Hard Ball Religion has arrived in the warehouses and will begin being distributed shortly. One of the major premises in the book is that a person should be known as a Christian by how he behaves as much as what he believes. The follower of Jesus should be known by his love for others. These past four years have been an eye opener for me in that I have met some Southern Baptists who seem to display more of a concern that others believe their doctrine than they do that others experience their love. There even seems to be some in ministry that think they are special because of their "office" and lord their sense of authority over others rather than desiring to be a servant to all. What is most surprising to me is how some Southern Baptists consider disagreement an attack on their character, and as a result, respond with vociferous personal attacks. I long for the day when Southern Baptist Christians can disagree with charity.Borrowing from Presidential speech writer Peggy Noonan, I adapt what she said about the office of President of the United States and apply it to those of us who serve as pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention.
"In a pastor, character is everything. A pastor doesn't have to be brilliant. He doesn't have to be clever. He doesn't necessarily have to be a good communicator. But he must have courage and decency. A pastor must possess those things in him. He may have a vision of the future regarding his ministry, but a vision is worth little if the pastor doesn't have the character, the grace and the love needed to minister to the people he serves."
I would propose that confession of Jesus Christ as Lord is essential to being a Christian, not to mention a Southern Baptist pastor. However, I would further propose that the character of the confessor is much more important than any other secondary or tertiary doctrine of the Christian faith, even among those of us who lead through pastoral ministry.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
242 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 242 of 242Nate, did you forget about the 'Living Word' ?
The Bible is the inspired 'Word of God', but Jesus Christ is the Living Word. It is also revealing that many who use the phrase 'the Bible says' have no idea how the Holy Spirit helps us to interpret and understand scripture.
God is alive and well and active in our lives.
Tom Kelley,
Seems to me that a naturalistic perspective combined with a strong ZPG emphasis could possibly approve of NOT removing a homosexual gene if such were discovered. Perhaps even selective human breeding in favor of producing such genetic strains would be encouraged. In fact, it would not surprise me if some of these people with atheistic worldviews would endorse genetic sterilization if something like that is possible.
I guess what I have learned the hard way is that even what is considered a defect is relative to the world view.
Nate,
You are reading things into comments that are not there. No one said there is no such thing as objective truth or that we could not know what it is. There are, however, some very thorny and difficult issues in interpreting some passages of scripture. Some of the smartest and most spiritual people in the world have argued for 400 years about TULIP or less than TULIP, with no resolution. Either TULIP is true or it isn't. One group is wrong and the other is right. I believe that. However, I also believe God purposely included some ambiguity in scripture to teach us humility and to test our humility. Folks who cannot admit their interpretation might be wrong, when there are legitimate, Bible centered, logical alternatives presented by inerrantists (like virtually everyone who posts here) have failed the test, IMO.
Wow Joe. I think I will just assume you were having a bad day but that deep down you are interested in respectful dialog. If not, maybe you need to worry about not repenting of the sin of failing to love other believers, or hating, or anger...(I am not kidding or being sarcastic here, I am yelling to alert someone whose house might be on fire).
I was going to take note that you never responded to a previous question about whether you regard overweight people as damned because their weight indicates that they are unrepentant of the sin of gluttony? I thought it was liberals who pick and choose which scriptures to believe or to emphasize. I have discovered that fundamentalists do it too. Maybe they even do it more. I could list several additional examples, but I have probably pressed my welcome too far already.
Byroniac,
Interesting point. The operative phrase in your statement is "a naturalistic perspective combined with a strong ZPG emphasis", but in mine it is "a purely naturalistic perspective". Zero population growth as an ideal for human society is not based on a naturalistic perspective but is a matter of a specific set of moral values. But when you put the two ideas together, I can see how some could promote selective genetic engineering to ensure a certain percentage of the population was not interested in heterosexual procreation. World view is indeed key.
Word verification: grabbles
Tom Kelley,
Perhaps I am mistaken because I have not studied various worldviews, but I thought all worldviews included moral components, even if it is derived purely from sociological and cultural constructs. What is foremost in my mind is that any other worldview besides the Christian one denies the foundational truth of one God what He has revealed, at least in some area of doctrine of belief, so in other words, "anything goes."
