Confessions of a “Rogerist”

May 5, 2015

Allen Michael Rea | Pastor
Dunn Memorial Baptist Church, Baxley, GA

Some time ago in one of those deprivations of free speech on social media, I was labeled as a “Rogerist”. I have a habit of quoting Dr. Adrian Rogers; in fact, he is my favorite preacher. His books line my bookshelves, and when I read those books I hear his voice in my head. While my friend from across the aisle meant the label for evil, I have come to embrace it. I did not consider it slander; I considered it a compliment. We, “Traditionalists” (www.connect316.net) have always been reluctant to settle on one name for ourselves. We are all well aware of Paul’s admonition to steer clear of schisms (1 Corinthians 3:1-9). Therefore, I am not condoning that we become even more divided. I am simply suggesting that “Rogerist” not offend us.

My hero is Jesus Christ. In ministry I have learned to cry like Jeremiah, study like Paul, preach like Amos, but look only to Jesus. I am sure Dr. Rogers would NEVER want to stand between anyone and Jesus Christ. May I, then, make a few “Rogerist” confessions?

1.  My church is small (in the eyes of my denomination but not in the eyes of God), but I prepare like I am going to preach at Bellevue Baptist. Why? Simply because each and every person was made in the image of God and because Christ died for each and every them. They deserve to hear my very best. Brothers, it is sinful to desire to be any other place than where God has placed you.

2.  I go through tracts like they are going out of style. We all claim to be evangelistic, but are we evangelistic in practice? God does not demand a quota, but He does demand obedience. Evangelism is not a service to procrastinate about; it is a ministry that should never cease.

3.  I love preaching. Not unlike Jeremiah, His words are a fire in my bones! Brothers, we must let the main thing be the main thing. I once heard Dr. Herb Reavis at the 2012 SBC Pastor’s Conference preach a sermon on 2 Timothy 4 entitled “Just a Preacher.” Brothers, let’s be preachers and be content to be that. Let the others have their book deals and television interviews. I just want to preach Jesus. Perhaps it is time that we preachers fall in love with our calling again. You cannot love preaching if you do not love the Savior that you are preaching.

I am not certain that these few confessions entitle me to claim the label “Rogerist” or not. If being a “Rogerist” means that I am not a Calvinist, or an Arminian, but a Baptist–then sign me up. If being a “Rogerist” means being on fire for Jesus and loving the sound of the Sinner’s Prayer–then give me a membership card. Whatever else I am, I am saved and called to preach. I honor and respect the sacred desk. The old Southern Baptist evangelist Jesse M. Hendley said, “Any preacher who does not preach the Gospel of the grace of God to lost souls, God’s curse is on him.”  A true “Rogerist” is not in any danger of that curse.

 

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Rick Patrick

Allen,

Very well said. Is is interesting, throughout church history, that names like “Christian” and “Baptist” and “Methodist” all started out as terms of derision, but were later worn with pride. Perhaps “Traditionalist” or “Rogersist” might fit in that same category. Some Arminians want to swallow us up with their label, while some Calvinists want to brand us as semi-pelagian heretics. If ever there was a theological position crying out for a more precise and respectful term, it is ours.

In addition to Traditionalist and Rogersist, I think Extensivist, Volitionist and Conversionist are also good options that have been proposed. While I’ve written in defense of the term “Traditionalist” (http://connect316.net/aWhyTraditionalism) my primary aim is to advocate for a term that is “positive (not a term of negation), respectful (not derogatory) and whole (not a modified or partial version of another term inevitably carrying its own baggage). Perhaps one day consensus will form and the debate can proceed with a little less name calling.

    Allen M Rea

    I appreciate your insight and leadership brother. I give a hearty “amen” to your comments.

    Scott Shaver

    I’m not Arminian ….but still reject the application of “traditionalist” labels to those who previously and proudly wore the badge of “Fundamentalist” while scourging the REAL “traditionalists” in their midst.

    What’s wrong with the old handle Rick?

    The old handle kinda puts you between a rock and hard spot now huh?

      Scott Shaver

      I’m curious.

      In light of an article entitled “Confessions of a Rogerist” and the obvious attempt to tie Adrian Rogers and Herschell Hobbs together as the new banner/label for former supporters of the CR (heretofore known as “Fundamentalists” in SBC context)……Why are you resurrecting Hobbs name?

      During the 80’s, you guys were running from him like the plague…. branding him “Moderate”… doing everything possible in print and in public to distance yourselves from him.

      What changed your opinion of Hobbs?

      I suspect a guy named CALVIN?

        Scott Shaver

        Were Hobbs still alive and viewing the current landscape of the SBC, I wonder how he would feel about being assigned to the same label/sect as Rogers (i.e. “traditionalist”)

          JD

          Scott,

          Are you the same Scott Shaver who was the coordinator in Louisiana for Mainstream Baptists?

            Scott Shaver

            Yes. Are you the JD Hall that torments teenagers online?

              Lydia

              “Yes. Are you the JD Hall that torments teenagers online?”

              Oh but he “repented” and his elders (and Wade Burleson) gave him immediate absolution. Now he is baaaaack in several forms by proxy. So, you never know….best to assume. The way he presents the question sounds just like JD preparing to pounce..

              JD

              Barker is my last name and I haven’t been tormenting teenagers online.

                Scott Shaver

                Then I am sorry and you have my sincere apology. Yes is the answer to your original question.

                Max

                JD – that’s wonderful to know! The fact that Southern Baptist blogs have participants who have tormented teenagers online, think a sinner’s prayer is superstitious, and debate teachings and traditions of men more than preach the gospel are all sad signs that things are greatly amiss in SBC ranks.

                  rhutchin

                  I don’t see blogs being vehicles for evangelizing the lost – they are written by Baptists for Baptists and deal with subjects great and small that other baptists may, or may not, care about. Even you could have a blog and rail against anything and everything that you fancy. Blogs can be brutal and are not always for the weak or faint-hearted. Such is the world of the internet.

              Les Prouty

              “Oh but he “repented” and his elders (and Wade Burleson) gave him immediate absolution. Now he is baaaaack in several forms by proxy. So, you never know….best to assume. The way he presents the question sounds just like JD preparing to pounce..”

              Actually best NOT to assume. See where that got you?

                Scott Shaver

                No Les:

                In response to your logic would be best if folks just signed their real names to eliminate confusion.

                Les Prouty

                No, it is best if Christians would believe the best about others until they prove otherwise. In this case, JD deserved the benefit of the doubt. There is no reason to assume he is JD Hall. I think the scriptures speak as to how we should love one another (you know, love…fruit if the Spirit):

                “4 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, 5 it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, 6 it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

                Now some may say context or something. But one will be hard pressed to exclude Christians from the command to love one another in the way that God describes in 1 Corinthians.

                God bless all.

                  Scott Shaver

                  In the context of daily life, the gathered church and in the flesh of genuine human interaction…..I’ll give your words some thought Les.

                  Meanwhile, cyberspace is a different story……kinda like Pandoras box. Never know who or what you’re gonna get in this jungle.

                  Not everybody who says “Lord, Lord” …. huh?

                  Les Prouty

                  Scott,

                  “Meanwhile, cyberspace is a different story……kinda like Pandoras box. Never know who or what you’re gonna get in this jungle.

                  Not everybody who says “Lord, Lord” …. huh?”

                  For sure. Thanks Scott.

                  Ken

                  When a believer is ready to pounce on someone – he is revealing his personal mental/spiritual condition.

                    Scott Shaver

                    That is correct Ken. Kinda like you just did.

      Donald

      Scott, who and when were “those who previously and proudly wore the badge of “Fundamentalist” while scourging the REAL “traditionalists” in their midst.”? The Indy-Fundy crowd has owned that term since the 70’s (at least).

      Donald

        Scott Shaver

        Donald:

        Were you to pour through the voluminous records online (books, biographies, copies of newsletters etc tracing the history of Fundamentalism in the SBC), you would no doubt find the names of many (pastors, seminary professors etc) you currently know/know of…..who had no problem being identified as such in the days when there were only two SBC camps, “Moderate” and “Fundamentalist”. I refuse to use the term “conservative” however as a demarcation line between the two groups.

