Our convention hated liberalism twenty years ago . . . , but at this hour we better hate legalism and Fundamentalism as much as we did the former liberalism or we will find ourselves so fractured and fragmented that we no longer have the ability to cooperate about anything, including missions. We all agree on the inerrancy of Scripture and the nature and work of Jesus Christ our Lord, but we must not be Fundamentalists when it comes to our convention. Fundamentalism with a capital F is known for her independence, separation, schism-making, and her "I'll do it my way without your help because you don't qualify to work with me" attitude.
I believe if God does not intervene in the Southern Baptist Convention by raising up men and women in the SBC who are more concerned about conservative cooperation than we are conservative conformity, we are headed down this road of religious Fundamentalism.
Much has happened in the past year and a half in the SBC, but I am of the opinion that the clock begins ticking next week for the countdown of the most critical year in the Southern Baptist Convention in nearly three decades. There are no more classic liberals in the SBC, and under no circumstances would I ever be in favor of removing classic Fundamentalists from the SBC -- but classic Fundamentalism better not be the ideology that serves as the foundation for our missions cooperation or the SBC ship will sink. Liberalism takes away from the sacred, sufficient Scriptures while Fundamentalism adds to the sacred, sufficient Scriptures. Both should be anathema in the SBC.
The next year will determine the success of the conscientious and concerted attempt to wrest control of the convention from classic Fundamentalist ideology. Here are a few reasons why . . .
(1). The Resolutions at the 2007 SBC . . . can be divided into resolutions that speak toward unity, cooperation and love and those that speak toward division, separation and schisms. For instance, the resolution on glossolalia and private prayer language is divisive, particularly in light of the released Lifeway study that fifty percent of Southern Baptist pastors believes the gift of tongues, including praying in tongues in private, is a legitimate gift of the Spirit of God. The resolution is both schismatic and illogical . . .
RESOLVED, That we encourage our six Southern Baptist seminaries not knowingly to hire professors or administrators who endorse or engage in the modern practice of glossolalia or private prayer language, and be it further
RESOLVED, That we also encourage our Southern Baptist agencies not knowingly hire anyone who endorses or engages in the modern practice of glossolalia or private prayer language, and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to be patient, kind, and loving toward one another (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) regarding this ancillary theological issue, which ought not to constitute a test of fellowship.
How can you resolve to not hire people who endorse or engage in the modern practice of private prayer language and yet call it an 'ancillary theological issue'? That makes no sense. If this were in place before the hiring of Jerry Rankin, Bertha Smith, and many wonderful professors of our theological insitutions (like SWBTS Seminary's Siegfried Schatzman) , none of them would ever have been employees of the SBC. This resolution must be rejected, but I seriously doubt it will even get out of committee.
A second resolution on The Role of the Baptist Faith and Message, though it sounds good at first reading, is just as problematic. One paragraph in the resolution states:
That we consider public disagreement with The Baptist Faith and Message to constitute suitable grounds for the removal of trustees from service upon those boards which have made affirmation of The Baptist Faith & Message a minimum requirement for service;
I would encourage anyone who would even give one second of consideration to this resolution by SWBTS adjunct professor Dr. Bart Barber to consider the following.
David Rogers, IMB missionary to Spain and son of Dr. Adrian Rogers would be expelled as a missionary for the IMB if this resolution would be applied. David has publicly stated he disagrees with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message regarding 'closed communion' (as do I). Though some might attempt to say the 2000 BFM should be a 'doctrinal' tool of accountability, in the hands of Fundamentalists it becomes a club of conformity. I find it absolutely stunning that this convention would even consider such a resolution, and am hopeful the committee will see the shortcomings of such a shortsighted attempt to demand conformity. By the way, Judge Pressler and Paige Patterson themselves would have been disqualified during their tenures of trustee service under the 1963 BFM for violating 'the Lord's Day' provisions which were ultimately changed in the 2000 BFM.
It's interesting to note that Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, the person to whom David Rogers writes his email, has seemingly established himself at Southwestern Seminary as the person responsible to remind Southern Baptist leaders of their 'Baptist' identity (as Dr. Yarnell interprets it). SWBTS, under the leadership of Paige Patterson, sees herself as the Mecca of Southern Baptist orthodoxy. I am all for confessions, and I affirm the 2000 BFM on all major points of doctrine, but I believe we are in trouble when our major confessions are placed on the level of Scripture or we depend upon any human to tell us what we can or cannot believe as Baptists.
Confessions change. The Word of God does not.
Of course, some might wonder why I am not mentioning the The Gluttony Resolution and how divisive it will be. Obviously, this resolution will not see the light of day and I would vote against it if it did. However, I am actually looking forward to it being read before the entire convention hall. Why? Messengers need to see the irony of passing the alcohol resolution last year, written with the same arguments and principles found in the gluttony resolution, while this year crying foul on the gluttony resolution. It's much easier to point at the sins of others rather than our own. At least I'm consistent. Both resolutions should not be a part of our kingdom business.
(2). The Election of First Vice-President at the 2007 Convention . . . will be more important than elections of First Vice-President in previous conventions. Dr. Jim Richard, the Executive Director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, is the only announced candidate. However, I predict that a nationally known and respected Southern Baptist leader will run against Dr. Richards, a man that I will be able to endorse wholeheartedly. Though it is impossible to predict the outcome, the election of First Vice-President is essential in that he needs to support the direction and vision of Frank Page for our convention.
(3). The appointments of trustees in 2008 . . . will be the first trustees appointed as the result of Frank Page's election as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Most people do not realize that the Nominating Committee report this year is the result of Dr. Bobby Welch's appointments. Frank Page's appointments will begin to be voted on by the convention in Indianapolis in 2008 and Louisville in 2009.
The convention only changes in terms of more conservative cooperation when the trustees of the SBC agencies adopt a more cooperative approach. When taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to a world in need of a Savior takes priortity over a demand for doctrinal conformity on tertiary doctrines of Scripture, we will be fulfilling our role as a convention to be a 'gospel' convention.
