Note: There are several statements in this post that assert what Wade Burleson believes. I have emailed these statements to Wade, and he has offered clarification. In all but one instance, I have changed them to reflect his wording. The one I did not change, I have italicized and marked with an asterisk, and Wade’s statement is included verbatim at the end of this post.
“We believe the Bible!”
These words came, thoroughly unprovoked, from a woman who appeared to be in her seventies, and she spoke them to me with all the forcefulness she could muster from her 4’10”, 90-pound frame.
“We baptize in the name of Jesus! There’s only one God, not three!”
Now I began to see where this was headed, and since I was in her family’s home following the accidental death of her teenaged granddaughter, I thought it best not to engage in a theological debate with an adherent of oneness Pentecostalism. I nodded politely, being in full agreement with her last statement, and moved to another part of the room.
Her opening salvo – “We believe the Bible!” – was brought to mind by the two recent posts on Wade Burleson’s blog, which are two parts (links: Part One; Part Two) under the same title: The Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Bible Is Sufficient for Me. It was apparently sufficient for the grieving grandmother whom I met under such unfortunate circumstances, but the conclusions she reached are problematic to say the least. I don’t mean to suggest that the disagreements Wade has with so many are anywhere near the level of a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, but they are significant, and I want in this post to explore some of these disagreements. To borrow a phrase from radio talk show host Glenn Beck, I’m not a scholar or a theologian, but I am a thinker, and this post is a result of having absorbed a great deal of information from Wade’s blog and others, and having given it a great deal of thought.
The disagreement that has brought Wade to his current prominence in the convention and in the blog world is, I believe, quite fundamental indeed. It has to do, in part, with the guideline on baptism adopted by the IMB trustees nearly a year ago, and the basis of this disagreement holds the key to understanding all that has transpired since.
As you will remember, the part of the guideline that is the source of contention is that section requiring that a candidate must have been baptized in a church that holds to eternal security. Wade does not have an issue with the doctrine of eternal security (he believes in it strongly), but rather with the notion that the church is primarily considered as “an institution” rather than the people of Christ from every nation. Because of this view of the church, he would take issue wit the role of the church in baptism, and more fundamentally with the definition of the church.
Wade has a view of the church that is primarily universal in scope, with the local church being simply a collection of members who are part of, but not the entire, universal church. This view is at odds with what Southern Baptists have historically believed to be the biblical view of the church, which is only knowable as a local congregation organized in accordance with New Testament guidelines. It is here that the disagreements begin.
The Great Commission, which the IMB is tasked with executing to the ends of the earth, was given to the church, and not to individual Christians. I realize the implications of that statement might cause a knee-jerk disagreement, but let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up.
The New Testament contains complimentary accounts of the Great Commission, and for my purposes here, I will focus on Matthew and Acts. In very general terms, Matthew gives us the “what” and Acts gives us the “how.” The “what” is essentially that we are commanded to make disciples, baptize, and teach, and the “how” is the strategy for carrying out the “what” (in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, to the end of the earth). But Jesus did not give the order to immediately get started, because before giving the commission, he had ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem until they had received “the promise of the Father.” They were to wait for the day of Pentecost, when the church would be born, and empowered to carry out the Great Commission by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
This is a thumbnail sketch of the basis for my belief that the Great Commission is the responsibility of Christians to obey and carry out within the context of the local church, and Southern Baptists (and not just Landmark Southern Baptists) have long believed that the church is central to God’s plan for the carrying out of the Great Commission.
Does this mean that individual Christians cannot be witnesses, make disciples, teach, or baptize? Of course not! We must do these things. But we must do them in a relationship of accountability to a local church. If I begin to teach error, the church must correct the error, and if I am teaching without recognizing the authority of the local church, from whence shall the correction come? The same applies to each element of the Great Commission.
Wade has said that when a Christian leads someone to Christ, it is the privilege of that person to baptize the new convert, for he says the same command by Christ to evangelize the world contains within it the command to baptize converts, and both are given by Christ to all his disciples. Wade says if only ‘ordained’ pastors can baptize, then to be consistent with the Great Commission, only ‘ordained’ pastors can evangelize.
I could not disagree more, because of the previously-stated belief that baptism is a command (ordinance) of Christ that He gave to the local church, and not to individual Christians. Would I require that the new convert must be baptized by an ordained minister? Absolutely not! The local church is absolutely free to authorize the one who has led someone to Christ to baptize that person, but for a Christian to baptize someone without recognizing the authority of the local church is just as dangerous as teaching outside that authority, and it cannot be recognized as a scriptural baptism. This is an invitation to chaos, as it becomes impossible for sister churches to know whether transferring members were baptized under the authority of a church, or in a swimming pool with no one present but the “baptizer” and “baptized.” And no, I’m not saying that scriptural baptism cannot take place in a swimming pool; I’m saying that without the authority of the church, there is no scriptural baptism. This is why the beliefs of the church that authorized the baptism of missionary candidates is absolutely fair game for policy-making decisions by trustees, and why Wade is “outside the tent” on this issue.
Let me provide another example of where Wade’s beliefs fall outside what Southern Baptists, as expressed in the Baptist Faith & Message, believe to be biblical practice. In a recent post, and in the comments, Wade described the practice of communion in his church whereby any professing Christian, who has been baptized by any mode, is invited to partake.* While I fully support his church’s right, and indeed their responsibility, to carry out the ordinances in accordance with their convictions, this practice is clearly at odds with the Baptist Faith & Message’s Article VII, which defines baptism, and then calls it a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. The practice of Wade’s church, which is the practice in many (if not the majority) of our Southern Baptist churches, is incompatible with the clear language of the Baptist Faith & Message, yet Wade contends that it is not.
Wade has consistently said that we must “cease narrowing the parameters of cooperation” or our convention will cease to exist as we know it. For the reasons stated above, and others, I don’t believe that there is any narrowing going on. There has been clarification, but it is clarification of where Southern Baptists have always been, and where the great majority of us are today. I have come to believe that all of the events of this year, from the meeting that produced the Memphis Declaration, to motions made in Greensboro, to the outcry over chapel sermons at Southwestern Seminary, are not an attempt to stand against any “narrowing,” but rather they are an attempt to broaden the definition of “Southern Baptist” to include things for which we have never stood.
Frankly, I believe that the problem is not that the tent is not big enough, but that Wade has discovered that, on these issues of controversy, he is not under the tent at all, and he wishes to be.
I concede that this could be read as an attack on Wade and those who support him. That is not my intent. I am simply trying, as I stated near the beginning of this post, to offer some analysis of disagreements.
The disagreements I have outlined here are disagreements that Christians can have. But there are many who could say with Wade, “The Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Bible Is Sufficient for Me,” who clearly belong outside the tent that is the Southern Baptist Convention. They belong there because of fundamental disagreements about faith and practice. We have staked out our positions and raised our tent over them.
None of these disagreements are equivalent to the heresy of the grieving grandmother I met this spring, but her declaration of “We believe the Bible!”, coupled with her disavowal of the doctrine of the Trinity, illustrates clearly that our tent simply cannot be large enough for everyone.
*Here is Wade’s version of the italicized statement above, which is significantly abridged but not, I believe, contradictory: “In a recent post, and in the comments, Wade described the practice of communion in his church whereby any professing Christian, who has followed the Lord in baptism, can partake in communion. Wade and his church affirm that scriptural baptism is baptism by immersion, and membership in his church requires believer’s baptism by immersion before admittance into membership, but Wade argues that there will be people who love Christ and are at the Lord’s table in heaven, who considered their infant baptism, or baptism by pouring or sprinkling, to be their ‘Scriptural baptism.’ His church will not exclude from communion those whom the Lord does not exclude in heaven. His view on communion is exactly that of Charles Haddon Spurgeon — strict church membership but communion with all the saints.”
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Bro. Wes
I have emailed you most of my response to this post. But, I want to encourage you as I know others will disagree with your analysis. They may even label you a “Wade hater fundamentalist.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. We have honest disagreements with him. You have not attacked his character or his value as a Christian brother and fellow pastor.
I believe you hit the nail on the head with this statement:
“Frankly, I believe that the problem is not that the tent is not big enough, but that Wade has discovered that, on these issues of controversy, he is not under the tent at all, and he wishes to be.”