        Why you may ask? For the same reason I see spin under way now to identify the neo-calvinist element within SBC as “reform” and the formerly “fundamentalist” element as “traditional”.

        Under the unspoken rules and according to the DNA of Southern Baptist baptist holy war (jihad), you have to identify your opponent as being something left of a center point which is continually moving. Now “reform” suggests right of center, “traditional” suggests left.

        Care to guess how this will play out?

          Scott Shaver

          As a matter of fact, I remember attending the 1990 SBC meeting in New Orleans when Jerry Vines preached about “Billy Baptist and His Bible”.

          I kid you not, there were tons of young messengers (mostly early 30’s and under) who wore name tags with “FUNDAMENTALIST” printed in big bold letters directly under their handles.

          Party spirit was so thick you could cut it with a knife……sickening.

Scott Shaver

I doubt seriously if your cyber-detractor intended “Rogerist” for evil as much as he/she intended to comment (perhaps constructively) on your obvious affinity for being labeled under the names of your spiritual heroes.

The problem with human heroes is they all have feet of clay, a fact that tends to be forgotten and glossed over post-mortem. You’re right…”keep the main thing the main thing” but remember: The “legend” of Adrian Rogers may not be completely squaring in the minds of a lot of baptists who read your words but actually witnessed his “actions”.

Just sayin.

    Allen M Rea

    Jesus is my hero. I have no delusions of grandeur about men. Thanks for reading.

    volfan007

    Scott,

    I saw the life and ministry of Adrian Rogers. He was a godly Man of God, who preached the Gospel. He was a wise and strong leader, who helped the SBC stay grounded on the Word of God. He had the utmost respect from Bible Believing, Jesus loving Baptists across the SBC. And, he was probably the greatest preacher that ever lived.

    David

      Allen M Rea

      Amen.

      Scott Shaver

      Vofan007:

      If the SBC looks currently “grounded in the Word of God”, perhaps you’d be interested in some prime beach front property near Abilene TX. Will sell it to you at a steal.

      SBC can’t even figure out any more whether Christians are saved by faith or determinism. Were Adrian alive and still SBC active today he’d be sitting in the same position with regard to the current controversy as Paige Patterson……..sidelined and silent.

        volfan007

        Scott,

        I’m glad that the SBC is debating Calvinism vs. Traditionalism, and debating things like Lite Church vs. Deeper, Doctrinal Church, and CP support of missions vs. a more societal approach; rather than debating whether the Bible has errors in it, or not; or, whether homosexuality is ok with God, or not; or, whether Jews and Muslims are saved, too. The way we were heading in the SBC was not only Biblical unsoundness, but we were also heading towards heresy. I thank God for the CR. I thank God for Page Patterson and Judge Pressler. And, if it were not for men like these and Dr. Rogers, I would not be a SB, today.

        All we’ve got to do is to look at the CBF, and a few others to see just how bad of a road we were going down, before God pulled us up, out of the junkpile of dead denominations.

        So, we’ve got Calvinists trying to control the SBC, now. And, we’ve got Traditionalists and regular ole Baptists, who are resisting it. Praise God! At least, they’re all Bible believing, Jesus loving, Doctrinally sound Believers, who are the players in this scenario, instead of having heretics trying to lead people to Hell. I’ll gladly join with a soul-winning, Bible believing Calvinist, who believes in missions over a Bible-doubting, PC, universalist liberal….any day of the week!

        David

        PS. I was there for the CR. I was young, but I was there. I saw and heard things that would make us cringe. I saw the life of Adrian Rogers…maybe not as much as a family member or a good friend would have….but, I’ve heard preach more times than I can shake a stick at, and I’ve seen him in personal times, and I’ve heard people, who knew him well, talk about what a good and godly man he was. So, don’t come in here with all of that liberal, revisionist history stuff with me.

          Scott Shaver

          You had a long straw during the kool-aid drinking huh David?

            Scott Shaver

            Additionally David (Volfan) and I’ll back off a little.

            I thought the CR settled the issues of inerrancy, homosexuality and marriage once and for all among Southern Baptists.

            Doesn’t look like within the current rank and file of SBC pastors and writers that these issues are any more settled than prior to the CR. In fact, in many cases the water is cloudier …. and not just over the issues of homosexuality and marriage as Sunday School sponsored keg parties will attest.

            As far as the issue of biblical “inerrancy” being answered by CR….I think not as recent written evidence would seem to suggest that we (SBC) can’t tell anymore whether determinism or faith is the true channel to God. Same inerrant word with two entirely different operational conclusions.

            Adrian Rogers encouraged active political involvement (his cup of tea)…..yet the new “Rogerists” don’t want any politicians now speaking to their pastors’s conferences. Adrian probably would have chided them for that.

            Where’s the inerrant answer (from a baptist perspective) to the ongoing questions and debates currently being tossed around? What about infant baptisms for example….and others?

              Andy

              Scott,

              1. Of course each generation will have it’s own debates and battles, often over the same issues. It’s the nature of fallen people trying to figure out their way in the world. And believe it or not, One’s view of Scripture DOES make a difference in those discussions…It provides SOME common ground.

              2. One must be careful not to paint too rosy a picture of past time periods…I doubt the 60’s and 70’s were all Kum ba Ya & “ALL baptists agree about everything. Mayberry never existed.

              3. Those 2 “entirely different operational conclusions” have existed in SBC life for 150 years, they aren’t new…one has just risen in prominence lately. The issue can’t be that they both exist. it must be something else.

              4. The churches that decided to withdraw from the SBC and form the CBF are not immune to problems either. Even for those sympathetic to their ideology, They have their own struggles…evidenced here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/02/a-word-from-a-founder-to-all-my-moderate-baptist-friends/.

              5. The simple answer to your main question about such diversity of opinions on matters is that due to the internet, nearly Any baptist can put their views out, and on the one hand, it seems like chaos of conflicting information….on the other hand, it gives us practice with interacting graciously with those who have different conclusions.

                Scott Shaver

                Andy:

                Curiously, you are the second or third person I’e interacted with on this thread who has mentioned the CBF. What does CBF have to do with the price of eggs in China when it comes to the SBC , which is what I thought we were talking about?

                The CBF chartered it’s own floundering direction after the CR and I have no interest in joining or discussing their plight in the context of CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE SBC.

                Andy, you offer up the sage counsel that “the 2 entirely different operational conclusion” have existed in SBC life for 150 years, they aren’t new…one has just risen in prominence lately”.

                Answer me this: “When in its 150 year history (exception last decade) has the SBC looked/sounded more Presbyterian than Baptist? When (exception last decade) in its 150 year history have Southern Baptist pastors ever entertained ideas about the practice or efficacy of infant baptisms etc?

                Is that what you mean by “graciously interacting” with those who have different conclusions?

                Business as usual for 150 years Andy?….I think not.

                  volfan007

                  Scott,

                  The CBF is where a lot of the “Moderates” and Liberals went, after the CR had taken it’s full effect. And, we get a very accurate snapshot of where these people would’ve taken the SBC, if they would’ve stayed in control of the SBC.

                  Thank God for the CR.

                  David

                    Scott Shaver

                    Correction Volfan007:

                    SOME of the “moderates” and “liberals” went to CBF.

                    The majority of Southern Baptist church members and long-tenured pastors that you would undoubtedly place in those camps are still right where they’ve always been…..their posteriors parked in the pews and pulpits of SBC affiliated churches. Just like me.

                    They don’t blog, they don’t write, they don’t attend “conventions’ and “summitts”….they just sit back shaking their heads while remembering those events which have culminated in the current status of SBC affairs.

                    Just because you don’t recognize them doesn’t mean they’re not there. Papers and statements and pronouncements from Louisville will not make them go away nor keep them from using their heads as well as their hearts.

                    The priesthood of the beliver has always been foundational to their faith and practice and will remain so long after the SBC has become something other than “Baptist”.

                  Andy

                  1. Sorry I did not see anyone else bring up the CBF…your main point seems to be that the CR direction was wrong…the CBF formed as an alternative, so it is natural to assume a strong opponent of the CR might sympathize with the CBF. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I hope you can see how I could have gotten there.