(4). The election of President of the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis in 2008 . . . will be the most important election in the SBC in the last three decades. If we truly wish to be a conservative, irenic, cooperating convention of churches who band together for the spreading of the gospel, then we must elect a conservative, irenic President who has set the example in giving, serving and leading our convention in missions cooperation.
There are many good candidates and in God's providence, the President of the SBC, elected in 2008, will continue a transition for our convention toward a more peaceful future where we focus on missions. Those who have broken away from the SBC and formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship should be encouraged to continue their mission efforts, and we Southern Baptists should be part of that encouragement. However, nobody is advocating for the reunion of the CBF and SBC -- it shouldn't happen. There are too many wounds, too many differences, too much water under the bridge. However, it is time for all Baptists, regardless of the denomination, to stop believing each other to be the enemy and realize that the real enemy is spiritual and unseen.
Finally, let me say as clearly as I can that I welcome all Fundamentalists in the SBC -- but I will do everything I can to insure that Fundamentalism as a philosophy does not drive the train. Cessationists are welcome to lead. Continuationists are welcome to lead. Calvinists can be trustees. Arminians can be trustees. One's eschatalogy should not disqualify from SBC service. Open communionists and closed communionists might not be a part of the same church, but they sure can be part of the same gospel convention of churches united for the purpose of the Great Commission.
Cooperating conservatives desire all of us, Fundamentists and non-Fundamentalists, to work together for the Kingdom's sake. But any Fundamentalist who wishes to exclude Southern Baptists from leadership because of their view on the gifts, soteriology (Calvinism vs. Arminiansim), various views on ecclessioloigical authority and eschatological beliefs, or other tertiary differences needs to be aware that he will be opposed to the nth degree.
The issue for me is NOT getting back those who have left the Southern Baptist Convention . . .
The issue for me is KEEPING those that remain . . .
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
245 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245In an unrelated manner,
Bro. Wade,
Is there any way to get a copy of the in house audits of the IMB anymore? I've called and written, and they act like it's never been done before. However, I know for a fact that it has happened, and churches were able to get hold of them. Feel free to email me if you want...
Tim Dahl
Bart,
Carshon's at McCart and Berry. I love me some lox and bagels with a schmear of cream cheese. :-)
Amy
Amy (and Wade),
The danger always exists that our egos will get in the way. What I mean is that sometimes being right becomes so important to us that it trumps every other consideration. It is good and right that Wade or Amy or Mike or anyone else stand up for their convictions. But, we all need to hear Amy's warning that we not become the self-appointed saviors of the world (or at least of the SBC). Again, convictions should be held and they should be acted upon. But keeping a loving spirit that wants above all else to honor Jesus is absolutely necessary.
I resonate with Amy's memory. I was a student at Southern from 1979-1986 (two degrees, not the seven year master's program); thus, I was there for some of the hottest years of the resurgence/takeover/reformation. While none of my professors were fired while I was there, some did leave, I'm sure in part because they saw what was coming. I will not argue with Amy's contention that some changes were needed. I will say until the day I die that the changes went too far. That over-correction is what I think Wade is trying to deal with.
Back then, the SBC system was manipulated to serve the narrow theological interests of some. If anything, the system is even more prone to manipulation than it was back then, especially because of the more binding authority that has been inappropriately given to resolutions. Also, it is still the case that if someone, anyone, can figure out how to mobilize 12-15 thousand people to get to the meeting and to vote that way, we could elect Mickey Mouse president, pass a resolution affirming that John Calvin never existed, and place only left-handed Alaskan women who know for a fact how many angels can dance on the head of a pin on the Board of Trustees of Golden Gate Seminary (which, by the way, would probably enhance our witness in the San Francisco area).
In other words, the SBC needs to change the way it conducts business. Perhaps regional meetings are the answer; perhaps web meetings and internet voting would help. I don't know.
I just maintain that there is an ongoing problem with the machinery of the convention. But I further maintain that an even more urgent task than fixing the machinery is guarding our hearts against narrow-minded, ego-driven, win at all costs, my side is right and your side is wrong thinking and acting.
And I am not saying that Wade or anyone else involved in present events and discussions is guilty of any of that. I am just saying that experience shows that we have to watch out.
So, let's watch out.
A question for some who have been commenting on the BF&M, and Wade's disagreement with a few of its articles:
The 1963 version described itself as a "consensus of opinion." The 2000 version used that phrase, and also added the phrase "instrument of doctrinal accountability."
The word "consensus" is defined by Webster as "unanimity" or "agreement," but in institutional life (business, government, and even churches) a more technical definition seems to be in use, viz., that a "consensus" document is a group of opinions which the group can all "live with" or accept, but not affirm personally, in entirity. Granted that is a very loose definition, and I am sure that others in the scientific (especially social science) community can "tighten" it up. Still, it is consistent with much that has happened in history between various Baptist groups in their mergers. Without taking the time to pull down LeLand and various other historical writers, I distinctly remember that this sort of thing happened among Baptist groups in the 18th Century, and this is OUR theological heritage. And if that is correct, it seems to me that Wade (and anyone else) has plenty of precident to voice disagreement with the BF&M.
I will also grant that the "instrument of doctrinal accountability" language in the 2000 version moves the document more in the direction of a creed than a confession; but as long as the "consensus of opinion" statement is retained, it cannot actually have crossed that line--yet.
John Fariss
Wade,
I'm glad you are involved with the men toward which our Lord led you to share Christ. I wish good success.
Unfortunately, Wade, the links to yourself are not helpful but expected. Nor did those posts the first time I read them answer questions but only raised them.
Allow me to reiterrate:
"First, some of us would like to know how is it that you can welcome those who embrace views that are just as "dangerous as liberal views to the advancement of the true gospel of Jesus Christ."
My own take was: "If the Gospel is threatened by ANY GROUP, what the heck are we doing allowing them to drink from our well?...it is unmitigated nonsense to...tolerate, within our fellowship, ANY who, in reality, truly threatens the advancement of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Period."
Is this wrong, Wade? For our sakes, could you please give us reasons why we ought to embrace those that threaten the Gospel's advancement? I'm all ears.
Again, Wade, "you insist to the "nth" degree that "I will do everything I can to insure that Fundamentalism as a philosophy does not drive the train."