I have stated this also in different words.
Thanks and God bless
Bro. Robin
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Where does the Bible say Baptism is a church ordinance?
Matthew 3:13-17, Mark1:9-11, Luke3:21-22 & John 3:23–What church was John the pastor of?
Matthew 28:18-20–Jesus commanded the disciples not a church to make disciples.
Acts 8:35-39–What about the Ethopian? That wasn’t under the church.
I really don’t get all of the fuss. Our job is to make disciples.
Would you have communion with a believer of another denomination at a neutral location?
Maybe it is the para-church in me but I don’t see why we have to always exclude. If someone is a follower of Jesus I can worship with them but it seems that is going to be harder to do in the new SBC.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Wes,
What a masterpiece of a post! Thank you for demonstrating some of the differences between Burlesonism and traditional SBC conservativism. What we believe matters.
Regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Wes,
If Charles Spurgeon was right in his beliefs about open communion if his stance is the biblical position, then which should go: the BFM statement and traditional Southern Baptist belief, or biblical teaching?
I know your answer to that. What concerns me is that the arguments surrounding this subject (open communion) invariably center around traditional Southern Baptist beliefs and the BFM and not the biblical text. Wade keeps asking a question that, so far, no one has addressed: if we will share the wedding supper of the Lamb with these folks on what basis do we refuse to share it’s precursor in the Lord’s Supper? I really wish someone would answer that from something other than the BFM and Southern Baptist history.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Paul,
I would simply say that in this life I must do my best, under the leadership of the indwelling Spirit, to practice the ordinances as I understand the Bible to teach them. I believe, for reasons stated in my post, that they were given to the church and not to individual Christians, so that is the practice to which my conscience is bound.
I recognize that others can hold different views and still be orthodox, but I am a Southern Baptist by choice because of their historic practice of what I believe to be biblical.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Where in the Bible does it say Baptism is a “church” ordinance. If we are inerrantists, then lets go by the Bible not Tradition.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Kevin,
I did my best to explain my belief, based on the complimentary accounts in Matthew 28 and Acts 1, that the command to baptize was given, along with the rest of the Great Commission, to the church, and it is to be administered and carried out within that context.
Those who wrote the Baptist Faith & Message clearly recognized that, calling baptism an “ordinance of Christ” and and “ordinance of the church.”
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
What Church? I don’t see 1st Baptist Jerusalem mentioned. I think we are stretching those passages. The early church wasn’t that organized.
I ask again, if we are truly inerrantists, why do we add to what the Bible says?
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Kevin,
I appreciate that we are not likely to agree here. I don’t believe it is stretching, but valid interpretation. Thus, I don’t agree that I am adding to what the Bible says, but rather I am being faithful to what I believe it teaches.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Fair enough, I just don’t see it.
This is the rub that is occuring in SBC life today. You are at least civil. It does appear to me that we are narrowing. I’m afraid it is going to narrow me out eventually. I was taught to minister with all believers.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Wes,
I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful tone of your post, even though I disagree with much of what you have written. I acknowledge that many, and probably most, Southern Baptists over the years have agreed with the positions you articulated. BUT, that does not mean that these views are right. I would also agree that your explanation accurately reflects what the BFM says about the relationship between baptism and the Lord’s Supper. While I agree more with Wade’s position on this one issue, I admit that it does not exactly line up with what the BFM says.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Wes,
Let me add my thanks for this post. I don’t think that you (or me) are adding to what the Bible says. We are interpreting it the way most Baptists down through history have. I am not sure that we are “narrowing the tent” as much as refusing to keep enlarging it.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Wes,
Great post! I great with almost all of your analysis. Let me add a few things:
1. Wade Burleson’s position does not line up with Charles Spurgeon’s. While Spurgeon did practice open communion – a non-immersed individual could only take the Lord’s Supper at his church for three months. After that time if they refused to be properly baptized, they were refused the elements. Also at the end of his life, Spurgeon admitted that the closed communion position was more biblical, but he was unable to change the position of his church. This information is found in John T. Christian’s book “Close Communion.
2. Burleson’s argument about eating in heaven with non-immersed Christians being a basic for practicing open communion does not hold up. The great assembly in heaven will be made up of both immersed and non-immersed Christians, but that doesn’t give us any basis to allow non-immersed Christians to join our church without being immersed. The fact is that EVERY person in the N.T. who observed the Lord’s Supper was immersed, and Acts 2:41-42 and Matthew 28:19-20 give us a biblical basis for restricting the Lord’s Supper.
3. Wes – I’m going to let your statement about the church being born on the day of Pentecost slide. I thought you knew better than that.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Wes,
My smiley face didn’t make it into the last post after my “I thought you knew better than that” sentence. I said that with half a smile. GRIN
Your Landmark Southern Baptist friend,
Ben Stratton
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Wes,
In recent months I have noticed many posts of real substance being posted rather than the normal fodder of political intrigue.
This one ranks in the upper deck (World Series madness;-) with a few more I have read lately. Some I agree with and some I do not. I agree with your ecclesiology. Thank you.
Kevin,
You are correct. The church was not well organized at the time Jesus gave the Great Commission. The fact is that Jesus was well organized and He knew the church would become organized within the century. Therefore He gave the G.C. to the church for execution in all local churches that follow Him. I would like to challenge you to consider the recipients of the G.C. once more with your investigative spirit of which you are famous in Blog Town.
Jesus gave the G.C. to the church and that gift helped organize the early church. It is within the authority vested in the church by Christ that the G.C. has strength and such longevity.
Now, please don’t call me a Landmarker. I am by no means so biblically or historically ignorant to be within those ranks.
cb
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Wes,
I’m afraid you may have misunderstood my point. I did not make the point that the Lord’s Supper is not a church ordinance and I said nothing about baptism. In this post you provide a biblical basis for your understanding of the connection of baptism as a function of the church. While I may disagree with some of your conclusions I recognize it as a valid biblical argument. But when you get to the paragraph on the Lord’s Supper there is no biblical basis – just what Southern Baptists have always believed and the BFM. Where does the Bible permit us to withold the Lord’s Supper – the precursor to the great banquet we will share in the consumation – from those who will be welcomed to that very banquet?
With all due respect, the passages Ben Stratton cites say absolutely nothing about restricting the Lord’s Supper to anyone (Matthew 28:19-20 doesn’t even mention the Lord’s Supper and it is unclear as to whether or not the Acts passage is referring to that or shared meals – though I’d be inclined to believe it is a reference to the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, it says nothing about baptism and thus the connection that he makes is simply not there in those passages).
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Wes,
Great post!
I appreciate your spirit, the fact you emailed me in advance to insure you were representing my (and my church’s) position accurately.
You are a true brother with more than a measure of grace.
We do not agree on the issues you articulate, but I believe we both love the Southern Baptist Convention, value the inerrant Word of God, and desire to reach the world with the gospel.
I look forward to our continued dialogue and cooperation in missions and evangelism and believe the discussion model you have presented on your post today is one worth imitating.
One final item: You state . . .
“Frankly, I believe that the problem is not that the tent is not big enough, but that Wade has discovered that, on these issues of controversy, he is not under the tent at all, and he wishes to be.”
Wes, you may or may not be aware that I have served on the Southern Baptist Nominating Committee, been Chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Denominational Calendar Committee, served as Moderator in three separate Southern Baptist Associations, and have been appointed to the Committee on Committees of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I was elected to serve two terms as President of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, currently serve on the Audit Committee of the BGCO, am a current member of the Board of Directors of the BGCO, and am in my second year serving as a trustee of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I have pastored three large Southern Baptist Churches, including serving for the last fifteen years as the Senior Pastor of the largest Cooperative Program giving Southern Baptist Church in Northwest Oklahoma, and as you are aware, am the descendent of the President of Baptist General Convention of Texas and President of Baylor University, Dr. Rufus Burleson. My father has pastored Southern Baptist churches for over fifty years, and my grandfather was a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist.
Whew . . .
I also affirm the Baptist Faith and Message and the Abstract of Principles of Southern and Southeastern Seminary regarding all the essentials of the faith, and have expressed in writing my views on those areas of differences regarding the non-essentials, but believe that my views on the non-essentials are held by many, many Southern Baptist churches and people.