                  2. “Business as usual” are your words, not mine. You were bemoaning that 2 “entirely different operational conclusions” were in the SBC…I merely pointed out that those two soteriologies have always existed in the SBC. This most recent resurgence of calvinism HAS been swift and strong, but it will likely ebb. Some predict the total calvinization of the SBC, some predict it will fade and leave a lot of people disillusioned with calvinism. I dont’ know which is right.

                  3. Current controversies are non unrelated to the oft-cited baptist principle of soul competency, in which millions of baptists will draw different conclusions to their reading of scripture. If wanted complete and utter uniformity on all issues, then THAT would be very presbyterian.

                    Les Prouty

                    Andy,

                    One point of order. You said “If wanted complete and utter uniformity on all issues, then THAT would be very presbyterian.”

                    1.Subscription to the WCF and catechisms is ONLY required of officers (elders and deacons) in the Presbyterian church (PCA). It is NOT required of members of PCA churches. I know many members of PCA churches who are more Baptistic than Presbyterian and disagree with Reformed theology (such as TULIP). It is not required for membership. At all.

                    2. Even in the officers and their subscription t the standards, it is not rigid and word for word. Men becoming ordained can and do have exceptions to some particulars in the confession and catechisms and they make them now to their presbytery during their examinations. It is then up to the entire presbytery to approve the man for ordination with his exceptions.

                    Besides, “presbyterian” really says more about the kind of government than the particular theology.
                    Just an FYI.

                    Andy

                    Yes, Les, I did exaggerate a bit, I apologize…but among clergy, there is much more uniformity.

                    I understand that it is not required for membership….I have a cousin who recently joined a presbyterian church, and I asked him if he had “converted” on infant baptism…he said no, they just like the church…they’ll have their son baptized later if/when he confesses Christ.

                    I also know that despite Scotts objections, Baptists will not be Presbyterian, because we have not presbytery.

                    Les Prouty

                    You’re right Andy. I thought you knew the difference. But others may be operating under a common misconception that to join a Presbyterian church one has to agree with the doctrines of that church. Just not true.

                    And you’re right again. Baptists will never become Presbyterian. It’s just a silly notion.

          Scott Shaver

          My question to David would be what was the Southern Baptist Convention saved from in order that it could fall apart now?……so the Bible could be ignored for sociology and sham statistics?

            Volfan007

            Scott, I would rather the SBC split over Calvinism, than to go down the toilet bowl of liberal theology and heresy.

              Scott Shaver

              VolFan:

              Looks like you’ll probably get your wish…….results will be the same albeit much quicker in coming than with “the toilet bowl of liberal theology and heresy”.

              I”m seeing and hearing more non-baptist “heresy” (your word) being expressed at current in the SBC than ever before in its history during my lifetime.

              Seems you prefer the quicker acting poison.

              Scott Shaver

              David:

              I’m afraid the “split” occurred a few decades back. What you have now is fragmentation and dissolution of “Southern Baptist” identity.

                Jim P

                Scott,

                You seem to have experience shown in much of your posts. I know I do not. But what I have seen seems to agree with this comment of yours, ‘fragmentation and dissolution of Southern Baptist identity.” Southern Baptist do have contributions to make but if all they learn how to do is moan and groan to each other then that is all they’ll come to be known for. ‘God’s kingdom will come’ whether any group works to be part of it or not, including Southern Baptists.

                In some ways, they like all who call themselves Christians, need to go back to the Source for their identity.

                  Max

                  “… need to go back to the Source for their identity.”

                  And that, Brother Jim, has been the saddest thing to observe in the current SBC wrangling … identification with the teachings and traditions of men, rather than the life and message of Christ. As you note, the Kingdom of God will move forward with or without Southern Baptists.

                  Scott Shaver

                  Thank you Jim.

                  I fully understand in this context that I’m the disgruntled voice of one “Southern Baptist” layman, partial to history, in a sea of equally voiciferous pastor/preacher types.

                  That aside, you make the greatest point/truth so far in this thread.

                  You also confirm for my understanding, and from a historical perspective, how the story closes on “SBC”.

                  Name change might not only be needed at this point, but healthy as way of better identifying the cross-section they would like to achieve.

                    Scott Shaver

                    A change in entity name might also help remove some what many feel to be the “negative stigmas,” whether deserved or undeserved, associated with the Southern Baptist Convention label (i.e racism)

Travis Farris

I am indebted to the ministry of Adrian Rogers for much of my ministerial conviction. His willingness to stand for truth has made an indelible mark on my life. His wife (Joyce) is my spiritually adopted mother, as well as, my wife’s mentor. With that said, I want to caution any and all to be careful of their label named after men.

Pastor Rogers always gave the call for people to “Come to Jesus”. In fact, this invitation is marked on his grave stone. So whether intended for good or evil I am persuaded Adrian Rogers would not want anyone to bear his name; rather he would point them only to Jesus. For some one to use “Rogerist” as a slander is grossly ignorant of his testimony. To embrace “Rogerist” as a system of theology is completely contrary to what Pastor Rogers would have ever wanted.

I do, however, believe it is worth while to mark those who are godly and Adrian was in fact that. In every seminary class I took his name came up sometime within the course of the semester. He has made an impression on the SBC like no other and his absence is easily seen today. Perhaps, the best thing for all to do is to drop “isms” and “ists” and just strive to look more like Jesus.

    Allen M Rea

    Rogers is now a part of that “great cloud of witnesses”. Hebrews 11 reminds us to imitate others as they imitate Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). Thanks for reading.

      Scott Shaver

      I’m sure Adrian is standing among the “great cloud of witnessess”.

      Russell Dilday is also standing there.

        Max

        Dr. Dilday was indeed a good man … you’ll see him in Glory. He prophesied the eventual Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention long before Traditionalists caught onto the scheme. His analysis of the BFM2000 revision provides remarkable insight into the New Calvinist game plan. Dr. Dilday was a CR casualty, whose crude termination at Southwestern seminary was shameful.

        P.S., I’m not a moderate nor the son of a moderate, but sending this “constructive conservative” packing was one bad call by the CR leadership. Truth is, Southern Baptists stand on the shoulders of giants, men and women of God, who have persevered in contending for the faith and declaring Jesus to the nations in cooperation with one another. Adrian Rogers was just a man – he would tell you that. Russell Dilday would, too.

        Joe Blackmon

        Dilday may indeed be there, but when he got there, he saw the error of his ways and the heresy of Baptist moderates and realized the sinfulness of being willing to cooperate with them.

        He got better than he deserved.

          Scott Shaver

          LOL, Darth Vader:

          If “on earth as it is in heaven” is any indicator, you’re way off the mark.

          Max

          Joe, unless I missed the news of his parting, I believe Dr. Dilday is still with us and Chancellor of the B.H.Carroll Theological Institute. I didn’t mean to imply that he was ‘already’ in Glory!

          As Christians, we all get better than we deserve.

            Scott Shaver

            Partly my fault, I inadvertently typed ‘is” rather that “will be”….standing in heaven.

    Scott Shaver

    “Rogerist” implies for me the same kind of blind fundamentalism that led the SBC into its current quagmire. Difference now is the “Rogerists” are the prey of Calvinists as opposed 20 years aqo to being agressors toward their fellow “traditionalists”.

    Now assuming the mantle of Adrian Rogers, former fundamentalists want to be described as “traditionalists”…..what a bunch of phoney preacher baloney.

    He might have been a great preacher, the stories of his his personal soul winning have been highly embellished. Check the record. IMO, Rogers is one of several who must be credited with the current state of SBC affairs.

    You can change the labels but you can’t change the history. Wake up guys, took you inside of 10 years following the Rogers 2000 BFM to lose the whole ball of wax to reformed Calvinists.

    From a strictly institutional perspective….it’s insanely hilarious. :)

      Allen M Rea

      I guess I will just sit here in my “quagmire” while eating my “phoney preacher baloney”. Your testimony of Dr. Rogers’ personal soul willing as being “highly embellished” is disheartening. You will pardon me, I hope, if I take his word for it and the thousands of testimonies found on LWF. I am not surprised that many do not like or even admire Rogers. Jesus warned in Luke 6:26: “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”

        Scott Shaver

        Enjoy your meal Bro. Rea.