If you don't mind, "could you please explain, Wade, how barring Fundamentalists--those who embrace the idea of Fundamentalism--a place at the table is different from the charge you level now against the current SBC leadership from allegedly barring those with PPLs a place at the table? Both embrace ideas--the one, Fundamentalism & the other, PPL--yet you argue for one's presence and not the other."
I'm wondering now if you will follow our Marty's preferred method and charge me with "all you ever do is copy/paste" and then suggest I get lost. And, I suppose I can do that as well.
Grace Wade. With that, I am...
Peter
Amy: That's exactly what Wade is standing up for, your right to say what you have. I have a problem however with what you have written on several points. 1. If excluding, which is what some want to do is best for the SBC then fine. I don't believe it is. This is standing for me to have the right to tell what I believe without fear of retribution and for you to have that right.
There are those who are and have excluded good Conservative missionary candidates for disagreeing, the resolution that Robin proposed would solidify this even further. I would probably be excluded. No, this is not good for SBC in fact there would be no SBC when all is said and done. So I would disagree with your assessment but would apply what you have said to those who would wish to exclude over doctrine that is not fundamental. Now you can villify me. :)
Amy: In fact the scenario you have described in 1979, which finally someone has said they are two different things, could happen again if Wade and others don't stand up to it.
Bart
Lifeway should do a survey of all Baptist churches to see how many have adopted BFM 2000 as their statement of faith. Would you except the results if they did conduct this survey???
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Debbie,
With all due respect (and no vilification implied), my comment does not relate to your comments about Robin's resolution. My comments relate to something else entirely. Please read my words again. If you wish to engage with the theme of my comment, please do so but let's not change topics.
Regarding 1979, I think that most would agree that 1979 was in its original intent a good and necessary thing.
Lord Acton was possibly prophetic in some areas of the CR and my fear is that once again Acton's adage is proving true but this time with a self-chosen group. See Tim Dahl's comment.
Amy
Amy: I stand by my comment to you as relevant to your comment. I would ask you to reread mine. To say it is just about Robin's resolution is to totally misunderstand what I have said.
The Conservative Resurgence was necessary, I agree. Some of the methods used however were not.
Amy you wrote this:"Reading through Wade's responses(dare I write the word smug?), to Bart and others this same memory came to my mind. Why? It is because a self-proclaimed group has seemingly decided that they will save the SBC from itself. (Quick side note -- please do not make a comparison to 1979 as this is a completely different animal)
Please note that I believe that some changes are needed in the SBC. More than just lip service to the cause of Jewish evangelism is for me one of the primary issues. However, I am not comfortable with a small group, including someone with a personal and mean-spirited vendetta, leading this charge.
This is simply my opinion and I am sure that Wade would fight for my right to express it fully and without repercussions. Correct, Wade?"
Now read my comment in regards to this and you have what I am saying.
Debbie,
I know what I wrote. For pete's sake, I wrote it. I still don't think you understand my overall theme of my original comment. I obviously can't show you otherwise for that reason I don't know how we can have a discussion.
Please do not take offense at my response. This is just my honest view.
Respectfully,
Amy
Wade,
I continue to be puzzled by your failure to interact with the substance of my arguments. I have made my case. I've already answered your questions. But here, let me try again, and this time I will be as clear as possible.
You say:
[[[
You have yet to answer my question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.
Does the BFM 2000 teach that when an infant dies in infancy without committing any personal sin, the condemnation and judgment of God falls on that infant for the sin of Adam?
Respectfully Greg, I ask you to answer "yes," or "no."
]]]
No, the BFM does *not* teach that. It does not assert that "when an infant dies in infancy without committing any personal sin, the condemnation and judgment of God falls on that infant for the sin of Adam." Indeed, the BFM says absolutely *nothing* about *anyone* being condemned and judged for the sin of Adam, infant or not. So no, it does not affirm the claim of which you speak.
But neither does it *deny* that claim, and that is precisely the point. It is quite compatible with the failure of the BFM to affirm Adam's sin as a ground of condemnation, for another document to affirm that Adam's sin *is* a ground of condemnation.
What about this is so hard to understand? As I pointed out earlier, you already agree with this (fairly commonsensical) phenomenon when it comes to other doctrines. So, for instance, if I were to ask you, "Does the BFM 2000 teach that Christ died for the elect alone?", clearly you would answer *no*. But surely the BFM does not *deny* this either. What the BFM says about the atonement of Christ is compatible with further, *additional*, more detailed statements one can make on this topic. And so on, *ad nauseum*, for just about anything else the BFM comments upon. As the preface itself alerts the reader, documents like these are not intended as "complete statements of our faith," just statements of "the things most surely believed among us."
As I said earlier:
[[[
In short, what you need here is what you definitely do not have: a set of exclusionary clauses in the BFM and the Abstract to the effect that the ground of condemnation cited in one document excludes that cited in the other. Since you don't have this, I'm afraid you can't make your case for incompatibility.
]]]
So what you need, Wade, in order to make good on your claim of incompatibility, is a statement like the following in the BFM:
"Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. ***It is for this reason alone that anyone is under condemnation***."
You see? You need the asterisked material in order to rule out Abstract VI, but this is precisely what you do not have in the BFM. I added it. I had to add it, since if I didn't, then the BFM wouldn't rule out Abstract VI.
Now, it's not like the authors of the BFM were somehow semantically-challenged, such that they couldn't grasp the concept of "alone," and therefore couldn't be expected to invoke it if that indeed represented their thoughts. After all, the BFM authors were perfectly capable of making "alone" statements when they thought it necessary. So, for instance, BFM IV states "There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord." This kind of exclusionary clause is precisely what you do not have when it comes to BFM III. There is nothing there that says: "There is no condemnation apart from personal transgression." The BFM is simply silent on whether Adam's sin is a ground for condemnation. That's why it is *compatible* with the Abstract's claim about Adam's sin being a ground for condemnation.
Where did the above reasoning go wrong, Wade? Can you be bothered to actually *interact* with the arguments I put forth? Is that so much to ask? :-)
You keep on asking me questions I've already answered. Please help me out here.