Nate,
I am sorry if my words came off as attacking. I promise that was not my intent. In our few dialogues I have found you to be a man of intelligence and knowledge and I am sorry if my words conveyed any less respect than that. I intended only to express that the more educated one becomes, more often the more they realize that they don't know. My sincerest apologies if more than that can be inferred from my poor wording.
Now, you can agree with my statment, but you affirmed exactly what I meant (even if I, again, worded it poorly). By my statement, I meant exactly what you mean when you say, "there are some doctrines that are false, based on obscure passages, not taught on extensively, and therefore are either untrue or unclear at best." The truth about these doctrines is an objective reality. However, both you and I remain either unknowing or unclear as to their truth for now. That does not mean that God cannot reveal the truth to us.
You are right in noting that my statement on "what is Biblical" was vague. That was fully intended for both reasons you imply. It is entirely possible that we do not have all scripture because the Holy Spirit is still capable of inspiring. I do not think He is inclined to do so, but so long as He is capable then the canon is not definitively closed.
Also, I do not believe that every word in the Bible we currently have is inspired: but let me clarify before you get all hot under the collar. I believe that every word in the Bible as we have it is an inspired record of events as they happened. But there are some sayings from less than godly people which certainly seem far from inspired utterances. Do I believe that they were inspired by God to say what they said? No. Do I believe that the author was inspired to record their words? Yes.
I have heard too many sermons that focus on the response of the Pharisees in John 9 when Jesus healed a man born blind. When the sermon is on why sinful people can't perform miracles, not only do I think the passage has been grossly mishandled, but it becomes obvious that some people who are speaking in the Bible aren't doing so with the wisdom of God (after all, Jesus was sinless).
Do I doubt, then, that these sayings belong in the Bible? No. But I do not treat them as the words of God. I treat them as records inspired by the Word of God. I hope that I have been able to articulate my position somewhat cohesively. I left it vague in the beginning precisely because of how fine a distinction is being made in this last bit.
Byroniac,
Yes, all world views do contain a moral component -- but a purely naturalistic perspective purports itself to be unencumbered by any moral presuppositions and interested only in scientific enquiry. I actually believe that there's really no such thing -- for how can any human being or human activity ever rid itself of all bias? My point was just that if one assumes that procreation is the natural goal of a species, homosexuality runs counter to that goal and it is thus abberant, so it would be reasonable to seek to eliminate it if possible.
Character or doctrine?
Each has its own importance.
But only one, in the ego of man, has said: ‘Believe as I or die.’
The other responded: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
Rex,
Calvin v Luther. I love it!
And so…
Thomas Cranmer held his signature hand closer to the fire so it burned first before he went to meet God because his hand had signed a paper he did not believe.
And so…
Missionaries were fired because they would not sign a paper.
Ask Joe Blackmon how important doctrine is—he knows.
Thanks, Chris.
Tom Kelley,
Yes, I agree, that no human can be completely free from bias, and that's the point I was interested in as well. However, I'm not sure that procreation would always be a "goal" especially if the phrase "quality of life" applies mainly to the population now living and takes on sinister interpretations for the unborn/unwanted. If human society can divorce unwanted pregnancy from pleasure, and completely control human breeding and its success rate (using, let's say, artificial means), then natural procreation no longer remains an objective. It might fade away as old-fashioned, or worse yet, some twisted philosophical construct of a demented worldview might view it as morally regressive. Once God is rejected, there seem to be no depths to which humanity cannot sink. Anyways, I just wanted to throw my $0.02 out there---mainly agreeing with you I think, but from a slightly different angle.
"I realize that neither you nor your pastor have been to seminary..."
Low blow and on purpose.
What's interesting is that I like the non-seminarian's view better than the one with all that "other book" learnin'.
Keep studying the bible Nate!
All this feel good talk so not to offend the sinner is still tip toeing around the simple questions, "Will there be a practicing homosexual in heaven? If so, why will they be there? What would be there reason for desiring to give glory and honor to God?"