If that is what you call being ‘outside’ of the tent, I would hate to see what it means to be under it!
By the way, since I already consider myself a true blue Southern Baptist and obviously, those who have placed me in those positions do so as well, it may not be as easy as some seem to think to prove I’m not.
Blessings,
Your Christian and Southern Baptist friend,
Wade Burleson
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Wade,
You scare us with such bravado. I am sure Peter James Flamming and Leighton Paige Patterson can make claims very similar. What does it really prove other than pride really does come before the fall.
The big question for us all is: What have we done lately for the Kingdom of God? No one really cares about the pedigree if the dog can hunt, right? Or does that only apply to the rest of us?
You and I both know that many have served in many positions yet, know little of true service or of the true Baptist way. You serve among many such people yourself and have fallen victim to their arrogance.
Frankly, you are taking liberty with the context of what Wes is actually saying. He did not say you were not under the tent in the whole. He states that you may not be under the tent relating to certain issues.
Well, I say: I hope you are not on some things that we are dealing with in this little fracus. I thought we were seeking to be truthful and biblical without worrying about the “tent” so much. It is you that likes to talk about our hero John Bunyan. He was certainly not always under the tent. We admire him more for what he did outside the tent than under.
cb
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
It is foolish for me to talk this way … I am a Hebrew of Hebrews … a Pharisee of Pharisees
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
C’mon, CB, lighten up on Wade. I would have said the same thing if someone implied that I were “outside the tent.”
I could do some pedigree listing of my own. We all could. That’s the point. We are all Southern Baptists and we need to start acting like we are on the same team instead of tearing down what the Lord is doing in certain places because it doesn’t fit my corner of the tent.
Now, about this ecclesiology… I love you both anyway!
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Wes,
This was, overall, an excellent post. I am in general agreement with your exegetical conclusions regarding the neccesity of accountability to a local church, and believe that this needs to be communicated with more of the gracious conviction you have shown.
I could ask multiple questions here, but I will ask only one. Given this statement:
“For the reasons stated above, and others, I don’t believe that there is any narrowing going on.”
I must ask; do you not think that attaching ecclesiastical belief in “eternal security” to the validity of a person’s baptism is narrowing?
Actually, let me ask another question as well: If an individual was immersed, after conversion, under the authority of a church that confessed belief in sola fide, but which did not affirm eternal security, where on earth is the Biblical basis for declaring such Baptism to be invalid? Furthermore, where in the article on Baptism in the BFM do we find reason for invalidating a baptism of this kind (Honestly, I’m concerned about what the Scriptures teach concernign baptism, not what the BFM says [even though I agree with it], but there seems lately to be an inordinate amount of exegesis applied to the BFM lately.)
While I applaud most of what you have to say here, I have to contend with your assumption that no narrowing is taking place. The baptism guideline of the IMB is but one of many examples that could be cited.
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Wes,
One more thing. I find myself so often at odds with my brother Ben Stratton, I have to make note of when he and I agree. You my brother, should know better than to believe the church was birthed at Pentecost! (grin)
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
CB,
Thanks for your comment. It reminded me that ‘true service’ in the kingdom of God is seen in the small things of life, like giving a cup of cold, refreshing water to your enemy, or caring for children who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, or putting your arm around a broken man and sharing with him the good news of Jesus Christ.
Honestly, to equate ministry positions in the SBC with serving the ‘kingdom of God’ makes me chuckle just a little. I think you misunderstand my point, so I’ll put it in language you like — hunting terms.
“Suppose two brothers who are hunting buddies go out to the far reaches of their property to hunt bears. On brother points his gun at the other brother and tells him to to take his dogs and get off the family property because he has not right to hunt there. It might be prudent for the brother who is being excluded to point at the fields he has plowed, the barns he has built, the horses he has raised, and the house he has established and remind his brother that he has too much invested to leave. ”
That’s all I was saying.
I know you believe that I have fallen victim to arrogance. I know full well that pride is a sin not easily seen by me. But before I accept your assessment of my character I think I’ll ask those people who know me, love me and are around me on a daily basis for their evaluation. I trust their wisdom and counsel completely.
Again, thanks for the comment!
In His Grace,
Wade
Reply
on Oct 25th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Wade,
I am making no assessment of your character. I am merely pointing out one thing you are wrong in saying. Why is it you have such a hard time with believing you can just simply be wrong sometime?
Your character is above reproach and you are being unfair to suggest that I am making any assessment of it in a negative way. That is a smoke screen, my brother, and wrong of you to push on me.
You ask anybody anything you want to and it will change nothing of this reality here and now. You are wrong and that is all. Sometime we all are wrong, Wade. It is part of being imputed with a fallen nature:-)
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 12:46 am
I gently disagree with you C.B.
I don’t have a problem admitting I can be wrong sometimes.
I beleive I can be wrong multiple times
It’s just that because I really think through things before I say them, it takes more than ‘telling’ me ‘You’re simply wrong.’ You must be prove me to be wrong. When I am shown to be wrong, I will freely, humbly and quickly admit it.
My standard of truth, however, is the Word of God and not tradition, popular opinion, or even C.B.’s declaration of wrong.
In other words C.B. don’t just tell me I’m wrong C.B. — prove it to me.
I’m listening.
Blessings,
wade
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Dear Brother Wes,
I respect your honest efforts to grasp the controversial issues you have addressed here. You are setting the blogging bar high.
BUT, I’ll have to disagree with you on a couple of points.
First, you have described what Southern Baptists “historically believe” as what Southern Baptist have believed for the past 100 years. You wrote:
“Wade has a view of the church that is primarily universal in scope, with the local church being simply a collection of members who are part of, but not the entire, universal church. This view is at odds with what Southern Baptists have historically believed to be the biblical view of the church, which is only knowable as a local congregation organized in accordance with New Testament guidelines.”
Please check out your 1677/89 Second London Confession (which is also the 1742 Philadelphia Confession, which is also the 1813 Charleston Confession), first two paragraphs of the article on the church; oh, and the 1858 Abstract of Principles also. You will see that for most of the history of Southern Baptists, we have described the church as primarily catholic/universal, and the local church as a sub-set of it. The emphasis on local church over catholic church appears in the 1833 New Hampshire, which language was largely carried over for the 1925 BFM.
Second, I am not convinced of the truth of your statement, “without the authority of the church, there is no scriptural baptism.” That point is certainly not expressly stated in the Bible, and I do not find it strongly implied, either. Dr. Gill stated that a convert could be baptized by an individual, without the church’s knowledge or approval. Then the newly-baptized convert would be presented to the church. At that point the church’s authority would come into play, as the church either accepted or rejected the new convert for membership, based on the church’s evaluation of the baptism. His name attached to this idea does not make it true, but the idea seems more in keeping with the way this issue is handled in the Acts accounts.
Dear Brother Wade,
I’ll have to go with Brother C.B. on this one. I do not accuse you of BEING puffed up, but your listing of your SBC credentials sure SOUNDED puffed up.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 1:58 am
Art,
I was calling on Wade to lighten up on Wes. Wes did not say Wade was outside the tent. He said Wade was outside the tent on some issues. I say, Great! Who wants to be in the tent in all things. Wade likes John Bunyan. That guy was outside the tent often. That is why he was a hero.
I am tired of hearing about the tent anyway. By design and function a tent can only stretch so far before it begins to come apart at the seams. By design and function no tent can hold everyone. Art, there has to be boundaries and limitations in anything or eventually there is nothing.
We did not go to Memphis to build or enlarge a tent. We left Memphis with a desire for holiness, purity and a proper biblical conduct first in us and then to promote it throughout the SBC.
We left Nashville in ‘90 thinking we were building the Kingdom of God. Later we learned we were building the kingdoms of men. Art, this “tent crusade” is not for me. That is not why I went to Memphis. I have helped to build a man’s kingdom my last time, by the grace of God. I am not, now, going to help build a “universal tent” to house any and all.
Iwant to finish well this time, Art. I want to be clean at the end of the road. I want to serve Jesus as He calls on me.