Just for the record, you claimed I didn't answer your question about the BFM. Here are some quotes where I directly answer the question:
[[[
"So, I read the "under condemnation" of BFM III as referring to condemnation "for actual transgressions." When we actually sin in this life (as opposed to sinning in Adam), we become actual transgressors, and are under condemnation for our actual transgressions." [Note that this is from my very first comment! I made it clear from the beginning that the BFM was *not* speaking about sinning in Adam, but rather our actual transgressions, and the condemnation associated with that.]
"So no, I don't believe that the BFM teaches that infants are condemned *even though* they have not personally sinned."
"... the BFM doesn't teach a thing about infants, much less that they are condemned apart from personal sin."
]]]
Surely you could infer from comments like these that no, I don't believe that the BFM teaches that "when an infant dies in infancy without committing any personal sin, the condemnation and judgment of God falls on that infant for the sin of Adam." I respectfully conclude you're just not reading me very carefully. I only say that because I've asserted my view of the BFM III several times now. I mean, if infants don't even come under the purview of section III, how in the world *could* it teach about what happens "when an infant dies in infancy"?!
You then post a follow-up to your question, saying "I'm waiting...". Did I not say I had to have dinner, and interact with my three sons? I took the rest of the evening off. Sorry if I have a life, and haven't devoted it to hitting refresh in my browser ;-) I taught a four-hour class this morning, and lunchtime (right now) was the first break I got. I hope that is satisfactory. After all, you get what you pay for, too :-)
Now, on to other comments.
Roger Simpson wrote:
[[[
The answer is NO.
The BF&M 2000 -- in Section "III Man" says that sin happens by "free choice" and that a person has to be "capable of moral judgment" to sin. Infants don't have "free choice" or any other kind of choice regarding sin. Also, they are not "capable of moral judgment".
I don't see how anyone could possibly answer your question "YES".
I don't know if the BF&M 2K is correct or not. But assuming it is correct then infants can't sin.
]]]
The problem here, Roger, is that you're imputing to the BFM claims that it doesn't actually make. It would be as if I took the BFM's statement that "Christ died for man," and converted it into a claim that "Christ died for the elect alone." That kind of gratuitous addition simply won't fly. Even if it's compatible with what the BFM says, it's not what the BFM itself says. In other words, you have to let the document speak for itself. So, you say that section III teaches "that a person has to be 'capable of moral judgment' to sin." This misses things by a mile, on a number of counts.
First, the very phrase you cite from the BFM isn't even in there. It doesn't say "capable of moral judgment." It says "capable of moral action." This doesn't affect things much; I only point it out to show that you're not even citing the document correctly.
Second, the BFM doesn't say that a person *has* to be capable of moral action in order to be a transgressor. That would be a modal claim, setting forth a necessary condition for being a transgressor: in order to be X, you *have* to be Y. But that's not what's going on here. Rather, what the BFM says is that as a matter of fact men *do* become transgressors, and they become so "as soon as they are capable of moral action." This isn't a modal claim; it's just a statement of straightforward, historical fact. As men grow up, they become capable of moral action, and then they become actual, personal transgressors of God's moral standard, and they are under condemnation for those actual, personal transgressions.
Third, you're missing the obvious context of the BFM's statement about "free choice" in section III. As you parse it above, you seem to think it is talking about "free choice" in general; as you put it, it allegedly says that "sin happens by 'free choice,'" but, you see, "Infants don't have 'free choice'" and so my view is out to lunch. Unfortunately for your reading, in point of fact the BFM III is speaking about the "free choice" *of Adam*. Here is what it says:
"In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin."
When the BFM says that "By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race," it is obviously not talking about your free choice or my free choice. It is talking about the free choice which "brought sin into the human race." It is talking about Adam's free choice. It's not talking about some moral faculty; it's talking about a concrete historical event. It's talking about Genesis 3 and Romans 5. So the BFM III isn't talking about sin in general or free choice in general, as you seem to imply. So it's certainly not laying down any conditions for the condemnation of infants. That's not even within the purview of the paragraph.
So your very brief comment on this section, while seemingly obviously true to you and others, is simply riddled with difficulties once we get to the details of the BFM. I think we need to have enough respect for the document to take seriously what it is actually saying, in context.
Moving on, David Troublefield asks my buddy Gene Bridges, "Gene Bridges: Where are you? Can you bring balance to Greg Welty's several comments here? Please advise--thanks!" I'm still unclear what is 'imbalanced' in my comments. Could you explain?
Wade continues a bit later, saying to Roger Simpson, "You have concluded, as have I, that anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension understands that you are absolutely correct."
You know, Wade, it's statements like these that incline me to despair that you're seriously interested in meaningful dialogue. I would never in my wildest dreams claim or even remotely imply that you lack "a modicum of reading comprehension." And yet this is what you have uncharitably implied about me. Can't you state your basic points without implying that your detractors lack basic intelligence? I don't accept that Roger's conclusion is absolutely correct. Are you really saying that in consequence of this, I don't have a modicum of reading comprehension? Surely you can do better than that! Would Dr. Hemphill really hire someone who couldn't read? ;-) "Grace and Truth to You," indeed ;-)
Wade, you go on to say:
[[[
The answer to my question to Dr. Welty is . . .
"NO"
The BFM 2000 does not teach that an infant is condemned for Adam's sin.
However, the Abstract does.
]]]
Again, I entirely agree, but wherein lies the contradiction? It's as if you were to say: the BFM does not teach that Christ died for the elect alone, but the 1689 LBCF does, so there's a contradiction here. You don't really infer, do you, that because the BFM *refrains* from teaching particular redemption, that therefore the BFM *excludes* particular redemption? Why then conclude from the fact that the BFM *refrains* from teaching Adamic grounds for condemnation, that therefore the BFM *excludes* Adamic grounds for condemnation?
I've repeated this basic point enough times already. If you think it's a bad analogy, please show me where.
Finally, R. Grannemann says:
[[[
My proof of an "error" in the 2000 BFM is in the section on the church where it implies one mark of a New Testament church is one that operates "through democratic processes." I am all for democratic processes, of course. I just don't think that the first century churches operated through democratic processes in any sense like we understand the term today.