        Don’t be disheartened by truth…embrace and learn from it.

          Scott Shaver

          And “testimonies” are kinda like elbows…..everybody has one or two.

Max

Allen – contrary to what some of your young peers think, Adrian Rogers was a gift to Southern Baptists. He was the real deal! He was gifted, anointed, and called into the world for such a time as this. He never failed to lift the name of Jesus in all that he did … thousands were birthed into the Kingdom because he did. You couldn’t find a greater role model to pattern your ministry after … you stand in good company as a “Rogerist”!

After my father died, my mother relocated to the Memphis area to be near my sister. She joined Bellevue and resided nearby in the church’s retirement complex Bellevue Woods. Even with a congregation numbering nearly 30,000 at his retirement, Adrian found time to make hospital and shut-in visits. He prayed with my mother during her hospital stays. While he was a great preacher, we also knew him as pastor.

His approach to culture wars was not to develop a ministry that was culturally relevant, but to preach the Truth in love in an attempt to turn the culture back to God. He called sin sin and took his licks for doing so in a society drifting into moral and spiritual decay. Countless souls lifted out of darkness under his preaching will bear testimony to God’s use of this servant in their lives. Praise God for Adrian Roger’s ministry – his words continue to breathe truth and life.

In light of the current SBC wrangling, I’ve been thinking about his words a lot lately (from Dr. Rogers’ address at the SBC Pastors’ Conference, 19 June 1995):

“Now folks, I want to say something to you, I am always willing to apologize. I am willing to repent. I am willing to forgive. I am willing to negotiate. I am willing to counsel. I am willing to dialogue. But the Word of God is not up for negotiation. I said to a dear man, ‘We’re not going to compromise the Word of God.’ He said, ‘Well, we’ll not get together.’ I said, ‘We don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t have to exist. I don’t have to be the pastor at Bellevue Baptist Church. I don’t even have to live. But one thing I have to do is to stand before God and give an answer to Him. And by the grace of God, I will not – if He will only help me – ever compromise His Word … And I am calling you, my brothers and sisters, to a burning, blazing, passionate, emotional love for Christ and His Word. And don’t simply strike the ground three times. Give us men of passion! Give us men of emotion! Give us men of resolution! Give us men of determination! Nothing pleases God more than to be greatly trusted. God wants to do for us exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think according to the power that worketh in us. Young preacher boys coming along, don’t just strike the ground three times. Get out of the boat with both feet and go for God with all that is in you.”

Young preacher boys become men of God following such counsel.

    Scott Shaver

    Max:

    I’ve got t-shirts which are older than some of the”young peers” you mention.

    Rogers was a tyrant in his approach to SBC denominational issues. Plain and simple.

      Max

      Scott,

      Tyrants use power or authority in a cruel, unjust, or harmful way. Adrian was certainly passionate during the Conservative Resurgence when it came to Biblical inerrancy, but I wouldn’t put him in the tyrant box. Adrian was motivated by love for the Word and preservation of majority Southern Baptist belief and practice – such love is not cruel, unjust or harmful; although, it might sting. Doing the right thing can sometimes look wrong from the other side … sort of like the current theo-political debate raging in the ranks. Who’s got the corner on Truth? God knows.

        Scott Shaver

        Perhaps this is because you do not have close personal friends and former baptist (SBC) leaders who were intentionally defamed, criticized and lied about directly and publicly by Rogers.

        Yes, IMO and as far as “Southern Baptists” go….the man was definitely a denominational tyrant. Additionally, its beginning to look like all the work of “reforming” the denomination for which he and a handful of others are continually given credit is headed for the “dust bin of history” as well.

        Have a feeling your neo-calvinist brethren will see to that.

    Allen M Rea

    Thank you for reading and commenting. Thank you for quoting those inspirational words. I am thankful to be in good company. :)

    volfan007

    Max,

    Amen….you have described Adrian Rogers well. May God raise up more Pastors in the SBC, who are like him.

    David

    Les Prouty

    I attended MABTS at the same time Vol did. I was around Dr. Rogers a number of times though not as much as Vol. I attended a different SB church where I was an intern. But, while we all acknowledge Jesus as Lord and should be careful not to venerate men too much, Dr. Rogers was a great man all around. Preacher, soul winner, family man, etc from what I saw. Calling him a tyrant is just sad, juvenile and says way more about the accuser than the accused.

    The evangelical church should collectively thank God for Dr. Rogers.

      Scott Shaver

      Believe my exact words were “denominational tyrant” Les.

      Yes, and much of what was displayed during that period of SBC history could indeed be called “juvenile”.

      Les Prouty

      Scott,

      Tyrant: “a cruel and oppressive ruler.” Even in denominational politics you’re way off base. How well did you personally know Dr. Rogers? Or are you just spreading what others told you?

      “Perhaps this is because you do not have close personal friends and former baptist (SBC) leaders who were intentionally defamed, criticized and lied about directly and publicly by Rogers.”

      Scott, calling him a liar is a serious charge. “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.” Titus 3:1-2

Scott Shaver

Will make this short Les.
Stand by every word I penned and care not how “serious” you consider the charge.

You lifting scripture passages out of context to suggest that I owe Rogers some sort of submission is ludicrous. Rogers never sat in any position of authority, spiritual or otherwise over me.

I deeply admired many of the man’s qualities and gifts…..other aspects of his character and actions in Southern Baptist life….not so much.

Now that you’ve defined the charge as “serious” Les…..what’s next?

    Les Prouty

    Scott, you sure do own your words. And some of you need to learn what it really means to lift words out of context. Submission? Thats what you picked out to reject? How about this part of the verse,

    “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.”

    Does that not apply to you?

    “Now that you’ve defined the charge as “serious” Les…..what’s next?”

    Probably nothing in your case. But apparently I’m the only one of your fellow commenters willing to challenge you on your calling Dr. Adrian Rogers publicly with zero offered proof. But you own it for sure.

      Scott Shaver

      Les:

      If you weren’t so lazy about doing your own homework you wouldn’t be constantly asking for “proof”. It’s public domain if you know how to find it.

      You ain’t no lawyer and this ain’t no court.

      Obviously, not only are you not satisfied with baiting me on this thread, but others as well who hold views diametrically opposed to mine. Here’s to equal opportunity :)

      Sleep tight..

      Les Prouty

      Scott,

      Not baiting. I have no intention of getting into all about Titus. If you don’t think ““to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people” applies to you, then we have no common ground to have a discussion about Titus. If you do think it applies to you, then you have some unfinished business. But not with me.

      Done with you on this.

        Scott Shaver

        I can’t include the late Dr. Rogers in this question but can include Paige Patterson.

        Les, since you offered up the instruction from Titus…”speak evil of no one….”

        How do you think Adrian Rogers and Paige Patterson should have handled the Larry Bakers, Roy Honeycutts, and Russell Dildays of the world….hmmm?

          volfan007

          Scott,

          We’re encouraged in many, many passages in the NT to deal with false teachers, who sneak into the Church. The entire book of Jude deals with this. And, Paul had a few words for dealing with people, who were drifting away from sound doctrine. Also, Churches were commended for exposing false teachers, and not letting them remain in the fellowship….to destroy the Church like a cancer.

          So, when we had Profs at Southern praying to “Our Mother,” and calling believing in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus “crass,” and teaching universalism,and some SS writer teaching that there were 2 Devils,…the one in the OT being different than the one in the NT, and Profs and Pastors saying that the Bible contains errors, then it was certainly the right thing to do to rise up and stop the spread of unsound doctrine. It was time for Dr. Adrian Rogers to rise up, and say “Enough is enough. We will not slide down into this hellish pit, anymore.”

          Again, thank God for the CR.

          David

            Scott Shaver

            Theological fads come and go among seminary professors and young students all the time VolFan.

            Got some pretty bizarre ones still circulating out there right now. God never promised to work in seminaries, he did promise to work in Christ’s church and in the hearts of believers.

              volfan007

              Scott,

              If you see “errors in the Bible,” and “believing in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus,” and “universalism” as just merely fads of theology, then we’re not even in the same book, much less on the same page.

              David

                volfan007

                That should read “Believing in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus being CRASS”

                Scott Shaver

                David:

                You’re more busy putting words into my mouth then you are addressing rationally the words I’ve written.