I realize this thread has run it's course, but if any of the "I'm okay, you're okay" group wants to respond I would love to hear it.
It's not the 'seminary training' that gives light on the scriptures.
But to those who 'buy into a man-made doctrine' so completely, will the Holy Spirit be able to cut through all that human logic?
If the 'character' of the reader of Holy Scripture is one that has been 'born again' in Christ; then the Holy Spirit can provide guidance for that humble individual.
If the 'character' of the reader is still bogged down in pride and their 'own' human logic, insights and guidance may not be effective.
It's not about seminary.
It's about the condition of the 'character' of the 'Christian'.
Is the Christian willing to read the Scriptures and say, 'Teach me, Lord.' ?
Chris,
There is a lot there in your post. So I won't respond to all of it. I think often on here we agree on a lot and disagree only a little. One of those things I would disagree with you on would be that the canon is not closed. Sure the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring, but I believe that the canon is closed. If this is true then how do we know the Book of Mormon is not truly another revelation from God? (I'm assuming now that you aren't a mormon for if you are then you will say it is another revelation :).
And yes I also agree (I think) with your definition of inerrancy. I would phrase mine like this.
"the Bible tells the truth, which may include approximations, free quotations, the language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as these do not contradict”.
This leads to the much spouted question can the Bible tell a lie? Well yes if you mean in the since of recording an event where a lie was told.
Stephen,
I don't think I read into Chris' comments. He said "you are right in noting that my statement on what is biblical was vague."
Possibly I misinterpreted his comments on my pastor and I not being seminary trained. But it most definitely sounded that way to me. :)
Interesting comments about the Bible and truth. All are right who say that we have the truth in scripture but we err (sometimes) in interpretation:
Some interpretive errors:
1. Reading verses as independent, isolated thoughts, instead of chapters and books as a "whole."
2. Reading the text only of the KJV without Greek and Hebrew, and comparisons of other translations.
3. Ignoring the historical context of scripture and failure to compare and contrast scripture to that context.
4. Reading in our categories of ordination and ministerial offices into the first century context. What is a pastor? What is a deacon?
When speaking of truth, do you have it? If it is so obvious, why do others not? And, is your notion of truth merely the justification of your own cultural context?
It is interesting that Dispensational Premillenialism, a popular notion of the end times by many who claim to be biblical, violates many rules of interpreting the text. It is smitten with isogesis, piecing verses together rather than reading chapters and books as wholes, and ignores the historical and literary context of the day.
It says something totally different than the Bible intended to say. Yet, those who call themselves "biblical" adhere to it.
I try to reach out to those who hold such views and find out what we may have in common, though I feel that Dispensational Premillenialism is misguided at best.
Maybe I should get angry and call it what it is?
wtreat here.
Joe Blackman, I have thought you were one of the worst writers here and have a very smart-aleck attitude, HOWEVER, after all this time I finally found something I can agree with you about:(non of it al mohler) you said
"Homosexuality is a choice---always.
It is not a "state of being". No one is ever born homosexual"
amen!
wtreat@centurytel.net
Nate,
I only want to come back on the closed canon issue. You ask how we know whether a new revelation is from God. I answer that we do what the early Christians did: we test it as a Berean. We look at how it accords with what God has already revealed. We examine the author and the work for falseness. We submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for it would not deny itself. It would be a dangerous process, but as long as the Spirit can inspire then the canon isn't closed. Effectively closed, maybe, but actually closed, no.
And, yes, I think you understood me on the innerancy issue.
Chris Ryan,
I must disagree with you on the canon issue. Apostolic witness was also a criterion for canonicity in the early church. Because the church could trace writings to the apostles or second generation witnesses (such as Luke), their writings were understood as authoritative.
I think that you would be interested in Karl Barth's understanding of the Word found in Church Dogmatics 1.1, if you are not already familiar.
Chris Ryan and Nate,
You two are interesting in that both sound like nice guys having a nice disagreement which is unusual on Wade’s blog.