]]]
Surely it's precisely the brevity and ambiguity of this reference to "democratic processes" which reveals the BFM to be a consensus document. At *some* level the church operates democratically, but it is open to those who subscribe to the BFM to understand and apply this democratic impulse in varying ways, hopefully subject to the guidance and example of Scripture. That is, we can't make the BFM more specific than it actually is. This has been one of my recurring themes throughout all of these comments, whether we're talking about particular redemption, grounds for condemnation, or democratic processes. The text says what it says, and not something else.
So, consider the following text of Scripture:
"But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree--in order not to say too much--to all of you. Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow" (2Co 2:5-7).
Clearly the local church in Corinth was dealing with a wayward brother (perhaps the very one mentioned in 1Co 5:1-2), and imposed some sort of punishment or discipline upon him. Paul agrees that this punishment was "sufficient," and thus implicitly endorses how this case was handled. But notice how he describes it: it is the "punishment which was inflicted by the majority." These and other texts ground the historic Baptist conviction that the congregation has a say in whether to impose church discipline, and it looks here as if simple majority was the principle applied in this case. Surely that's enough to at least support the BFM's claim that "Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes." At the very least, it rescues it from the charge of "error," it seems to me. I think you're quite right to warn that we ought not to impose some contemporary American understanding of democracy upon the first-century churches. By the same token, we ought not to overlook democratic principles as they are in fact endorsed by inspired apostles. (BTW, one corollary of 2Co 2:6 is that if discipline decisions were made by majority vote of the church, then clearly you need to be able to identify a group of people *as* members of that particular church. Thus, church membership becomes quite needful. But that's another discussion.)
In closing, I'm sorry if I've let any comments slip through the cracks. I have limited time, and so I may have overlooked something. If so, I apologize in advance. Once again, Wade, I thank you for the open comments.
Just to be clear, I agree with Roger Simpson that the answer to Wade's question is obviously "no". Nevertheless, Roger appeared to construe BFM III as incompatible with Abstract VI. That latter issue is what I was targeting in my most recent remarks. Giving a "no" answer here is neither here nor there with respect to the Abstract, for the reasons I've given.
The more we (SBC) march around Mount Trivia the more fragmented we will become until we will be just the shell of what we once were--Christians committed to evangelism and missions.
Private prayer languages are private. Is there no privacy in the SBC any more? The BFM is supposed to be a consensus, not a creed.
A prophecy: Continual focus on trivial pursuit doctrinally will ultimately lead to the demise of the SBC. Young evangelicals will go out from among us, but will continue to win people to the Lord and continue to support missions, but they won't do it with us. We won't let them.
Larry Hamblen,
I agree with your assessment -- but I am having to logically drive a point home.
Dr. Welty says, . . . (N)o, I don't believe that the BFM 2000 teaches that infants are condemned *even though* they have not personally sinned.
Neither does the BFM 2000 *deny* that claim, and that is precisely the point. It is quite compatible with the failure of the BFM to affirm Adam's sin as a ground of condemnation, for another document to affirm that Adam's sin *is* a ground of condemnation."
Dr. Welty is correct. The BFM 2000 DOES NOT TEACH THIS:
BFM 2000 Article III states, "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation."
It can't be any clearer.
Now, the Abstract of Principles Article VI. . .
"Through the temptation of Satan, (Adam) transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation"
I rest my case.
Two totally opposite views of the basis for judgment. BFM 2000 states it is 'personal sin,' the Abstract of Principles states it is 'the sin of Adam' and personal and actual sins only compound judgment.
Here is the reason this is important.
BOTH VIEWS SHOULD NOT MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO MISSIONARY COOPERATION AND CONVENTION COOPERATION.
I frankly don't care what Southern Baptists believe on the judgment of infants. That is a non-essential. Your pastor may teach on it when he comes to it in Scripture, and have a particular view about it, but your pastor should not lead a movement to exclude other pastors or missionaries who disagree with his view.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wade, you are right on on this.
How is it that we can have such wonderful latitude on eschatology in the BFM and such a restrictive view on private prayer languages?
Without a doubt we tolerate premillennialists, amillennialists, and even some postmillennialists, and then pry into the private prayer moments of missionaries, denominational workers and trustees? Pure trivia, plain and simple.
A million dollar question, Mr. Hamblen.
I think that a chief "fear" of my through the years of watching additions to the BFM has been that dispensationalism would become a test of fellowship, and that ultra-conservative trustees would insist that missionaries, professors and fellow trustees hold a dispensational eschatology.
I told myself that if that ever happens, I would no longer see the need of being a cooperative SBCer. I would simply learn to network better with like-minded brothers who would allow for differences that are not of cardinal kingdom concern.
Larry Hamblen
Wade,
You say:
[[[
Two totally opposite views of the basis for judgment. BFM 2000 states it is 'personal sin,' the Abstract of Principles states it is 'the sin of Adam' and personal and actual sins only compound judgment.
]]]
To be sure, we have two *distinct* views of the basis for judgment. But once again you dodge the burden of actually showing that they are *incompatible* grounds for judgment. How do these two views contradict? Why can't they both be true? Once again, you don't say. You are consistent, at least, in this respect: you have continually failed to rise to the challenge of actually making good on your claim here.
Indeed, although you seem unaware of this, you've now rendered the two statements compatible in your second sentence above. Presumably, you believe that the Abstract itself is consistent, at least with itself. On your view, as you yourself put it above, the Abstract teaches that the sin of Adam is a basis for judgment, and yet that judgment or condemnation is *increased* or *compounded* by means of our actual sins when we are capable of moral action. In other words, according to the Abstract, both things are true: (a) Adam's sin is a basis for condemnation, and (b) our actual sins are a basis for condemnation. But if both (a) and (b) can be true, then the fact that the BFM teaches (b) and not (a) is no proof that (b) excludes (a).
You seem to be inferring from the fact that the two grounds for condemnation are *distinct*, that therefore they are *opposite* or contradictory, such that they can't both obtain. What's your argument for this?
It's like someone saying, "Since apples and oranges are distinct, it must be that an apple rules out there being an orange." Who would ever think a thing like this?