                You assume way to much about folks without even a basic knowledge of them.

                Would not want to be on the same page with a mind ….or heart that works as yours obviously does.

                  Scott Shaver

                  Since when does God require getting “on the same page” with David Brumbelow?

                    rhutchin

                    Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Paul instructed Bishops to “[Hold] fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”

                    When David says that we should be on the same page, he means that we should teach the truth of the Scriptures and not “…[seeing] “errors in the Bible,” and “believing in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus,” and “universalism” as just merely fads of theology,…”

                    God requires that we defend the truth of the Scriptures and “be on the same page” with Him.

                    I don’t see any basis to attribute evil to David as you seem to labor so hard to do.

                    volfan007

                    David Brumbelow?

                    Scott Shaver

                    My apologies to Mr. Brumbelow if that’s not who you are.

                    Volfan07

                    Scott,

                    My name is David Worley.

                  Lydia

                  “Paul instructed Bishops to “[Hold] fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”

                  What Bishops was Paul instructing? Paul was writing to the entire church. It looks like he was writing on behalf himself, Silas and Timothy.

                    rhutchin

                    I agree. Paul was instructing Titus on the appointment of Bishops. However, the one appointed to that office would certainly take such things to heart and seek by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers – but that’s my extrapolation.

              rhutchin

              Scott Shaver writes, “God never promised to work in seminaries,…”

              Paul tells us to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Such study might occur by oneself in the home or in interaction with others in the seminary. In whatever venue that a person chooses to study the word, it is God who opens the eyes that one may see and understand His word. Would it not be ignorant to think that God would neglect those who study in seminaries or in any other place where people seek to understand His word? Nonetheless, we might expect the tares to grow among the wheat but never to exclude God or prevent Him working in the hearts of His elect.

                Scott Shaver

                Nice shot at proof-texting ruffian…..I mean rhutchin.

                I applaud you on your familiarity with Paul.

                Still don’t see how this passage has any relevance to seminaries as an extension of Christ’s church with all it’s attendant promises and provisions.

                Seminary obviously hasn’t helped you much. Not sure Timothy attended one.

                  Scott Shaver

                  Didn’t Paige Patterson recently allow a practicing Muslim into the body of matriculating students at Southwestern?

                  Nope…not quite convinced at this point to consider institutions like seminaries as carte blanche biblical extensions of Christ’s church.

                    Scott Shaver

                    In fact…..it looks to me like “seminaries” are a major source of problems and confusion in a lot of “Baptist” churches right now.

                    Isn’t that part of the reason for the existence of Connect 3:16?

                  rhutchin

                  Scott Shaver writes, “Nice shot at proof-texting…”

                  Said in a positive sense, of course. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of God in saying, “God never promised to work in seminaries,… ,” and I corrected that misunderstanding.

                  Of course, seminaries should not be viewed as an extension of Christ’s church but only as one means by which Christ’s church endeavors to be obedient to that which Paul instructed – “Study to show thyself approved unto God.”

                  While Timothy did not attend a formal “seminary,” he studied under one of the preeminent seminary professors who has ever lived. Having Paul as your personal tutor certainly had advantages. Today, our your men have access to Paul through his letters and go to seminary to study under men apt to instruct in those things Paul wrote about. We have no reason to say, as you did, that God does not work through seminaries and the men who teach in those seminaries.

                    Scott Shaver

                    What seminary did u attend rutchin that taught you Gamaliel was a “seminary professor” and the Sanhedrin an ancient version of SBTS.

                    Some of your comments are priceless

                    Scott Shaver

                    Paul was a seminary professor? News to me. Thought he was a student of Gamaliel and candidate/inductee for Jeiwish Sanhedrin. Not one thing revealed to Paul by God was learned in seminary. Rutchin, did u learn that at Seminary?

                    Andrew Barker

                    rhutchin: Since the word ‘study’ in 2 Tim 2:15 does NOT refer specifically to academic study, I fail to see how this verse provides any support for going to a seminary. Of course, there are plenty of good reasons for going to a seminary. It’s just that using verses out of context is hardly a good basis upon which to start your theological education, is it?

                    rhutchin

                    Andrew Barker writes, “Since the word ‘study’ in 2 Tim 2:15 does NOT refer specifically to academic study, I fail to see how this verse provides any support for going to a seminary. Of course, there are plenty of good reasons for going to a seminary. It’s just that using verses out of context is hardly a good basis upon which to start your theological education, is it?”

                    The word study is used in a general, non specific sense, with the goal of “…rightly dividing the word of truth.” The verse supports any venue of study – whether individual or group study – and can be defined in the manner of the Bereans who “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched (i.e., studied) the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Seminaries provide an excellent venue for study and searching of the Scriptures because of time for personal study, interaction with other students to reinforce understanding, and the assistance of professors to help with difficult subjects and to push one to excel. Only a blind man would see this verse being out of context with seminary study.

                    Andrew Barker

                    rhutchin: I’m not sure if you don’t get it or not, but I shall point this out once more and that’s an end to it. The word ‘study’ as used in KJV and similar does not mean study as we now understand it. It means to be diligent, make an effort, do your best. Most other translations have dropped the use of the word study.

                    The other key word is workman which can also be translated field worker, or simply worker. There’s no hint of the ‘workman’ being a professor, don or any other such academic position.

                    It is true that the phrase correctly dividing or handling can have a teaching association. But coupled with the other key words this would point to a more practical explanation of how to live the Christian life and not an academic institution, laudable though that may be in itself.

                    I shall say no more :)

                  Scott Shaver

                  rhutchin:

                  One one hand you talk about allowing “tares among the wheat”….One the other hand you talk about “Moderates getting better than they deserved”……..Which is it, A or B?

                    Andrew Barker

                    Scott: Scott: Your comments to rhutchin “Nice attempt at proof-texting” is a bit generous in my opinion. The thing to do it search for all the times ‘study’ is used in scripture. Not many! That should sound a warning bell. Then look at all the other translations of the word for ‘study’ which is normally quite easy if you have a half decent software package. Then look at various translations for 2 Tim 2:15 plus use Strongs or similar. This took me less than a minute.

                    The rest of the verse is also a clue, like ‘workman’. Doesn’t sound very academic to me! That’s because it means a field labourer or ‘workman’ :-o
                    Now for ‘dividing’ or should I say ‘correctly handling’ or even ‘cutting straight’. This sounds more like carpentry to me than checking up on the Greek text.

                    None of these terms sound particularly academic to me I don’t take this verse to mean get yourself a PhD or similar in theology but more to do with putting into practice the practical lessons we learn from the word. It is essentially practical advice for someone described as a ‘worker’ or ‘labourer’ not an associate professor sweating over the meaning of various verses of scripture.

                    I’ve never been to a seminary either, so my ‘exegesis’ may be way off ….. but I don’t think it is ;-) If rhutchin had been more ‘diligent’ in his study of the word ‘study’ he might also have come to a different conclusion? Or perhaps not! :)

                    rhutchin

                    Scott Shaver writes, “One the other hand you talk about ‘Moderates getting better than they deserved’”

                    Actually Joe Blackmon said that – couple messages below. Guess I’m off the hook on this one. Everyone gets lost in the messages every now and then. Done it myself a few times.

                    By default, then, it is A.

                    rhutchin

                    Maybe, Andrew just doesn’t understand the purpose a person might have for attending a seminary (Hint: the primary purpose is not to get a PhD) – 2 Timothy 2:15 explains this purpose if one can understand it.

                    So the proverb, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.”

                    Scott Shaver

                    Andrew Barker:
                    Thanks for excellent explanation of my position….better than could be provided by most seminary professors IMO
                    “I will say no more” is very good advice for this thread. I intend to likewise follow that counsel.

                    Andrew Barker

                    Scott: Your comments are too kind, or maybe you’re pulling my leg! ;-) It may have only taken a few minutes to sort out the words for study, but it’s not like I hadn’t looked at it before. My opinion is that we can be too ‘bookish’ with the Bible and while I appreciate the academic side of things, there is much to be said for the practical application of God’s word. That’s the type of Bible study I was brought up on.