We do not need a tent, Art. We both know the fundamentals of the faith by heart. This tent thing is a poor by-product of Memphis. It was never the vision or goal, atleast not for me. I am not saying everyone should be alike and you know it. I am saying there are fundamentals of the faith and we are held together by that or we will eventually perish.
I stand by Wes because I believe he is right. I am making no assessment of Wade’s character as he says . His character is above reproach, but he can be wrong and in this case he is.
I know you understand my heart in this, Art. I know you do.
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:16 am
OK Wade,
Two things I will point out.
1 Wes did not say you were outside the tent as a whole. He stated you were outside on some issues.
2 I did not in any way make an assessment of your character.
There you are. Deal with it.
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Jeff,
Gill’s views on ecclesiology never really caught on in the U.S. If you study the confessions of faith here in the early 1800’s and late 1700’s you will notice that almost all of them say that only someone connected with a church, usually an ordained pastor, could baptize. They did not believe that any Christian could baptize any person they won to the Lord.
Also while the London and Philadelphia confessions do teach the universal church, they do not teach the primacy of the universal church. In other words these confessions and the old Baptists believed that most of the references to “church” in the Bible refer to the local church and that the local church is what matters when it comes to worship, discipline, teaching, and the ordinances. This was true of Baptists long before the Landmark controversy. P.H. Mell’s book on baptism is a good example.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Jeff Richard Young,
Tremendous comment.
You have contributed to the discussion of the historic Baptist understanding of the church.
I also fully agree there is a difference between ‘being’ puffed and ’sounding” puffed up. My accountability group tells me that listing denonimational service may sound puffed up to people who don’t know me, but it is necessary to prove a logical point. They all know those positions don’t mean a rat’s rear end to me. But they also know that stopping the very dangerous course we seem to have embarked upon as a convention means a great deal to me.
Having said that, I do apologize for ’sounding’ puffed up. But for the sake of logic and proving I have the SBC’s best interest at heart the comment stands.
Wes, again, thank you for your dialogue. I must check out of this comment string. I trust it doesn’t ‘look’ rude for not answering any more questiions, or commenting no further on this post, but I choose to risk misunderstanding in order to do what is best for me and the ministry as a whole.
Blessings to you and all our mutual friends.
In His Grace,
Wade
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Ben Stratton ,
It is true that the Bible speaks more of the local than the univerasl church, but that still does not give credibility to Landmark theology in any way.
Wes can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think this particular post was intended for a debate on bygone jibberish such as Landmarkism. The scope seems to be for a far more credibible concern such as “biblical theology”
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Wade,
Smooth and very much Wade style and totally expected by me.
I give you two obvious errors of judgement on your part (which you asked me to do) and in true Wade fashion you ignore it with some pseudo-nobel-exit-statement of being misunderstood.
I have to hand it to you. You are smooth in a crisis. A true survivor. I do admire that.
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:58 am
One quick question to all.
My parents are not religious. My grandfather was nominal baptist until later in life and my grandmother was Church of Christ. I wasn’t saved until I was 22, did not answer the call to preach until I was 29, and have recently gained an understanding of the issues at hand.
I realize Bro. Wade only wants to show his love and respect for the convention when he discusses his heritage.
But my question is this, does my pedigree make me any less of a Southern Baptist than Bro. Wade?
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 9:02 am
One addition to that question.
Does Bro. Wade’s heritage make him more of a Southern Baptist than me or any other small church preacher who is striving to spread the gospel where God has planted him?
While there are differences between Wade and me, it is not my desire to disrespect him, his service, or his family heritage.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Mr. Foster,
I may be wrong but I think we have “thrashed” each other before so I walk softly here.
Your question is the reason I took Wade to task on this. Pedigree and history other than your salvation through the Blood of Christ means little. Paul said his was “dung” and so is mine and so is Wade’s, Dr. Patterson’s and Peter James Flamming’s.
What is of value is my walk with Christ right now and my service to the Kingdom. That should be the only concern of any of us.
Let me say Wade is my friend and I respect him for much he has done, but he is off base here and since I count him as my friend I have a responsibility to tell him so, publically if he is off base in a public venue and he is.
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Thank you CB. I pray we never have to “thrash” each other again. I don’t and never have considered Wade an enemy. With that said, we aren’t calling each other on a weekly basis either. It is my hope with you, Wade, and others that we respect each other because of the blood that has redeemed us and that we are fellow pastors. Times can get tough in a local church ministry and even though we disagree, we should be agents of encouragement. I pray the Lord will give me strength and wisdom to live up to that standard.
I know you and I will have our disagreements, but I hope we can learn from each other.
BTW, I am not so frigid to be called Mr. Foster. Bro. Robin or Robin will do. Gee wiz, I’m only 38, do I seem that old?
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Brother Wes,
Great Post. Get ready. You are promoted by the insightfulness of our post publicly, but now go to another blog and disagree. You will be marginalized, or asked not to come back.
Brother Wade,
I do not know you personally. That being said, I do not know who your accountability group is, but you need to get some who are not struck by the awsomeness of your irenic personality. Dale Moody. Who was he and where is he today?
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Bro Jeff and CB,
I know and appreciate you both, as True Blue Brothers in Jesus Christ and I know your Hearts. I also know the Heart of Bro Wade and His Love for His Fellow Brothers, or He would not have taken the Stand that He has Taken on behalf of Our Missionaries, as well as all of us.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Tim,
I don’t think anyone will trash Wes because he is not a trouble maker. Wes asks tough questions. But he doesn’t call people names and stir up trouble just to stir it up. I like Wes and eventhough we occasionally disagree, I consider him a good friend. This is the way we should debate, in love and respect.
Wes, I appreciate you.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Dear Brother Ben,
Every time I hear from you I like you better! I’ll do some thinking and reading about what you said.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
CB,
I am so proud of you! Now you are finally seeing the Wade that many of us have seen for a long time.
Regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
What Wade would that be Les? I have known Wade and his family for fifteen years and I haven’t even seen the Wade that you are seeming to describe.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Some of you people are mean. Really mean.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Wes,
My concern is that when some say, “Wes is only saying you’re out from under the tent in some issues”, it will become another issue, then more issues, and suddenly we will have the desiccated remains of a denomination void of life guided by rules made by “their” interpretation of things.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
All:
I wish you could’ve been with me a week ago right now. I’d gone to meet someone at the bus station and was sitting outside waiting for them when a senior citizen lady in rather shabby clothing approached me. She’d been walking up to everyone and handing them a little piece of red paper.
I thought “Oh no .. a panhandler and I don’t have any change”.
She handed me a piece of paper; it was a red heart-shaped slip of construction paper on which she’d written .. with a Sharpie .. “Jesus Loves Me .. John 14:26″ She also wrote a simple outline on the back, about how to be saved. I showed her my lapel pin, which I always wear one of, which said “God is in control”. She said “Yes but you need to get Jesus in there too”
I was so thunderstruck, I couldn’t say or do anything. She walked away and I never saw her again.
If I ever got to the level of potential that God has given me, that she’s demonstrating with her walk and her little slips of paper, there ain’t no tellin’ what God would do.
Shame on me.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Bob,
That is the Heart of the matter. Head Knowledge or Heart Knowledge!!!
God looks at the Heart, so be Head UP!!!
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Debbie,
You said, “What Wade would that be Les?”
The Wade of his first comment in this stream. If you can’t see the arrogance there, then you’re not as objective as you claim to be.
Even Wade’s friend, CB, can see it.
Regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Brother Kevin,
I am glad that you know Wes. I do not know him and have debated with him on other issues. There are others in blogtown that I have debated the same as I have Brother Wes. However, the others that I have debated have been very caustic in their responses to me whenever I disagreed. One asked me not to come back to his blog and another told me I was presenting a false gospel.
While I disagree with others I never have accused anyone of any such thing. I also have never asked anyone to not come back to my blog because they disagreed with me. I have told two people I would not post their comments. One for the simple reason of putting Scripture out without any comment, thus giving an appearance of arrogant righteousness. The other for refusing to identify himself.
For others,
There are now comments being made that we know each other’s heart. According to the Scripture we do not know our own hearts. I feel that while Brother Wes has stated a disagreement, others are trying to make certain they come to Brother Wade’s rescue. Brother Wade said it, let him explain his heart.