Somebody needs to tell all you people enjoying yourselves dancing around with each other on the top of "Mount Trivia" that, down on the plains, at the base of the hill, where plain old Southern Baptists live, the situation gets worse every day.
Last week, the liberals struck again. And this time they struck hard.
The article at
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i9177e066be8bee44d835017eb6e0cda7
tells how liberal federal judges struck down FCC rules against indecent language, which I will not quote but you can find in the article, on the airwaves where our children can hear it.
Richard Land's buddy Karl Rove hasn't changed anything. Liberals are still running courts.
The Resolutions committee says the deadlines have passed and wants to ignore the issue.
Moses never thought he could stay on the top of the mountain forever.
"Our vigil against liberalism must be 24/7"
Wow. First, Hello Greg, long time no see. :-) Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this discussion, I agree wholeheartedly with the points you have made here, and I appreciate not being put in the position of trying to communicate them - as I would've fallen far short by comparison.
Wade,
Reading this thread has been a surreal experience. Really the last several posts have been that way. This is just not the same Wade that I started reading. Truly we all have our traditions to fight with, and I appreciate the reminder to be humble myself, recognizing that if you can be so blind to yours, then truly it can happen to any and all of us.
You said,
Dr. Nettles of Southern disagrees with your assessment and I think you may be seriously surprised (like you seemingly were surprised about the outcome of the Lifeway survey) at the number of Southern employees who see inconsistency, if not downright disagreement, between the two documents on the fall of man.
Just like the lifeway survey, I have to ask - in what sense do we care? I'm sure I could find a significant number of people who believe all kinds of things that aren't true. People simply aren't well trained at thinking critically anymore - and if someone has told them the two contradict, especially if that person holds authority - they probably believe it.
Of course, if you admit this, your belief in an inerrant BFM 2000 and the 'accountability' it should bring collapses.
Wade, this is really and truly beneath you. This and other places where you have used the same kind of "argumentation". (And that's really stretching the limits of charity to even call it that). You know very well that we do not hold the BFM 2000 to be 'inerrant'. I'm sure you would say it is tongue in cheek, or said as a jest - much like your comments to Mr Tripp were with a wink. The bottom line is you are misrepresenting the arguments of men like Mr Welty, and that is wrong.
If you have no serious response to give, how about just saying that, instead of flinging poo and hoping it distracts everyone else from the lack of substance in your response.
Greg et al, The statement in the B F & M reads, "as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors". I cannot interpret this in any other way than to mean before they are capable of moral actions they are not transgressors. This contradicts the statement in the Abstract. Right?
Shamgar,
You may think it is 'flipping poo' (I laughed at that one), but I am attempting to show the illogic of using the BFM as a club on things other than the 'essentials' of the faith.
There are disagreements in areas of doctrine that others, as you say, are not thinking through critically. I know what I am doing, and I trust it is respectful.
I'm sorry if you don't understand or do not agree, but it doesn't change my mind or my approach.
Thanks for the comment.
Greg,
I don't understand why you can't see what I have been saying from the get go. Stephen Pruett sees it and asks you a question above.
It is the same question I have asked you and forms the basis for the what I saying about a disagreement between the BFM and the Abstract -- BUT WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?
There's room in the SBC for both interpretations.
Stephen Pruett, let's play a little game. Which document says this, the BF&M or the Abstract?
"and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors."
Answer: the Abstract of Principles.
Both the BF&M and the Abstract agree that people become "transgressors" (i.e. people who have themselves deliberately transgressed God's commands). The discussion here has been about the point at which people are condemned (about which the two documents make distinct, yet compatible, claims), not when they become transgressors (about which the two documents agree).
brother welty,
To quote the Man in Black, "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
:)
I'm glad you laughed - after posting it I was afraid it might have been over the top. Thank you for taking it in the best light. :-)
Hey, Robert,
"No more rhymes, I mean it!"
"Anybody want a peanut?"
Well, Robert Hutchinson, what can I say but that we are truly brothers?
And what's better than that? Except for a good MLT (Mutton, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwich) when the mutton is nice and lean, and the tomatoes are ripe...
:-)
Have a great evening.
you too, brother barber.
Bart,
You are correct that the discussion here has been about the point at which people are condemned. However, you are incorrect that the two documents make distinct, yet compatible, claims, about that point at which people are condemned.
The BFM 2000 says infants come under condemnation 'as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.'
Dr. Welty and you both agree the BFM 2000 does not teach infants are condemned for the sin of Adam.
However, the Abstract teaches:
"Adam transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation . . ."
Notice Bart -- this is BEFORE they are 'actual transgressors.' We are all condemned, according to the Abstract, for the sin of ONE man (and of course I would say this is very consistent with Romans 5).
The fact that the Abstract says people become 'actual transgressors' when they are capable of 'moral judgement' only compounds the judgment those without moral judgment ARE ALREADY UNDER due to the sin of Adam.
These two statements are NOT incapatible.
In His Grace,
Wade
Sorry, Wade. The rules have changed. If you're going to post, you have to give us a quote from "The Princess Bride." :-)
Oh, wait...this is your blog, not mine. I guess you get to set the rules.
Although I disagree with most of your comment, for reasons rehearsed quite well by Dr. Welty already (and I'm more than content to leave it at that and let the readers judge for themselves), I appreciate your coming around to our point of view in the end. The statements indeed are not incompatible.
(I think that was a typo, there). :-)
Sorry, I just don't see how you can conclude that these are compatible.
B F & M "Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation" Abstract of principles "whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors."
Seems very clear to me that the B F & M indicates that before we are capable of moral action we are NOT condemned and the Abstract just as clearly indicates that we ARE condemned before we are capable of moral action. Sorry for my lack of imagination, but I cannot devise a way for these two statements to be compatible. I don't think opposites can both be correct.
Rex Ray said…
Hey! Gary Ledbetter of the SBTC, the pastor of Dacus Baptist Church, Chuck Bryce thanked you for correcting/clarifying for what you made out to be ‘my error.’
Do you think he still believes it’s ‘my’ error, or do you think he’s changed his mind? You’ve not answered his two important questions? Are you tired of talking or maybe you think you’ve said too much already?