                    I could engage with rhutchin/Les on this, but it would be fairly pointless. Why did Paul use the word ergates ‘workman’ when he could have chosen didaskalos ‘teacher/instructor’ ‘which is what he uses to describe himself in 2 Tim 1:11? Paul was no modern day ‘megapastor’ or Ivory Tower Professor. He was the original bivocational supporting himself and not wanting to be a financial burden on anyone. I would suggest that Paul was asking Timothy to do what he himself did and that was ‘field work’, lead by example. Practical advice from a practicing practitioner.

                    Sits back and waits for more cut and paste! ;-)

                  Les Prouty

                  rhutchin,

                  I know Andrew said he is done. But just this:

                  “1. as in Greek writings a workman, a laborer: usually one who works for hire, Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:18; especially an agricultural laborer, Matthew 9:37; Matthew 20:1f, 8; Luke 10:2; James 5:4 (Wis. 17:16); those whose labor artificers employ (i. e. workmen in the restricted sense), Acts 19:25 (opposed to ???? ????????? (A. V. craftsmen), Acts 19:24), cf. Bengel at the passage; those who as teachers labor to propagate and promote Christianity among men: 2 Corinthians 11:13; Philippians 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:15, cf. Matthew 9:37; Luke 10:2.”

                  Notice this especially: “those who as teachers labor to propagate and promote Christianity among men: 2 Corinthians 11:13; Philippians 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:15, cf. Matthew 9:37; Luke 10:2”

                  So Paul is exhorting a pastor to diligently “labor” in the word so as to be acceptable or approved of God as you labor in the word. Of course rightly dividing, or handling the word of truth…the scriptures. As in:

                  “1. to cut straight: ??? ?????, to cut straight ways, i. e. to proceed by straight paths, hold a straight course, equivalent to to do right (for ???????), Proverbs 3:6; Proverbs 11:5 (viam secare, Vergil Aen. 6, 899).

                  2. dropping the idea of cutting, to make straight and smooth; Vulg.rectetracto, to handle aright: ??? ????? ??? ????????, i. e. to teach the truth correctly and directly, 2 Timothy 2:15; ”

                  So rhutchin you are correct that seminary is or can be part of this charge. Of course seminaries as we know them are relatively new. But they are perfectly consistent with this charge to prepare (study) to be a good pastor/teacher.

                  It’s not surprising that Paul uses the common field type laborer here. He uses several everyday metaphors in this chapter. And we all would do well to generally apply this a few verses later:

                  “A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, 25 correcting opponents with kindness,” irrespective of who he is addressing there.

                    rhutchin

                    I like your description, “diligently ‘labor’ in the word.” However, it is a technical way of saying “study.” Sometimes, we can get so caught up in analyzing what God has written to us that we miss the simplicity of what He is saying.

                    You are an even keel in a boiling sea. :)

                    Les Prouty

                    Thanks rhutchin. Yes it is a way of saying study. Seminary is one of those ways. I don’t see how some are missing the simplicity of what Paul is saying here under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

                  Andy

                  Wait, are we still arguing about seminaries?

                  1. There is obviously no biblical prohibition against attending a seminary.
                  2. There is obviously no biblical requirement to attend a seminary.

                  In any individual case, there may be good common sense reasons to do either.

                  3. It is entirely possible for one to attend seminary and NOT do much study of the kind that is helpful and required by scripture.
                  4. It is entirely possible for one to NOT attend seminary and do plenty of real study.
                  5. It is also entirely possible for one to use seminary wisely as an opportunity for much study.
                  6. It is entirely possible for one to not attend seminary, and also not engage in study of God’s word.

                  So what are we arguing about?

                Lydia

                “Nonetheless, we might expect the tares to grow among the wheat but never to exclude God or prevent Him working in the hearts of His elect.”

                So you DO believe humans can “prevent” God from working in the hearts of people?

                  Scott Shaver

                  Absolutely he does Lydia…and his ilk right along with him. No confidence whatsoever in Third Person of Trinity or the operation thereof. In fact, you’ve just described the REAL spiritual motive behind the “CR”.
                  A total inability to believe that the Holy Spirit of God Is responsible for preservation and sanctification of Christs church.

                    rhutchin

                    The Holy Spirit does much more than that.

                    “no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12)

                    “we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.” (1 Corinthians 2)

                    ” the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how we should pray, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings.” (Romans 8)

                    “Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” …I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God…Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’ The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3)

                    The Calvinist gives greater credit to the Holy Spirit than you seem willing to do (perhaps an inability on your part).

                    Scott Shaver

                    Precisely the reason “Christ as the criterion of biblical interpretation” had to be removed from the BFM in 2000.

                    2000BFM (which neo-calvinists love to cling upon) was/is to be the stack-pole around which fundamentalists and neo-calvinists could “work” together.

                    How’s that working out by the way?

                  rhutchin

                  Lydia writes, “So you DO believe humans can “prevent” God from working in the hearts of people?”

                  Absolutely not. If humans could do such, God could not be sovereign. Tares exist only for God’s pleasure and for his purposes.

                    Scott Shaver

                    Ah yes…….the flywheel of election.

                    Personally, I can live without a couple of the 5 points rhutchin.

          Joe Blackmon

          They treated those moderates WAY better than they deserved.

Scott Shaver

By the way Les, can you tell me the original purpose and intent/target audience of the book of Titus? I’ll try answering your questions with some of my own in these public forums.

That might be quicker and less painful for the both of us.

    rhutchin

    The original author of all Scripture is God. The original audience is always God’s elect – those who believe God (regardless how differing groups think the elect came to believe God). The original intent is the sanctification of God’s elect.

      Les Prouty

      Right rhutchin. I have no idea what he was getting at regarding the original intent/target audience. It is intended for God’s people and here in these verses is instructing Titus to remind God’s people about gospel living. It’s very simple and straightforward. “…to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.”

        Scott Shaver

        Ah. I see the approach of answering calvinist questions with a question works admirably.

        As I’ve said before, all this is not primarily about “soteriology”….it’s about “election”.

        Have a great Friday men. And thanks for your input.

Les Prouty

“But apparently I’m the only one of your fellow commenters willing to challenge you on your calling Dr. Adrian Rogers publicly with zero offered proof” should read.

“But apparently I’m the only one of your fellow commenters willing to challenge you on your calling Dr. Adrian Rogers A LIAR publicly with zero offered proof.”

    Scott Shaver

    Les:

    I’ll offer this one example of what I’m talking about since you’re so concerned with my correct use of the term “lie”.

    On September 15, 1987, Dr. Larry Baker, executive-director of the Christian Life Commission of the SBC avoids dismissal by a 15-15 tie vote against the desires of Patterson and Rogers Baker later, and understandably resigned his post as the intent of Rogers and Patterson was to replace him with Richard Land. A hot button issue at that early stage of the Fundamentalist takeover was abortion. Even though their respective views were similar, Baker refused to use the exact language in expression of his views on abortion, capital punisment and woment in ministry that Rogers and Patterson demanded.

    Thus he was publicly branded by both Patterson and Rogers with labels that were simply reduced later by their sychophants to the term “Baby Killer”.

    That kind of defamation, directed at one of the most poised, intelligent and gracious Christians I’ve ever met….IS A BALD FACED LIE…..Coming from the mouth of Rogers or Patterson does not change the fact that it was and still is……A LIE!

      rhutchin

      So, what exactly was the “lie”?

      Les Prouty

      Scott,

      I’m not familiar with this episode. What were Dr. Baker’s views on abortion and how did Dr.Rogers characterize his (Baker’s) views differently?

        Scott Shavers

        Les:

        Thought you were done with me on this particular thread. Whether you’re done with me or not, I’m done with you.

        Do you your own homework if you’re interested in the CLC, BJCPA (Patterson,Rogers,Pressler Debacle).

          Les

          Scott,

          I thought I was. Just wanted to see if you could produce the “goods” as anothe SBC blogger likes to insist on. Obviously you can’t.

          Good day.

            volfan007

            Les,

            He doesn’t want to tell you what Larry Baker’s views on these issues are, because then we would all go “Good grief, why was he ever put into that position to begin with!” And then, we would say, “Thank God for the CR.”