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
OK, suppose I concede the point that maybe, just maybe, the tent isn’t actually narrowing (I think it is, but I will go there with you for a minute). Then I think you have to concede this: the constituency of the tent is changing. We can stand for “Baptist Distinctives” till the cows come home, but if this no longer helps us to reach lost people, impact the culture, and further the kingdom of God, then what is the use? If Wade and indeed all other people can be wrong, then at what point is the “Baptist Tradition” wrong? Remember, folks, there were alot more “Baptists” around than just Southern once upon a time, and there were lots of “Baptist Distinctives” that we have discarded in favor of others. The convention is less than 200 years old. In the grand scheme of things, that is a bit early to refuse the notion of change.
I think what is happening here is a natural outgrowth of the conservative resurgence’s emphasis on innerancy. We have become even more diligent students of the scripture than ever before, and not only that, but better students of history to provide us with the most accurate context possible. Wes, you may be right that the tent isn’t narrowing, but if it isn’t, then it is failing to grow with the theology of the people under it as they study God’s word. It may start small, but if the trend continues, eventually some SBCers who stood for “Baptist Distinctives” first and the Word of God second (I am not accusing you personally of this, please don’t be offended) will be left standing alone under a half-empty tent while the movement of God has left them behind. Every entity, if it is to exist long-term, must change and adapt, constantly reinventing itself. We should by no means compromise the scriptures, but if our own interpretations of the scriptures cease to effectively do God’s work, it may be worth looking at them to see if they could possibly be “just simply wrong”.
In Christ,
Tim Cook
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Wes and Allm
Jesus had 12 Apostles and each one was different. Do you all think they would fit in your Tent, if you have one? Wes reminds me of Thomas, and I love him for it, as he doesn’t take sides. My English Father-InLaw had a way of saying; there is no side to Him.
Tim, I shared elsewhere about Dr. Charles Stanley and the Gift of the Spirit Sermons He Preached, It might help you understand the members in Your Church a little better, and where their Hearts are, if that is a problem.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Les,
I still see the same Wade. I only called on him to do something with what I see as wrong. Wade is still my friend, a brother and a Baptist.
Paul,
Those things you pose could happen, but that does not negate the fact that Wes did not say Wade was outside the tent. He simply said Wade was outside on some issues. To say he said more is wrong. To say he intended more is wrong. What he said is what he said.
Wade is outside the “tent” ( whatever the tent is) on some issues. So am I. I think, maybe, so are you and many more.
jasonk,
You may be speaking to me about being mean. OK.
I have been called mean by much meaner guys:-)
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Tim Cook,
Why do we need a tent? We have the Bible. We have the gospel. We have the Great Commission. Why do we need a tent?
The very nature of the Bible and the gospel itself would eliminate some that claim to have fellowship with us.
This is something Wade and I have agreed upon recently.
We really do not need a tent. We need the Bible the gospel and the G.C. and obedience to Jesus and we would begin to see Great Commission Churches springing up everywhere again.
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Let me tell you about the “WADE” I know. Wade is a passionate man who loves God, his family, his church and the SBC. If you haven’t spent time with him then it is your loss. Wade and Marty took time to pray for my family when we were dealing with IMB stuff. If you don’t agree with Wade, that is fine…But you are commanded to love him. Wade is not your enemy – Satan is. Why do these stupid debates always get back to name calling. Shame on all of us!
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Actually CB, I was not referring to you when I said some people were being mean. Who’d have thought? lol
I was referring more to the joy that people seem to take when striking down a brother. Specifically, it struck me as really mean spirited when someone said they were proud of another for finally seeing Wade for who he really is. Proud? Man, that’s just not very loving. Rejoicing in what you perceive to be a fault in a brother.
I have no problem with what Wade said about his history as a Baptist. He was merely making a point, the same point the Apostle Paul made when he said that no one was better at being a Jew than he was. He made the same point Martin Luther made when he said that no one was “monkier” than he had been. Wade was just driving the point home. Later, he said he was sorry that he said it, if it caused some to think him to be arrogant. Rather than saying, “I forgive you for leading me to believe you are arrogant,” his brothers say, “See, I told you he was full of himself. I’m PROUD of you for seeing him for who he really is.” Sounds like Noah’s son, the one who pointed out his father’s nakedness. “Come look at daddy! I told you he was no good.” Love covers. Gossip and meanness uncover and point.
So I wasn’t talking about you CB. I apologize for giving you that impression.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
jasonk
In relation to the statement made to me by the brother that, no doubt, had a lax moment I too was bothered by it. I have in no way just recently seen a Wade that others saw all along or what ever he said. I think I am close anyway.
I simply called Wade on something I thought was wrong. That is all, nothing more nothing less. Wade’s character is, as far as any I have dealt with in Blog Town, above reproach. I do not challenge it and I feel that it is wrong for others to do so unless he proves to have poor character on his own accord.
I do think my brother owes Wade an apology for what he said and if it was my chastisement of Wade that brought it on I am sorry for that.
It seems that to genuinely challenge a brother without pretense is not considered proper in our Baptist society anymore. No wonder people think church didipline is for punishment rather than redemption.
We have certainly fallen from where we once were. I have know criminals with more compassion for each other and I really mean that with all my heart.
Tired, very tired indeed,
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
I know the tiredness, CB. I would come down with Wes about these issues, but all of our debtaing seems to dissipate into something less than Christian. And people who really want to understand the debate begin to lose interest.
I appreciate Wes’s spirit in the original post. It advances the biblical debate about important issues facing our denomination. After awhile, we seem to forget what we were arguing about but just keep talking. Jesus was right. Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’… anything more than this is sin.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Great post Wes. The following concerns the nature of the “tent”.
The Southern Baptist Convention is not the “one true church”. Perhaps those in heaven have access to the Lamb’s Book of Life, but I have not scanned the names written in it. It certainly is not the same as the SBC membership rolls.
The Southern Baptist Convention is an organized movement of like-minded churches that have been (apparently) extraordinarily successful for several generations. While both faith and obedience are by grace, the Bible closely correlates spiritual prosperity with faith AND obedience.
God judges people individually. Yet, a casual survey of the Bible reveals that God also judges organized movements, and blesses or opposes them, based on his conclusions. Some examples are families, kings and their kingdoms, cities, countries and churches.
It would appear that our options, as the SBC, are sink, swim or tread water. One man sees a more detailed description of how we will work together as an improvement in faithfulness and another sees the same action as a narrowing of parameters.
Might I suggest that we figure out what we each believe and work with an organized movement that most closely resembles our preference? If you can nudge the SBC in the direction of your preference; then great. If you cannot do so, then great; find another movement. I would.
For my part, I will thank God for the spiritual prosperity of the past and seek to improve our faithfulness in the future. While treading water is better than sinking, swimming is better than treading water.
What should our first improvement be?
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
cb,
Thank you for your spirit here. I completely agree with your assessment regarding your friend’s comment, and I do not at all think that you brought it on. I must have read a dozen times your affirmation of Wade, that you believe him to be wrong on this particular issue, and that he is indeed a good Southern Baptist. My opinion isn’t worth too much, but I think you handled yourself like a Christian gentleman, and I appreciate it.
That said, I honestly do not see how any of this really matters. What purpose does it serve for Wes to say that Wade is outside the tent on this, or any other matter? Disagree with him, fine, but don’t say he is anything but a loyal brother in Christ, and a fine member of the SBC.
I was raised up in ministry by the same people with whom Wes serves. My first staff position was in Frisco Association. In that group, Southern Baptists were demonized because they were moderate. The first time I met Lavonn Brown I was scared to death, because I thought he must be a terrible person. But I played golf with him. I sat with a group of pastors as he poured out his heart in concern and prayer for his grandson. I grew to respect him deeply for his love for Christ. I guess I don’t agree with him on every issue, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t consider him a brother and fellow member of the denomination. Now it seems people want to do this to people like Wade.
I don’t know Wade all that well. I have met him before, but I doubt he would remember. But calling Wade prideful is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. I have met only a small handful of pastors who did not struggle daily with pride. It seems to go with the territory.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
CB,
So, Wade is Wrong like Peter James Flamming is a Liberal????