I’ve look back over the comments made by Chris and believe he is far advanced in wisdom than his age of twenty-two. I’m not saying because I’m 77 that I know more than him. I’m saying when I remember being twenty-two, I hadn’t dreamed of what he is talking about. I’m shocked that he believes so much like me or is that the other way around? [See how I took the long way around to say how wise I am. :) ]
Nate asked Chris, “Is the Bible inerrant, infallible, wholly true?
‘Inerrant’ is the code word for being “one of us” of those in power of the SBC. When the IMB was ‘attacked’ by Patterson for having women in positions over men, the President of the IMB first line of defense was “Why everyone in the IMB believed in the inerrant Word of God.”
Nate, have you ever wondered if ‘inerrant’ is so important why is it NOT in any BFM? You misquote the BFM definition of the truth of the Bible when you asked Chris, “Is the Bible…without error?
To quote the BFM correctly, you would have asked Chris, “Is the Bible…without ANY MIXTURE OF error”?
Nate, can you explain what “any mixture of error” means?
The lawyer of the SBC, Michel Whitehead, said it meant the truth of the Bible is true, and the untruth of the Bible is not true.
Hey! That’s exactly what Chris said when he said, “All that is Biblical is wholly true and without error.”
I believe Whitehead is correct when he said that is why we added, “All Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
You see, Nate, all Scripture is from the mouth of God, and because God cannot tell a lie, anything else like the lies of the devil and man, the ignorance, the stupidity, and so on is Not Scripture and is Not from the mouth of God. That’s why we need to interpret the Bible through the eyes of Jesus and depend upon the Holy Spirit to teach us as Jesus said He would do.
Nate, would you like to explain what no one else has attempted to explain on this blog, and that is:
What is the difference in a discrepancy seen by some compared to that discrepancy being seen as an ‘illusion’ by the ‘inerrant people’ as explained by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy…page nine and I quote:
“Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.”
The BGCT accepts the Bible being infallible but not inerrant. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
There is not one word that has caused as much confusion, division, and almost hatred among Christians as inerrancy, and I hope someday it will go back where it came from—the smiling lips of the devil.
"Joe Blackman, I have thought you were one of the worst writers here and have a very smart-aleck attitude,"
Thank you.
The BGCT accepts the Bible being infallible but not inerrant.
Well, yes, that would make sense since that is the liberal position on scripture.
Rex, you have said a mouthful. Do you have that "Diatribe on Inerrancy" saved on a Word document and you just cut and paste it every once in a while?
I was be wondering how I would respond to all you have said if I were Nate.
And then I found it easier to just admit that I would just agree with however Mohler, MacArthur, and Carson interpret it.
If those three disagree, then I'll go with MacArthur. :)
Unless I'm feeling extra feisty, then let's go with Mohler.
Unless I'm feeling extra scholarly, then let's go with Carson.
Might as well through Sproul in there if I happen to be feeling extrabaptisty.
"Do you have that "Diatribe on Inerrancy" saved on a Word document and you just cut and paste it every once in a while?"
Hey, at least he was honest enough to write this:
"You see, Nate, all Scripture is from the mouth of God, and because God cannot tell a lie, anything else like the lies of the devil and man, the ignorance, the stupidity, and so on is Not Scripture and is Not from the mouth of God."
Translation-"The Bible contains the word of God". And we all know what the mainstreamer's mean by "contains". Some parts of the Bible are scripture, the others (prohibition on women pastors, homosexuality is always a sin all the time without any exception whatsoever) we just kinda have to ignore because they represent cultural bias.
Joe,
Exactly. Vague descriptions and definitions get us no where. How then can we decipher what are the Words of God?
This is the logical problem that arises if one error exists in the Scripture. If one error exists then the Bible cannot be trusted, and we could all be deceived about who God is and how we can know Him.
This is what was at stake in the "inerrancy" debate during the resurgence. Rex is right on when he says it has caused division (I dont' know about hatred), and rightfully so. There must be a divide between those who teach the Scripture (from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21) is inerrant and those who believe it has error. As to confusion it is those who make statements like "All that is Biblical is wholly true and without error" that bring in confusion. That statement only leads to more questions. It appears to be saying that the Bible is wholly true. But it leaves open what actually is the Bible? Then they would reply with something like "The Bible is the words of God". It is a circular argument. You can never pinpoint exactly what is the Bible. Which is exactly why the "inerrancy debate" arose.
