points of the major doctrines, we should allow for freedom; even while not agreeing with the other person. Amen? Amen!
A Clear Statement from Committee on Resolutions
Posted by: | Comments
In perusing the churches represented by the various ones being appointed to committees I am beginning to see signs of encouragement. For example the following statements are found on the websites of some being appointed to the Committee of Resolutions.
In this first statement I have not placed emphasis on any statement. The bold emphasis and large capital letters are placed there in the website. Thus, the church seems to desire that one understand their belief concerning Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Baptism
We believe that the baptism taught in the New Testament is by immersion. Baptism is an act of obedience by a person who has received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Baptism does not have power to save or forgive us from sin, but the message of baptism is significant:1) Baptism is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior.
2) Baptism also is a picture of the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life, in Christ Jesus.Therefore, baptism is a personal statement of your faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism doesn’t make you a believer . . . it shows that you already believe.
Who Should Be Baptized?… Every person who has believed.
“Those who believed and accepted His message were baptized…” Acts 2:41
“Simon himself believed and was baptized…” Acts 8:13
“But when they believed Philip as he preached the Good News…and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Acts 8:12Jesus never asked His disciples to remember His birth. But He did instruct them to remember His death and resurrection. The Lord’s supper is a memorial meal that was instituted by our Savior the night in which He was betrayed and delivered to die for our sins on the cross. As is true of baptism, we are not saved by eating the Lord’s Supper. It is a memorial of the death of Christ, that we may always remember His sacrifice for us. When believers observe the Lord’s Supper they proclaim His death until He comes again.
Who may take the Lord’s Supper? . . . Those who have trusted Jesus as their Savior and Lord and who have been baptized in obedience to His command.
A New Life for a Dead Camel in the New York Times
Posted by: | CommentsJust when one thinks something has been debated ad nauseum we find others take up interest. The New York Times recently ran an article on Dr. Ergun Caner’s disagreement with The Camel Method. This came to their attention through our podcast #21 where Dr. Caner made some bold statements and even had to apologize because his passion over rode his verbal abilities. What is amazing is The Times did not pick up our podcast #24 where Dr. Caner was more explicit about his disagreements with The Camel Method.