Sir, an argument by assertion is NO ARGUMENT AT ALL.
Simply stating OVER AND OVER that something is true does not make it so…
Thanks to Travis Hilton for pointing me (and many others) to this lively exchange.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
It’s really hard to see pastors of churches fuss like this and then go and sit under them.
And I doubt Jesus is very pleased with it either.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Denise,
Thank you.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
jasonk,
Young man, you may address me directly if you wish. Your judgmentalism truly does not become you.
Ah…young and idealistic…I remember the days…
Regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
You are a funny guy Les. Young and idealistic? If only.
Actually I am old and cynical. Ministry will do that to you.
I am only fifteen years younger than you, and by the time you surrendered to the ministry, I was a ten year veteran.
Young and idealistic? Hardly.
You and I have done things opposite. I went into ministry as a young man, then left to enter secular work. You were in secular work, then went into ministry.
I am not judging you. Heck, you’re a tarheel. That gives you at least some creedence in my book. I was almost arrested in Asheville once, so NC will always be a special place to me. I merely reacted to your apparent rejoicing over what you perceive as a brother who is in the wrong. That may be becoming of you, I don’t know. But it certainly does not become a minister of the gospel.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
jasonk,
Wow, dude. You sure are a young looking 40. Glad you appreciate my humor. ;>
To use Wade’s word I “chuckle” when my little comment becomes the flashpoint on a blog where my good friend Wes blasts Wade and Wade answers back by parading his arrogance before the blogosphere and no one but CB says anything about it.
This is really unbelieveable.
Regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Les,
I do wish you would reconsider what you said relating to Wade and me to myhaving a new vision of him. I have no new vision of him. I spoke to one issue and that is all.
If one event, one moment, one mistake in judgement, one lax statement determines who we are then I must say I am already in Hell and this remaining existence on this earth is a terrible joke.
But I know that is not true. We are not defined by one moment or one event. We are defined by our relationship to Christ for that one relationship makes me the righteousness of God. I must say of all men I am thankful, for without that relationship I would in my most nobel moment have no more hope than in my most dispicable moment.
And for that relationship I am most thankful as I am sure you are also and so I am sure is Wade and all that are in a salvic relationship with Christ.
So, Les, please give it some thought.
cb
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
CB,
I respect you as a brother in Christ. If you want to retract your statement about Wade’s arrogance, then that’s between you and Wade.
I have a major problem with his arrogance. You said it well, “Pride goes before a fall.” You may recant your words if you wish, but I see Wade as a shameless self-promoter. I know his groupies will scream bloody murder and decry me as a heretic, but honest and plain dialogue is a high core value for me. I’m sorry it’s not for most of you.
Many regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Les:
Your statement that “honest and plain dialogue” is not a “high core value” for “most of you” is very revealing.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
How does trashing Wade bring any glory to God? I don’t get it. The arrogance is coming from the other way in my opinion. Why don’t those of you who hate Wade so much actually get to know him.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Kevin,
True that.
CB,
Thank you for not being drawn in to someone else’s misery.
Les,
You’ve got your nerve calling Wade arrogant. I spent quite a bit of time on your blog tonight, and brother, you have a corner on that market. You have cleared off a spot and decided that on that spot you will make your stand, and what is worse, you have decided that the Good Lord will stand with you on that spot. Calling any brother a false teacher because he does not agree with you on extremely minor issues is not only arrogant, it is irresponsible, and the opposite of what a witness should be.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Wes,
I am sorry for taking up so much of your blog tonight. I should know better than to hold out any hope for honesty where a discussion of Wade is concerned.
Regards,
Les
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Les,
Honesty? Are you implying that we who actually know Wade are lying about him? I don’t understand why you have so much hate for a fellow believer? I really don’t. I pray you receive as much Grace as Wade has displayed to me.
Reply
on Oct 26th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
OK Les,
I do not need to recant. I spoke to one issue with Wade just as many have done with me. Your statement that I am now seeing Wade as you always have is not a fair assessment of the situation.
Wade is the same to me as he was in…. let’s say… July. The circumstance is that I believed something he said to be incorrect. I called him on it. That is it as far as I am concerned. I am not in any way accountable to how he recieved it be it positive or negitive. I am responsible to be true to my earnest conviction about the one issue before me.
You, on the other hand, made an assumption that is just plain incorrect. I see no new Wade.
It truly bothers me that we have become so anemic that when one brother takes up steel with another brother and proceeds to carry out the concept of iron sharpening iron (Proverbs 27:17) every one around determines one or the other has taken up sides and hates the other. We have so been engulfed with the ways of secular politics that we have forgotten that honest conflict between brothers maks us stronger. I am glad that a few men loved me enough to strike iron with me to make me examine myself before and in the Refiners fire. Had they not I would have been so weak that falling away would have been my end.
The funny thing here is that if Wes had said cb is outside the tent (He did not say Wade was outside the tent) he would have been correct. Wade is not outside the tent, I am outside the tent.
I was put out of the tent and was basically told to stay out and not come back. I have no tent. The reality is that I really do not care. I am the one saying we do not need a tent in the first place. We have the Bible, the gospel and the G.C. If I claim fellowship with other believers and yet do not obey the Bible , the gospel and the G.C. I have eliminated myself and rightfully so.
Les, the best thing that ever happened to me was being kicked out of the tent. Now I know I do not need it. Jesus did not say I was a disciple because I was in a “tent” or The “tent”. Jesus said I am a disciple if I keep His commandments. I have learned tents mean little, keeping the commandments of Jesus means much.
Southern Baptist don’t need a tent. We need the Bible, the gospel and obedience to the Great Commission.
So Les, I recant nothing, but if you want to talk about someone outside the tent I am your boy. You were wrong to gloat about my issues with Wade.
You know, Brad Reynolds and Tim Rogers are not gloating. They know me and they know I will take issue with that which I believe to be wrong no matter who it may be. Just think of the times Brad, Tim and I have struck iron together and battled over issues.
You have never read or heard one of us even hint that one or the other of us is not a brother or a Baptist. We have always loved and respected each other and if I was in trouble I would not hesitate to call on either of them nor they me.
I have the same respect for Wade as the first time I ever talked to him. I just took up an issue with him. Now, Les I have one with you. You owe the man better than to state what you did and I think you know it. Who has the pride problem now, my brother?
cb
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 5:31 am
Brother CB,
I was in bed at a decent hour and wake up this morning to find my name being thrown around. :>)
Brother Les,
When I disagree with Brother CB it is with fear and trembling. I do not know the stream of comment on which you two disagree because I just finished my quiet time and need to get my little girl up to begin her day. ( I am involved in Dr. Robertson McQuilkin’s “Life in the Spirit” study, Shh, don’t tell Brad, you have to be careful with his theology, but he brings out some great insight). I just want to say that if CB calls your hand on something I would encourage you to pray and seek God’s face in what he tells you.
Brother JasonK,
You have some very low standards if being a Tarheel is commendable in your book. We are Demon Deacons over here.
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Tim,
Forgive my low standards, brother. When I say “tarheel,” I mean it in the sense of NC being the Tarheel State. Although I have only visited there a couple of times, it is the state of Andy Griffith, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Asheville, Raleigh, and many others. And it is the state where the fine policemen serve who mistook me and my daugther for the OKC bomber back in 1995. So I can say with all my heart that you Demon Deacons are inside my tarheel tent ;>)
CB,
I got kicked out of the tent too. Much of it was my own fault, I guess, although I always thought that when a man is down, that’s when he needs to be in the tent most of all. I guess I was wrong about that. Anyway, it still hurts to see my brothers act in such a way toward one another, in the tent or out.
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Les-
I’ve seen you write here and at least one other place about “Wade’s groupies.” Who are they? I’d appreciate you naming them if they exist since you are so certain of them.
One by one.
Right here.
Right now.
Wes-
While I understand your assertion that Wade is outside the tent “on these issues,” it is incumbent upon you to explain why your tent historically excludes those with a biblical, but minority, view. Would those holding to a pre-mill position have been out of the tent on that prior to the late 1800’s? Are those who hold a post-mill position now out from under the tent? You tread a thinly iced crevasse if you desire to make baptist history the primary interperative boundary that defines us.