Nate
Something else I'd like to add is that inerrancy does not mean "mechanical exactitude". For instance, there are places in the syncoptic gospels where Jesus is recorded as saying something but one or the other accounts don't have the recording in the exact same words. Does that mean that one or more of the accounts is errant? No. It means we have exactly the words that God inspired that author to write that tell us what Jesus was saying not a verbatum transcript of what He said. That doesn't disprove inerrancy but rather helps us understand what inerrancy is as related to the Bible.
So then Joe. . . do you/does your church allow women who have braided hair to attend? How about women wearing gold? If so, and if everything in the Bible is absolute and eternal, what do you do about 1 Timothy 2:9?
Do you/does your church allow women who have short hair to attend? If so, and if everything in the Bible is absolute and eternal, what do you do about 1 Corinthians 11:6?
Do you/does your church allow men who have long hair to attend? (By the way, how long is long?) If so, and if everything in the Bible is absolute and eternal, what do you do about 2 Corinthians 11:15?
Or is it possible that you accept that some prohibitions in the Bible are based on culture, and thus are not binding on us today--just maybe not the same things that Rex, or myself, or Chris might think? What then is your criteria for discerning which is which? Who gets to decide? The Catholics believe in an inerrant Bible, but they complete the logic by saying that an inerrant text requires an inerrant interpreter, i.e., the pope. Who is your inerrant interpreter?
John Fariss
Tim,
Apostolic Witness meant not only that one was an apostle (John, Matthew, Paul) but could also be one connected to an apostle (Mark, Luke, James). Baptists by and large have rejected the notion of Apostolic succession, but if we grant the possibility of this, it is possible for someone to still be connected to an Apostolic Witness.
Also keep in mind that there are several anonymous documents in our canon. Traditions give names to the Gospels, the Johnine letters, and to Hebrews. Not the extant texts. Who was connected to whom cannot be wholly determined, then. Yet the church could see that these documents were the words of God.
Also up for debate is whether Apostleship is a title or a fuction. Or if the gift of Apostleship has ceased. If it has not, and it is a role, then it is possible for their to be modern apostles.
But this is why both author and document would have to be studied.
All the same, thank you for your comments. And Barth's Dogmatics is on my summer reading list. I'll be sure and check it out.
John Fariss
The prohibition against women preachers isn't based on culture. Paul used creation as an example. That makes the prohibition timeless.
Well, that is unless you're wanting to ignore the clear teaching of scripture to satisfy the "No roles" mentality our culture has embraced for about the past 40 or so years.
OK Joe, I understand your reasoning in that specific instance. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand. What about in the specific instances I asked you about?
And Joe, that actually sounds as though you are conceding that some things in the Bible are cultural matters, since Paul does not always use creation as an example. But I don't want to read sonmething into your words that you did not mean. So. . . what do you mean?
John
John
I think there are some things in the Bible that are cultural matters. I don't think that women have to wear dresses and not cut their hair. I have never greeted anyone nor been greeted with a holy kiss and would likely be weirded out if I was. If some guy were to try to give me a holy kiss I'd probably be all like "Same team, man!! Same team!!".
Ok then Joe--we are in agreement here. But the money question is, "HOW do we tell which are prohibitions for one specific culture at one specific point in time, and which are prohibitions which are meant for all people and all eternity?" What is the criteria by which we discern which is which?
Your example of being weirded out were you kissed by a man is a good example of cultural expectations. See pictures/film clips of Russian men, and such a kiss is part of their cultural expectations in a greeting. I suspect our reticence is based on our western obscession with sexuality, with maybe even a bit of homophobia thrown in. I don't think ancient Middle Eastern culture was as obscessed with sex as are we, so they thought little or nothing of it. I know plenty of men who would not consider hugging another man, even their own grown sons, and yet my family (from east central Alabama, composed of policemen and mechanics and farmers and lumbermen and cotton mill workers) do it all the time, and expect it, from family and friends alike.