            David

              Les

              Vol,

              What little I could find on Dr. Baked…it appears he was ok with killing babies in cases of rape, incest etc. is that correct?

              Yes the CR was much needed and saved the denomination.

              Scott Shaver

              David:

              Describing or not describing Dr. Bakers views to you and Les would make no difference. Your response either way would be the same.

              And try not to think more highly of yourself than necessary. If you think I my reluctance to “produce your goods” would be due to the chagrin of two half-baked, mud-slinging preachers….you’re indeed mistaken.

              Les Prouty

              Vol,

              I never thought of you as “half baked.: Definition: “lacking in judgment, intelligence, or common sense.” And Vol brother you are no mud slinger for sure.

                volfan007

                Les,

                Thank you, Bro. Right back at you.

                David

Scott Shaver

I need to get off this thread.

Thank you Jon and Rick for graciously allowing me to participate in the discussion. I’m sorry if the opinions and testimonies I’ve expressed have taken the wind out of anybody’s sails in their efforts to remain “baptist” within the SBC.

There is a shrinking part of me that grieves over the last 30 years of SBC confusion and infighting……there is a growing part of me which is learning to smile at the lunacy.

I remember while pastoring in Louisiana during the late 80’s a trip to the annual Louisiana Baptist Convention in Lake Charles. I remember the look in David Hankins eyes in the hallway after he’d been caught saying that he told the leaders in the inerrancy movement that they needed to “broaden the tent” rather than asking 10 members of FBC Dallas and Bellevue to serve as trustees. “Fibbing” at the same time he was extolling the virtues and biblical fidelity of his calvinist brothers in arms for the CR.

Now David Hankins would like to see all his former CR opponents in Louisiana support the LBC. He and his son, Eric, have publicly stated they they will fight Calvinism tooth and nail.

It’s amusing to see constituents and former allies take up arms against one another….they deserve one another.

At this point, I’m afraid SBC insiders are perfuming a corpse.

I strongly suspect that the new breed (like Platt) feel no baptist loyalty to anyone or anything and will be taking the funding system hurriedly outside an already shrinking CP. I can envision them approaching foundations and deep-pocketed fund managers, etc.

New missionaries will continue to come from non-denoms and quasi baptists who will sign anything with no conviction.

This is indeed funny in light of the old argument about “theological purity” and “denominational integrity.”

rhutchin

Andrew barker writes, “…The word ‘study’ as used in KJV and similar does not mean study as we now understand it. It means to be diligent, make an effort, do your best….The other key word is workman which can also be translated field worker, or simply worker. There’s no hint of the ‘workman’ being a professor, don or any other such academic position.
It is true that the phrase correctly dividing or handling can have a teaching association. But coupled with the other key words this would point to a more practical explanation of how to live the Christian life and not an academic institution, laudable though that may be in itself.”

To help you understand what Paul is telling us, let’s use the NET Bible translation:
“Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately.”

Now, let’s personalize it to see if you can grasp Paul’s message.

“Andrew Barker, you are to be diligent – a worker for Christ and one who need not be ashamed – to teach the Bible accurately.”

What “diligence” does Paul have in mind for which hard work is required? Given that the result is “teaching,” it seems obvious that you must dive into the Scriptures – as the Bereans did – to discover what the Scriptures tell us. We have a word in the English language that aptly conveys the meaning of what Paul is telling you – STUDY THE SCRIPTURES!

Given your statement, “There’s no hint of the ‘workman’ being a professor, don or any other such academic position,” it is obvious that you need to be more diligent – to study – to explain this verse. No one has suggested, or would suggest, that “workman” refers to a professor. This only reveals that you have an active imagination that you must learn to control if you desire to teach the message of truth accurately.

In your comments, you have been working to translate properly that which Paul has written. Now, you need only work at understanding that which you have translated.

    Andrew Barker

    rhutchin: Oh, I wouldn’t rely too heavily on the NET Bible if I were you. It’s not really a study Bible and is more suitable to the uneducated and casual reader (quote).
    Here’s a relevant section from Bible Studies Press on the translation.
    ” ….. the text in a paraphrastic direction, as if it had to be understandable to uneducated and casual readers, to those who are offended at “sexist” language, and even to such dull readers as those who cannot understand obvious metaphors (e.g. “under his feet”). The result is, the translation itself is not very useful for close study.”

    I’ll talk to you boys again if you can come up with a half decent reason for why Paul uses the word ‘workman’ instead of teacher or instructor which would be the obvious choice if his main intent in vs 15 was to encourage Timothy to ‘teach’ in an academic sense. Otherwise I think the conversation has run its course.

      rhutchin

      “…if you can come up with a half decent reason for why Paul uses the word ‘workman’ instead of teacher or instructor …”

      Context is sufficient for this. The verse reads, “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed,…” One is to study (or be diligent) as a workman. The use of workman illustrates the effort that was to be put into this activity. One’s diligence was not to be casual or indifferent. There would be no reason for Paul to use a word suggesting “teacher” or “instructor” here. As Timothy was charged with teaching others, Paul here emphasizes the need for Timothy to “rightly divide the word of truth.” To do this, one must be diligent as a workman that needs not to be ashamed (one who works hard and in whom his employer finds no fault). Diligent to do what – study the word that is to be rightly divided is one obvious reason. No one has suggested, or argued for, an alternative to that.

Lydia

“What “diligence” does Paul have in mind for which hard work is required? Given that the result is “teaching,” it seems obvious that you must dive into the Scriptures – as the Bereans did – to discover what the Scriptures tell us. We have a word in the English language that aptly conveys the meaning of what Paul is telling you – STUDY THE SCRIPTURES”

Nevermind a large quanitity of 1st Century Chrisitans were most likely illiterate because for the most part, it attracted the more marginalized of society.. Nevermind most did not have OT scrolls in a home library. Nevermind this would be very strange to the new converted Gentiles. So, basically it was for the Jewish elite who had access to OT scrolls constantly? This makes total Calvinistic sense!

    Les Prouty

    Except that some of you experts on 1st century life failed to get a message to God who inspired these words:

    “they {the Bereans] received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (with apologies to those here who detest copying and pasting)

    Sorry Lydia. The word of God does not say what you eisegete into it.

    rhutchin

    It is precisely because “1st Century Chrisitans were most likely illiterate” that Paul writes this. Paul is strongly instructing Timothy to be diligent to rightly divide the word of truth. Why – Because Timothy is their teacher. James said, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we will be judged more strictly. ”

    Both Paul and James have the same concern. Those who teach others are undertaking a critical role. James says that one should not take this lightly. Paul says that teachers should be diligent to make sure that they teach truth. What you are forgetting is that the apostles had been teaching about Christ for many years and then believers from Jerusalem were dispersed throughout the world and were telling others what the apostles had taught them – it was not just OT scrolls. What does Jude warn of, “I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men have secretly slipped in among you – men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” We should not be surprised, then, at the instruction Paul gives to Timothy or the way that we should understand Paul’s instruction,

    Scott Shaver

    LOL….never mind Lydia that even on third or 4th attempt he’s still butchering and straining the text.

    I stand amazed.

      Scott Shaver

      Andrew Barker:

      Rhutcin’s advice to you reminds me of the Prison Warden in Cool Hand Luke.

      “I got my mind right now ….Boss”

Lydia

“they {the Bereans] received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (with apologies to those here who detest copying and pasting)”

You mean the Berean Jews mentioned in Acts?

Well, that obviously applies to every 1st century convert. Sigh.

    Les Prouty

    Right. As God’s word said, “examining the Scriptures daily” in contrast of what you wrote:

    “Nevermind a large quanitity of 1st Century Chrisitans were most likely illiterate because for the most part, it attracted the more marginalized of society.. Nevermind most did not have OT scrolls in a home library. Nevermind this would be very strange to the new converted Gentiles. So, basically it was for the Jewish elite who had access to OT scrolls constantly? This makes total Calvinistic sense!”

    God says they examined the scriptures daily. Lydia says they may not have had access to the scriptures and were illiterate. I’l go with God on this one.

    Seems God’s word disagrees with your eisegesis. Sigh.

      Scott Shaver

      “I’ll go with God on this one”

      What if God’s going as well in the same direction as those questioning your logic?