Why do you believe that Wade is outside the “tent” simply because he might be at odds with Southern Baptist history. I might be just under the flap on a very windy day, but I’m still there.
CB-
I agree and disagree with you generally, but want to note that no one speaks for Memphis and we all know that. You speak for you, me for me, Art for Art, Ben for Ben, etc. This is a vast differential from the resurgence and the Convergence. Memphis spoke for itself.
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 9:28 am
A client emailed this joke to me this morning. How timely:
A man was standing off the edge of the Sydney Harbour Bridge –about to jump.
A passer-by tried to talk him down; he asked: “well, are you a Christian?” to which the man answered “yes.”
He exclaimed: “great, me too; what kind of Christian are you? Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant?”
The answer was: “Protestant.”
“Me too; what kind of Protestant? Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal?” Pentecostal.
The man got excited: “me too; are you an initial evidence or a third wave Pentecostal?”
“Initial evidence.” “Me too; what kind of initial evidence? Are you a AOG, CRC, COC, CCC?”
“AOG.” Now, he got really excited:
“Me too; are you Premillenial, Post Millenial or Amillenial?” The guy on the bridge said:
“Amillenial” and with that the passer-by, becoming very angry, screamed: “Die, heretic!” and pushed him off the bridge.
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Marty,
The “tent” in this now very tired analogy is simply the Baptist Faith & Message. It is what we have agreed as a convention represents certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.
My purpose for writing was mainly to point out that a practice Wade had described as being consistent with our statement of faith – open communion – is not, in fact, compatible with the statement. He has now acknowledged as much.
I don’t anywhere suggest that this makes him less a brother or less a Baptist. I readily acknowledge that this is probably the majority practice among our churches, and churches ought to carry out the ordinances in the way they beleive to be biblical. I only suggest that this practice should not be said to be what is described in the BF&M, when it clearly is not.
My larger issue, which I have communicated to Wade, is a concern with those in positions that require them to affirm the BF&M and who do so with caveats. While disagreeing with Wade on several points, I trust his conservative convictions, and have told him so. But if we allow him to determine what parts of the BF&M he will affirm, on what grounds do we eliminate someone who can affirm every word except that part about Jesus being born of a virgin?
Unless we are able to come to a mutually agreed method, doctrinal accountability has gone out the window. I’m able to call on my people to faithfully support the CP and Lottie Moon because I know that those receiving the funds are doctrinally sound. But if we allow any caveats whatever, what assurance can I give my folks?
It would be most helpful if we could focus on these difficult issues, rather than focusing on personalities.
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Thanks, Wes.
You now affirm that all profs, presidents, trustees and employees should readily sign the BFM and, if applicable, the Abstract of Principles without caveats or personal defining of terms. Is that correct?
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Marty,
Far from affirming anything, I’m trying to ask the question about how we can have doctrinal accountability in an environment where each signer defines his own terms.
I know you’re pointing out the perceived inconsistencies in those two documents, but I know that others have said that there aren’t any. This further illustrates the problem.
I don’t know what the answer is. Someone on Wade’s blog has suggested writing an altogether new “Statement of Cooperation,” and having people sign that. Maybe that’s what we need. If I’ve learned anything from studying these issues, maybe it is that the BF&M is just too inflexible to function effectively as an “instrument of doctrinal accountability.”
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 10:20 am
All Brothers and Sisters,
Trust
These are the qualities of a True Brother of Sister in Christ. This is the reason I count CB Scott as a True Blue Brother in Christ.
If I step over the line or under the line CB will correct me. That is what we should all do if we Truly Love Someone.
That is what the Holy Spirit does, if we Truly Love God.
We need more Brothers and Sister like CB Scott.
I have never met CB, but I know I have a Big Hug for Him when I get that Privilege.
1. reliance: confidence in and reliance on good qualities, especially fairness, truth, honor, or ability
2. care: responsibility for taking good care of somebody or something. We put our children in the trust of a good daycare center.
3. position of obligation: the position of somebody who is expected by others to behave responsibly or honorably breached the public trust
4. something in which confidence is placed: somebody who or something that people place confidence or faith in (archaic or literary)
5. hope for the future: hopeful reliance on what will happen in the future
6. responsibility that somebody has: something entrusted to somebody to be responsible for accepted his responsibilities as a sacred trust
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Wes,
I appreciate your desire for theological accountability among the people you employ. It should be so. But the BFM is not the Bible, and it should not be required that every person working for the denomination agree with every jot and tittle of a document that is not scripture.
You pose the problem, what if someone agrees with everything in the BFM except for the virgin birth? Then don’t employ them. The virgin birth, as so many have pointed out, is a first tier issue. But whether they have ever spoken in tongues in their personal devotions is not. Method of celebrating communion is not. Who baptized them is not.
So by saying what you said, you have spoken truth. Let people establish their personal beliefs outside of the BFM. Look at those beliefs that are outside that realm, and determine if those people can serve the SBC under those circumstances. If they can, hire them. If they cannot, don’t. But don’t exclude people just because they do not agree with everything as you see it. That is simply not reasonable.
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 10:39 am
The messengers of the churches are the “instrument of accountability”. They have authority only as long as they are in session. Since the messengers cannot be in session more than a few days a year, they delegate authority to trustees and/or executive committee members. Between the sessions where the messengers have authority, the trustees and/or executive committee members are the “instrument of accountability”. If the messengers from the churches do not affirm the actions of the trustees or executive committee members, then they can issue a rebuke or correction at the next meeting where they have authority.
I would like to see this comment string get back to issues instead of personalities also.
Regarding my previous comment (above), I think we all agree that we don’t want the SBC to “sink”. I think good stewardship should prevent shepherds from choosing “tread water”. I think it is possible to improve our faithfulness in the future (“swim”).
Are we so cynical that we don’t think it is possible to do any better than we have done in the past?
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Wes and all,
One more comment for me and I’m done. You have all done me a great service. I invite you to read today’s post on my blog.
Thank you and may God bless you.
Les
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Wes,
I’ve waited to respond until I saw your comments to Marty because I couldn’t quite make other things I’ve seen you write jive with this post at all. Your comments in response to Marty are the basis of what I’m now saying.
If the “tent” you refered to is now defined as, [or even originally intended this way and I missed it] a simple effort to point out to Wade that the BF@M assumed a closed as opposed to open, communion position, which, you say, he now acknowledges, I don’t understand your statement, “Frankly, I believe that the problem is not that the tent [BF@m] is not big enough, but that Wade has discovered that on these contoversial issues, he is not under the tent at all, AND HE WISHES TO BE.” What does that mean? Wade wishes to be for closed communion but somehow can’t quite be? I understand if your “tent” refers to the convention, but it doesn’t make sense to my mind otherwise. I’m sure it’s my faulty thinking and I will certainly defer to your statement of intention, but it is a stretch for me. With regards…
Paul B.
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I was going to pretty much say what jasonok said in his last comment, so I’ll just say “yeah, what he said.”
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Am I late to the party? Ah, the blessings of seminary…
LEt me just throw this out there:
We needn’t toss aside the space that exists between the essentials and the unimportant, as Dr. Dever would say. Let us not cast off that which lies between, because without it, meaningful fellowship, and the act of DOINGthe work of the church would not be possible, or if so, fruitful. FAithfulness and Scripture cannot survive if all below essential is tossed aside for meaning well.
Another helpful analogy Dr. Dever used was this, especially in regards to open communion: does Scripture implore us to mean well, or act well? For in meaning well, many can and do ignore the imperatives of Scripture. We can mean well by letting our paedobaptist brethren participate in communion with us, but does that constitute acting well?
For me, it comes to this regarding open communion and openness to all doctrines less than essential (first tier)- do we believe the flipside is sin? That is, you believe in believer’s baptism, and consequently that infant baptism is sin BECAUSE Scripture teaches believer’s baptism. If your friend, being baptized as an infant, believeing in that baptism, wants to take communion, and you believe him to be in sin, is it not imperative that you refuse him communion on the basis of discipline? Though he be in clear conscience, a dead man without Christ surely can be in clear conscience before entering hell. The Lord’s Supper cannot be divorced from neither accountability nor discipline. As a matter of prudence as well, what does it say to those watching about sin when you are Baptist by conviction (of the Scriptures, no less!) yet hold believer’s baptism in such low esteem as to FORGET this Scriptural teaching when partaking of the Lord’s Supper?