John
Anonymous,
Let’s see, instead of using your ‘priesthood of the believer’ to express your beliefs, you replied ‘you would just agree with certain men.’
That kind of thinking falls in line with Catholics where most leave doctrine to the pope.
Joe Blackmon,
I noticed you and Nate as well as anyone else have not touched “illusions” with a ten foot pole. How come? I believe you know “illusions” defeats you’re definition of inerrancy because it says ONE DAY the Bible will be seen as perfect.
Nate,
You asked, “How then can we decipher what are the Words of God?
Rather than believing the words of Jesus, “But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything…” (John 14:26), you use scare tactics in the words of man saying, “If one error exists then the Bible cannot be trusted…’
Your words could be interpreted as you have faith in the Bible because it’s perfect. I have faith in the Bible because I have faith in God, and I’ll say with Job, ‘Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.’
If you want specifics to discuss, try (Matthew 9:18 vs. Mark 5:22-35 and Luke 8:42)
All translations (except Holman) say the girl is dead in Matthew, but all translations say she is alive in Mark and Luke.
The Holman is the ‘accepted’ translation now over King James. The question arises: If the Bible was perfect, why did they change it?
Maybe Patterson had a hand in it. Once I asked him about this discrepancy in reference to his forward of Criswell’s Study Bible if they had answered all the discrepancies.
He shouted to the crowd, “We got all of them” but in my ear he whispered, “We got all we could.”
John Fariss,
I expect Joe to reply to my comments about like he has to yours. All he wants to talk about is women and homosexuals. Nate is sure quite about explaining “any mixture of error”.
"Paul used creation as an example. That makes the prohibition timeless"
There is a prohibition against women preachers in the creation account?
Wow, talk about READING into something!
If you are referring to creation order, then what about giraffes? Come to think of it, I have met some bulls who are preachers. Never mind.
Rex,
Let's see. You have never ever once depended on help from someone understanding any part of scripture?
Personally, I have no problem depending on the likes of Mohler, MacArthur, Sproul, Kennedy, Packer, Spurgeon, Edwards, Nettles, Carson or about 150 others helping me to understand certain passages or even just understanding more clearly.
In fact, I am thankful for them and I love it.
Anonymous,
You make a good point. I’ve even learned much from people making comments on Wade’s blog.
I believe the Holy Spirit uses the wisdom of others to teach his Word. But that does not mean we’re helpless in understanding the Bible without help.
I do not agree with the statement that Adrian Rogers said:
“Scripture cannot be set against Scripture” and the authority given to seminaries which he over emphasizes in saying something like ‘If we say pickles have souls, then pickles have souls.’
Back to the point of great men teaching others. Where did they get their wisdom? From their teachers? Well, where did their teachers get it? And so it goes.
Keep in mind, one rotten apple can spoil the rest. “It takes only one wrong person to infect all the others.” (Galatians 5:9 Living) Kool-Aid anyone?
Do you think the hand-picked friends of Patterson put anything in the BFM 2000 that Patterson didn’t approve?
That’s the apple along with inerrancy that’s been used to do the most hurt in the history of Southern Baptist, and folks, it ain’t over yet.
Rex,
I was being "quite" (I think you meant quiet) about the mixture of error because I was thinking about it. I honestly have never thought about that specific phrase in the BFM.
In one of your previous posts you stated:
"Nate, have you ever wondered if ‘inerrant’ is so important why is it NOT in any BFM? You misquote the BFM definition of the truth of the Bible when you asked Chris, “Is the Bible…without error?"
So to answer you first question. No. I haven't ever wondered why the word "inerrant" isn't in the BFM.
2nd I didn't misquote the BFM. I wasn't trying to quote it. I was speaking my own words from my own study, not regurgitating others words.
You then went on to say why do they have the phrase "without any mixture of error". I haven't talked about this to anyone who was on the committees that wrote this, and I'm not sure when it actually became a part of the BFM. Was it in 2000? If so, I'll ask one of the committee members on Sunday what they meant. To me it sounds like it means the Scripture has no error mixed in it.