Jack Maddox,
Your apology is accepted. How about getting Jim Richards to practice the Baptist belief of retribution, and give an apology to the BGCT?
It is amazing to see how much time Christians will spend arguing over lines and the meaning of those lines in two seperate confessions.
If we would spend as much time on evangelism and biblical exhortation as we do discussing the supposed contradictions of confessions...just imagine the impact we could have?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for confessions. What bothers me though is the desire on the part of some to cause conflict and strife over those confessions.
Why the need for such division and conflict from those who advocate less division and conflict?
Oops doopsie
Thank's Bart.
Correction:
The Two Statements ARE NOT CAPATIBLE!
Greg:
In case you return to this thread: you are one man with one opinion, though you articulate it fairly well and at length. I have noticed that Gene does the same, and would be interested in what he thinks about your postings. I assume that you also would like to know what your friend, Gene, has to say.
David Troublefield
Stephen Pruett said:
[[[
The statement in the B F & M reads, "as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors". I cannot interpret this in any other way than to mean before they are capable of moral actions they are not transgressors. This contradicts the statement in the Abstract. Right?
]]]
Of course not. For *both* Abstract VI and BFM III, men become transgressors *after* they are capable of moral action. The documents are consistent on this point, for they *agree* here. But we were never talking about an alleged conflict over *when we become transgressors*, were we? If so, this whole conversation is stupid, because the documents are obviously consistent on that point.
Rather, we're talking about an alleged conflict over *when men are under condemnation*, and over what *grounds* that condemnation. Abstract VI asserts that men are under condemnation for the sin of Adam. BFM III asserts that men are under condemnation for their actual transgressions. But once again these are easily compatible, for it can be the case that men are under condemnation on *both* grounds: for their own sin and the sin of Adam. This seems to be the united testimony of Scripture anyway; Romans 2 teaches the former, and Romans 5 teaches the latter. What about this is so difficult to grasp? I don't intend that as an insult. It's just that I'm mystified on the insistence that there is a contradiction here.
At times, I think this whole dispute centers around a fundamental confusion, namely, confusing "P does not affirm X" with "P denies X". These are two *very* different things. The BFM does not affirm Adamic condemnation. That does not mean it *denies* Adamic condemnation. Adamic condemnation is entirely compatible with the BFM. One can believe *both* Adamic condemnation and the BFM.
Yesterday I ran this issue by one of our systematics profs here. He understood this issue as soon as I pointed it out to him, and he immediately agreed with the claim of compatibility. This guy isn't a five-point Calvinist. As far as I know he doesn't subscribe to the Abstract. He does subscribe to the BFM. And he immediately saw the point. In fact, everyone to whom I've explained this point in person has agreed. (Perhaps this is just a reflection on my poor email skills :-)
Perhaps a diagram would help. According to Abstract VI and BFM III, the following is the case (where '--]' is a right-pointing arrow indicating causal and/or historical sequence):
Men become capable of moral action --] men become transgressors
The above order is affirmed in *both* documents. But at this point the documents diverge, because they each *add* something to the above picture. What gets added is different in each document, but their respective claims are compatible with each other. Here's what the BFM adds:
Men become capable of moral action --] men become transgressors --] ***men are condemned in virtue of their transgressions***
That is, the BFM tacks something on to the end of the sequence. By way of contrast, the Abstract tacks something on to the beginning of the sequence:
***Men are condemned in virtue of Adam's sin*** --] Men become capable of moral action --] men become transgressors
What I submit to you is that we have two grounds of condemnation being spoken of here, when the documents are put together. The Abstract is speaking about being condemned *in virtue of Adam's sin*. The BFM neither affirms nor denies that. The BFM is speaking about being condemned *for actual transgressions*. The Abstract neither affirms nor denies that. Thus, someone who affirmed the entire sequence:
Men are condemned in virtue of Adam's sin --] Men become capable of moral action --] men become transgressors --] men are condemned in virtue of their transgressions
... has an eminently consistent position, and can easily affirm both documents. For he will believe that men are under condemnation *both* for Adam's sin, and for their own transgressions.
In short, there simply is no contradiction here. Each document says something which the other does not say. But you need more than that to conclude incompatibility.
Wade, you say:
[[[
The fact that the Abstract says people become 'actual transgressors' when they are capable of 'moral judgement' only compounds the judgment those without moral judgment ARE ALREADY UNDER due to the sin of Adam.
]]]
I directly responded to this in my previous comment, yesterday. You are continuing to affirm *my* position when you make remarks like this. When are you going to actually interact with what I say?
Stephen Pruett comments a bit later:
[[[
Seems very clear to me that the B F & M indicates that before we are capable of moral action we are NOT condemned and the Abstract just as clearly indicates that we ARE condemned before we are capable of moral action. Sorry for my lack of imagination, but I cannot devise a way for these two statements to be compatible. I don't think opposites can both be correct.
]]]
This is precisely the assumption that you have to prove: that, according to the BFM, "before we are capable of moral action we are NOT condemned." Where does *the BFM* teach this? Can you show me? What you are doing is exactly what I pointed out to Wade he must do: you must insert this kind of exclusionary clause in order to get the BFM to say what you want it to say. As I wrote to Wade in an earlier comment, what you need in the BFM is something like this:
[[[
"Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. ***It is for this reason alone that anyone is under condemnation***."
You see? You need the asterisked material in order to rule out Abstract VI, but this is precisely what you do not have in the BFM. I added it. I had to add it, since if I didn't, then the BFM wouldn't rule out Abstract VI.
]]]
I'm focusing on you, Stephen, because Wade continues to be unresponsive to the substance of my arguments, while throwing wild cheers your way. So I'm counting on you to help us make progress here :-)
Greg, You wrote, "But once again these are easily compatible, for it can be the case that men are under condemnation on *both* grounds: for their own sin and the sin of Adam. This seems to be the united testimony of Scripture anyway; Romans 2 teaches the former, and Romans 5 teaches the latter. What about this is so difficult to grasp? I don't intend that as an insult. It's just that I'm mystified on the insistence that there is a contradiction here."