      Les Prouty

      “What if God’s going as well in the same direction as those questioning your logic?”

      Then I’d be wrong. But what if God’s going as well with my understanding?

        Scott Shaver

        Les:

        Were it possible to convince God to “go with your understanding” on any issue….I’d say go for it.

        If God is prone to change His mind due to the constant verbal wranglings and egocentricism of man…..would add you’ve definitely got a good shot.

        Les Prouty

        Scott,

        I don’t have to convince God to go with me on this. He’s already spoken. And I don’t need God to change his mind “due to the constant verbal wranglings and egocentricism of man” He’s already spoken clearly on the Bereans.

          Scott Shaver

          Thanks for clarification Les, or should I call you Yahweh instead?

          Les

          Scott are you the smartest aleck ever or what!?

          Les

          Scott,

          Please forgive my referring to you as a smart aleck. That was unkind of me.

            Scott Shaver

            Surely Les. Forgiven and not as offended by “smart aleck” as much as you might think.

            I am a smart aleck…….among other things :)

            Les Prouty

            Thank you Scott.

    Andrew Barker

    Scott: Is this deja vu or have I just had this conversation before? It’s the eggs! That’s all I can remember! :-)

      Scott Shaver

      “I can eat 50 eggs”

      To whom was it Newman said that? Marvin Harris?

        Andrew Barker

        Scott: Well I had to look it up (my main memory of the film was the egg scene) but it was said by George Kennedy playing Dragline. Interestingly though, the best quote from the film is “what we got here is ……. failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach.” One might be tempted to say, “how very apt”!

    rhutchin

    As it is God who prompted Paul (or Luke) to record the incident regarding the Berean Jews, it is to profit every believer (per 2 Timothy 3). So, yes (and obviously so), it would apply to every 1st century convert. We should expect that the record of Acts, as it began to circulate, would be used to teach others (as we use it today) – the example of the Bereans being used to encourage believers then as it is so used today.

      Scott Shaver

      The words “would apply to every 1st century convert”

      Regardless of the fact that many may have been converted prior to the words being written?

      I’m really having to use my “imagination” to stay with your points rutchin.

    Les Prouty

    Yes rhutchin, it is amazing that we are having to defend this on a Southern Baptist site. Simply amazing how the word of God will be argued against. Dr. Malcom Yarnell gets it though when he writes,

    “The second characteristic of Berean nobility is that they examined the Scriptures daily. Literally, “they searched the graphas daily to find out whether these things were so.” Anakrinontes means searching, examining, coming to a conclusion.” Dr. Yarnell goes on to describe their nobility, “The Greek word describing the Bereans’ nobility in our passage is eugenesteroi, which means literally, “noble by birth,” and metaphorically, “noble in character.” Eugenesteroi described the Berean’s characteristic attitude to the Word of God.” Of course (with apologies to those here who detest copying and pasting).

      Lydia

      So you can unequivocally state that every 1st century convert had access to the OT scriptures and could read. Even women?

      Would this also mean the masses of illiterates who had the scriptures interpreted for them by the priests historically could not really know Jesus Christ? They could only know of Christ through the priests as the scriptures were even verboten to those who could read the language they translated in if not priests.

      Is there no place for the Holy Spirit in your “tradition”.

        Lydia

        Then we have the problem of Calvins Geneva where people were forced to publicly affirm Calvin’s interpretation of the scriptures or be severely punished.

        Where is the Holy Spirit in such an oppressive tradition?

        Les Prouty

        “Where is the Holy Spirit in such an oppressive tradition?”

        My tradition is your tradition. See LBC previously quoted. :)

        rhutchin

        Paul wrote, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God,” and “being justified by faith.”

        This would mean the masses of illiterates had to have the scriptures explained to them by the priests. They could only know of Christ through the priests in many cases.

          Scott Shaver

          And this is precisely the mentality which fueled Roman Catholicism in its darkest corners of history as well as Calvin’s Geneva.

          “They could only know of God through the priests”

          Not only do I personally reject this premise, rhutchin, I despise and will fight against it with every baptist fiber of my being.

            rhutchin

            Nonetheless, the Scriptures are clear on this point – “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” You are free to reject anything the Scriptures say. I have never heard of anyone claiming “baptist fiber” rejecting the Scriptures. You are the first.

              Scott Shaver

              Not a matter of me “rejecting scripture” rutchin.

              Is a matter of me rejecting your interpretations, extrapolations and most certainly your I-believe-the-bible-harder-than-you-do posturing.

          Lydia

          “This would mean the masses of illiterates had to have the scriptures explained to them by the priests. They could only know of Christ through the priests in many cases.”

          Like Johann Tetzel, master exegete.

            Scott Shaver

            Lydia:

            Or even Henry VIII perhaps as exegete?

      Les Prouty

      Lydia,

      “So you can unequivocally state that every 1st century convert had access to the OT scriptures and could read. Even women?”

      Of course not. I have never stated such. I can affirm that no more than I can affirm that every Christian in the world today has access to a copy of the scriptures or that “all Jerusalem” in the sense of every single person in Jerusalem was troubled (“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him”). That’s ridiculous.

      “Would this also mean the masses of illiterates who had the scriptures interpreted for them by the priests historically could not really know Jesus Christ? They could only know of Christ through the priests as the scriptures were even verboten to those who could read the language they translated in if not priests.”

      Of course not.

      “Is there no place for the Holy Spirit in your “tradition”.” My “tradition” is very similar to your “tradition.”

      From the London Baptist Confession 1689, “Yet, notwithstanding this, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth of Scripture and its divine authority, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” (with apologies to those here who detest copying and pasting) Wink.

      Does that answer your question about the Holy Spirit?

        Lydia

        Les, as I am NOT a Calvinist, my understanding of the Scriptures will be very different than yours. And I don’t do creeds or confessions. if you think Calvin, the brilliant theoligian operated as if the Holy Spirit could indwell the believers in Geneva during that time, then we have nothing more to talk about

        Les Prouty

        Lydia,

        I realize you’re not a Calvinist and that you don’t do creeds and confessions. And I suppose this conversation is over then.

      Scott Shaver

      With all due respect Les:

      A “heart-searching” of the scriptures would imply to me something more than regurgitating bits and pieces of writings by your favorite theologians.

      The text(s) in question combined imply something a little more personal and interactive with God’s Holy Spirit than what you and rutchin are serving up here.

      Stick around…..there’s a lot more about “baptists” that will amaze you and this likely isn’t quasi-baptist territory.

        Les

        Scott,

        “A “heart-searching” of the scriptures would imply to me something more than regurgitating bits and pieces of writings by your favorite theologians.”

        I agree. But it does not preclude it either. Lest you want to totally say that anyone who quotes others here, even those agreeing with you, would be not “heart searching” the scriptures.

        “The text(s) in question combined imply something a little more personal and interactive with God’s Holy Spirit than what you and rutchin are serving up here.”

        And you know exactly how Scott that I am not personally interacting with the Holy Spirit as I search for the meaning of these passages?

        “Stick around…..there’s a lot more about “baptists” that will amaze you and this likely isn’t quasi-baptist territory.”

        Amazed continually I am.

Jim Poulos

The Bereans were Jews being Challenged by a Jew (Paul). Illiterate does not mean un-educated. The entire Roman world was both political and religious as soon as you walked out your door. You became educated very quickly or else.

Christianity became a challenge to the formally educated and informally educated. Why? It challenged every, I mean every, firm foundation of the Roman, Greek, Jewish, free, slave, educated and uneducated world. That means everyone. And Most didn’t like it one bit.

    Scott Shaver

    Here Here!

    Very well stated Jim Poulos

Robert

I have reviewed some of the posts here regarding the Timothy passage. I think Andrew is right about its primary meaning. At the same time, this is not to say there is no place for a seminary education. At the same time, I have met so-called “laymen” who had a better grasp and understanding of scripture than some of the seminary professors that I had! And more importantly they lived out what they knew. Seems to me that the real key is not where you learned the Word but do you live it out, do you live out what you know.

I say this as I am literally listening to a Dan Speaks song called “I’ve never been to Seminary” with the great line:

“I’ve never been to Seminary, but I’ve been to Calvary”!

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available