I'll look at the specific passages you brought up tomorrow and let you know my thoughts. I typically use the ESV by the way, but I'll try to look at them in multiple translations. Tonight I'm off to bed.
By the way what do you think "without any mixture of error means"?
I agree with you Rex about Rogers statement.
Note, that I didn't say I hang on every word any of these men ever say. Especially Rogers.
What I am saying is if I struggle with clarity on a particular matter in scripture then I have no problem trusting them to help me see it through.
That's all I meant.
Nate,
It’s a joy to write to someone that you know will listen. That doesn’t mean you will believe what I say, but that your mind is not closed as so many are.
I was impressed by your comments on another post when you said, “We all want the same title of ‘conservative’.”
You are so right. Many say ‘moderates’ named themselves.
Nothing is further from the truth. ‘Moderates’ feel their real name ‘conservative’ was stolen by ‘fundamentalists’.
Since fundamentalists claimed ‘conservative’, newspapers named their opponents ‘moderates’.
For a real test of who is conservative, Webster gives the answer: “Opposed to change.”
For the rest of this comment, I’ll call conservatives what I believe they are: LIBERALS.
Once in power, Liberals went on a rampage of changing names. Only the name WMU (hurray for the women) was not allowed to be changed.
I believe in the last year Liberals wanted to appoint the WMU leaders, but were denied, so for punishment less money was given the WMU. Revenge is sweet regardless the cost…since history records for ever dollar given the WMU by the SBC; the SBC received back $1.53. I believe some want to kick the WMU out.
Do you remember the first ‘order’ given to autonomous churches? “Boycott Disney!”
No longer were there spiritual leaders, Rebels were spiritual bosses.
They changed the structure of the Holy Spirit guiding missionaries to missionaries being their employees to obey orders.
Missionary doctors were taken from their hospitals to plant churches. The IMB changed their role of assisting missionaries to missionaries assisting them.
Liberals changed the BFM 1963. Liberals changed the glue that held Baptists together from ‘Missions’ to ‘Doctrine’.
Southern Baptists started the Baptist World Alliance a hundred years ago, but Rebels withdrew from it because of jealousy of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF)being accepted by the BWA.
The CBF kept the glue of ‘Missions’.
Rebels were jealous of the CBF because money given them should have been coming to Rebels.
The ultimate blow was making the BFM 2000 into a creed by forcing missionaries to sign it. As one missionary said they were told in going to the field, Rebels would give them a rope to hold on to, but he believed the rope was used to hang them.
Rebels are legalists that don’t trust the Holy Spirit to guide people, but build walls to keep sin out…but only made prisoners within.
Nate, you won’t be able to ask the committee why they wrote “any mixture of error” because it started in the BFM 1925. I believe they based it on:
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15 King James)
Since truth cannot be divided, I believe “word of truth” is the Bible and has truth and untruth…the truth being Scripture and untruth being lies, ignorance and so on.
I believe “any mixture of error” means how the SBC lawyer explained it.
Anonymous,
I see what you mean and I agree. When someone explains what I missed, sometimes I might see even a little more than they explained.
Example: (Acts 15) Verse 6: “So the apostles and elders met together to resolve this issue.”
Verse 7: “At the meeting, after long discussions, Peter stood and addressed them…”
Paul and Barnabus spoke verse 12. Then James spoke verse 13-21.
Verse 22 “Then the apostles and elders together with the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch…”
I couldn’t understood how a private meeting could have the whole church in agreement especially the sect of Pharisees demanding the laws of Moses to be obeyed.
Not until someone explained the private meeting was not recorded, but Peter and the rest were speaking to the church did it make sense to me.
I believe Peter gave the conclusion of the private meeting, but I’ll bet James did not express his view at the private meeting, but that’s another story.
Very good example Rex.
Love you brother.
Anonymous,
“Love you brother” sounded very sincere. I appreciate that.
It makes it easy to return the same goodbye. I wish more discussions would end with such grace.
I was certainly sincere. We don't agree on everything Rex, but I find your sense of humor in your off-beat comments hilarious.
I think this has something to do with why you have reached a grand old age and will have many more to follow.
Post a Comment