I can only repeat the exact words of the B F & M III: "Therefore, AS SOON AS they are capable of moral action, they BECOME transgressors AND ARE under condemnation". Your view of this statement is difficult for me to grasp because it requires us to ignore the clearly intended meaning, which is that we are NOT condemned BEFORE we are capable of moral action. The phrase "as soon as" would make no sense if we were already condemned by original sin (as clearly stated in the Abstracts). I cannot see how this statement allows the conclusion that, in practice, we are condemned by both original sin and personal sin (as you propose). The only loophole I can see that might get us to your interpretation is to propose that “we BECOME transgressors AND are under condemnation” really means “we BECOME transgressors, AND are under condemnation, but we were already condemned anyway by original sin”. Obviously, this is not stated, and assuming it is intended seems a real stretch to me. If you came to this text with no pre-conceptions, how would you take it? Would you assume that we were already condemned but the writer just decided to place the word condemnation after “we become transgressors” for no particular reason. I would not. I would assume that BECOMING a transgressor AND Condemnation came AS SOON AS (but not before) we were capable of moral action.
The Abstracts state, "whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, ARE under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors." I don’t know what this can mean other than, we ARE condemned BEFORE we are capable of moral action and become transgressors. This is not compatible with your interpretation of the B F & M (we are condemned by both). I suppose you could take this to mean that in practice both conditions apply to adults so we are all condemned. However, if we want to really be precise, we cannot BECOME condemned if we already were condemned. You could accurately say that everyone is condemned at birth, but even if we weren’t, we would be condemned as soon as we transgress personally. I think perhaps that is really what you mean when you write we are condemned by both. However, the phrase “even if we weren’t” cannot just be assumed. It would have to be explicit for me to conclude that this was intended.
Obviously, by belief that the B F & M most clearly means that we are not condemned by original sin, this is not in opposition to the opinion of many, many Baptist pastors (I won’t say most, because no survey has been done). There are unquestionably many who believe in the concept of an age of accountability. Therefore, I had no reason to assume that the B F & M did not mean exactly what is indicated by the most direct interpretation of the text: that we are NOT under condemnation UNTIL we are capable of moral action.
Again, you could suggest that the wording “we BECOME transgressors and ARE condemned” means that we were not transgressors before we were capable of moral action, but we were already condemned. So why say we “ARE under condemnation” just AFTER “We BECOME transgressors”, if you do not intend to indicate that the two are connected. Without reading anything into the text that is not there, I would say that the clearest intention by using this sequence is that the moment we BECOME transgressors, we ARE condemned. With this type of construction, the natural assumption is that both becoming transgressors and the state of being under condemnation happen AS SOON AS we are capable of moral action. Otherwise, the phrase ARE under condemnation should be in the previous sentence where it would mean that we are condemned by original sin.
This brings me to your idea that we are condemned by both original sin and personal sin. At first glance that seems fine, but if think about it in terms of the sequence of events, it is not so fine. If we are already condemned by original sin, how can we also be condemned for personal sin? Are you saying that there are degrees of condemnation? If we are condemned for original sin, then we are condemned at birth, period, no matter what else happens (except salvation of course). I really don’t think this is just a semantic exercise. If you say both, I think what you really mean is that we are condemned by original sin, but if we weren’t we would be condemned anyway by our personal sin. This is at least a logically consistent sentence that conveys the sufficiency of both original and personal sin to condemn us, but this sentence is not remotely similar to the statements in either the B F & M or the Abstracts. It is however, the only construction I could devise that would include your idea that we are condemned by both that will not be derailed by the idea that once we are condemned we are condemned, so it really cannot be both because if we are already under condemnation for original sin, how can we subsequently be placed under condemnation for personal sin also? One has to propose these conditional types of statements to get around this problem, and the B F & M and the Abstracts do not. Therefore, I cannot say that the Abstracts allows for both condemnation by original sin and personal sin. It states that we are under condemnation already for original sin. I can only conclude from the Abstracts that we would be under condemnation whether we ever became capable of moral action or not. In the B F & M, condemnation is mentioned only after transgression, and the clearest inference is that condemnation does not come from original sin (which is mentioned in the previous sentence) but from personal transgression.
Which of the following interpretations of “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” is most consistent with the text?
1) We inherit a nature and environment inclined to sin but not condemnation at birth, and we become condemned as soon as we are capable of moral action and transgress.
2) We inherit condemnation at birth, but become transgressors only after we are capable of moral action.
You may like number 2, but as I already noted, it is a real stretch to pull the first phrase of #2 out of the text of the B F & M. In contrast, #2 is exactly consistent with the Abstracts. To assume #2 can be implied by the B F & M requires one to bring that idea into the text and accept that the text may allow it. However, I don’t think anyone coming to this text without any baggage would conclude that it means “we are condemned at birth”. Either we are or we are not. The Abstracts say we are. The B F & M has to be bent, parsed, and stretched to breaking to make it say this. I guess it’s not absolutely excluded, but just saying the B F & M allows for both original and actual sin to be sufficient does not solve this. As already noted, if both are sufficient, then we are all condemned at birth and the B F & M should not say that we only “inherit a nature and environment inclined to sin” it should say that we inherit condemnation.
The B F & M indicates that personal sin but not original sin is NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT for condemnation (we did not inherit the condemnation, but only the tendency to sin) and the Abstracts indicate actual personal sin is NOT NECESSARY (because we are already condemned by the imputing or inheritance of original sin at birth).
I am sorry for this lengthy discussion, but I want to explain my position as clearly as possible, so perhaps we can come to some resolution. If my reasoning on this is faulty, please let me know. Perhaps if you showed your friends and colleagues this comment without indicating to them that you believed something different and without explaining your opinion, they would have trouble refuting it. However, I may be wrong, and I will be interested in your response.
Stephen,
Thanks for the reply.
I've (perhaps stupidly) tried to kill two birds with one stone by replying to Karen here. I think much of what I say there addresses what you say here. In particular, I don't think I'm reading into these documents at all, but rather taking the contexts of the respective sentences seriously.
Stephen Pruett,
You are easy to understand, logical and dead on.
Thanks for being crystal clear.
The inability to say these two documents are different in this doctrine reveals a great deal to me.
Post a Comment