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Jason (& Paul),
If I’m given the responsibility for an employment decision, that’s precisely how I would handle it. But how does that work when were talking about thousands of people? Someone has to decide which of those issues are on which tier, and there has to be some kind of agreement. If the BF&M is so large that caveats are required, who gets to decide which caveats are acceptable?
Individually, accountability can still work the way you’ve described. I just don’t think it can on so large a scale as our convention.
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Paul B.,
I’m confident that your brain is working at least as well as mine, and probably better. “AND HE WISHES TO BE” was a step too far.
[shameless excuse making] I started out intending to write a paragraph or two, and did way more typing and emailing the day I wrote this than I ever intended. I simply got carried away there. [/shameless excuse making]
Perhaps this has developed with the ongoing conversation, but I really am concerned about how doctrinal accountability can be done with integrity in an environment that allows each person who is to be accountable to write their own caveats. As I’ve communicated to Wade, I trust that his conservative convictions, while they might not line up on every point, are generally in line with the BF&M. But if we allow his caveats, what caveats will we not allow, and who determines that.
Forgive my lapses in communication, which no doubt continue into this very comment. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Colin said: For me, it comes to this regarding open communion and openness to all doctrines less than essential (first tier)- do we believe the flipside is sin? That is, you believe in believer’s baptism, and consequently that infant baptism is sin BECAUSE Scripture teaches believer’s baptism.
I ask sincerely: I too believe the Bible teaches immersion. Is there a passage in scripture or passages that would indicate that the different interpretation of infant baptism is a sin?
Reply
on Oct 27th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Wes,
Thanks for your response. “A step too far” is quite ordinary for me so perfectly understood by me. As regards your concern over caveats and accountability, I concur that debate and conclusions must be faced and I would ask you to graciously remember my post was written before these comments, and I shall give an update about our conversation. Again, thanks.
Reply
on Oct 28th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Wes,
The nature of our system of governance vests a lot of responsibility in the office of president. Just ask those who led in the resurgence. If the convention messengers are gullible/naive/uninformed enough to elect a president who would appoint people who would allow someone to serve who denies the virgin birth then the convention will pay for its gullibility/naivety/failure to inform itself. I think the possibility of that happening are as great as my becoming the dictator of Elbonia, by the way. It seems to me that, at least for some, Frank Page was elected based upon his stance on what is essential and what is not as reflected in his “I’m conservative, I’m just not mad about it” comment.
From there it really trickles down to the state nominators. If they approach their duty responsibly they, too, should be able to tell the difference between, for example, someone who disagrees with the BFM statement on the church because they believe in multiple elders rather than only “pastors and deacons,” and someone who objects because they deny the trinity; or someone who is in conflict with the BFM because they believe in a just war theory despite the BFM statement that they “should do all in their power to put an end to war.”
Reply
on Oct 28th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Debbie, you know well thee Bible teaches intentional as well as unintentional sins. If I understand your question correctly, given that dissenters and separatists spawned from the reformation, and their anabaptist children, derived from the Scriptures that baptism is for believers only, and this from where we as American Southern Baptists derive our heritage, it would be fitting for you to trace through the confessions the scriptural support for believer’s baptism. I recommend Lumpkin’s “Baptist Confessions of Faith.
Remember a few things, that the Lord Himself commanded bby imperative to baptize believers in His Great Commission, and that our forefathers died for their renunciation of infant baptism. In our subjective culture, it is popular to state one’s belief is good for them- i.e. and equally valid interpretation. However, if you hold believer’s baptism to be the clear NT pattern and imperative, and you view the proper administration of the sacraments as required to be a true NT church, then not only do you have to admit your well-meaning presbyterian brother is in sin, but that he does not belong to a true NT church either.
Is this hard to swallow? It certainly wasn’t before this post-modern subjective generation.
Reply
on Oct 28th, 2006 at 6:49 am
Colin: Yes I do know that intentional and unintentional sin is spoken of in scripture. The Bible also tells us plainly what those sins are. This is what I am looking for as the Bible is the final authority. Does the Bible plainly tell us that believing in infant baptism is a sin?
Reply
on Oct 29th, 2006 at 1:37 am
Colin,
You wrote: “and you view the proper administration of the sacraments as required to be a true NT church.” I believe the proper administration of the sacraments is important, but I wonder on what basis we say it is required in order to be a “true NT church?” Corinth was obviously improperly administering the Lord’s Supper, but the apostle Paul did not consider them anything less than a true church as is evidenced in his salutation to them in 1 Cor. 1:2. And what would make the administration of the sacraments more important than holy living, for instance? Paul seldom mentioned baptism or the Lord’s Supper but rather extensively dealt with issues of holiness in every letter he wrote, as did John, Peter and James.
Reply
on Oct 29th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
I got here REALLY late to this party. They may have even already turned out the lights, as far as I know. For some reason, I can’t get Wes’s posts to show up on my Bloglines updater.
In any case, I readily admit that if “the tent” is the BFM, then I am just outside it regarding “closed communion.” However, I prefer to be directly underneath “the tent” of what I understand Scripture to teach than any other “tent” out there. I am happy that, up till now, “the tent” of IMB employment and CP funding has continued to extend out to where I am. Although, I admit there are some apparent inconsistencies with the current situation, I think we would be in whole lot bigger of a quandary if we were to demand that “the tent” of SBC employment and CP funding were of exactly the same breadth as that of “the tent” of the BFM. Would we lose a majority of our churches over the closed communion issue? Perhaps a majority of our missionaries? Who else out there, whose job is dependent upon it, is even honest and courageous enough to say what they really believe? How many others base their beliefs on what the BFM says rather than an honest, open-minded study of Scripture? Is that healthy?
If the day comes when the SBC employment/ CP funding “tent” is drawn in to conform exactly to the BFM “tent,” I, and I imagine, many others, will be left “out in the rain.” I am ready to deal with that, and even look for another tent, if necessary. But, in the meantime, I think it would be a major loss (not because of me, but because of everyone else, and because of principle) for the advance of the Kingdom. In my opinion, the advance of the Kingdom (which is what should concern us most of all) is benefitted by an SBC tent big enough to accomodate differences on 3rd tier issues (even though they may be included in the BFM). It is not benefitted by including true liberalism, or those who are heretical on 1st tier issues, or even deviant on truly 2nd tier issues.
Reply
on Oct 29th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I too came late to this party.
Wes, your post is well written and well done. I don’t agree and have a different interpretation of scripture. Does that make me less a Christian? Less filled with the Spirit? Less what?
You wrote to Kevin, who didn’t understand how you were coming to your interpretation of baptism as a church ordinance:
Kevin,
I appreciate that we are not likely to agree here. I don’t believe it is stretching, but valid interpretation. Thus, I don’t agree that I am adding to what the Bible says, but rather I am being faithful to what I believe it teaches.
Notice how many I’s you have in your answer. Now, what this means is that we, as humans, all have a view of God and His scripture. The only way we can truly understand Him is through His Spirit working in and through us. Isn’t your argument, in and of itself, a basis for discussing the priesthood of the believer and not of the church or the believers?
Aren’t those who agree with Wade simply advocating a unity around the gospel of Christ and a laying down of things that we (those who have been saved by the glorious grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ) can all reasonably come to different interpretations about and, in fact, we could all be off base?
What is it you are trying to do with this post? What is your goal?
Reply
on Oct 29th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
David & Bryan,
Thanks for stopping by – better late than never.
Bryan,
I suppose I would address the issue you raise by simply saying that I haven’t come to these convictions in a vacuum, but rather in a community (many, actually) of faith, where God’s people gathered in a local church come to a common understanding, under the Spirit’s leadership, of what God’s Word teaches regarding faith and practice. When I say “I,” I’m talking about what I have come to believe to be correct interpretation regarding, in this instance, the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. It happens that I agree with the Baptist Faith & Message on this point.
Your disagreement doesn’t make you less anything in my book, except perhaps less in alignment with the SBC’s statement of faith. But the problem I hope to address is that it is impossible to have true “doctrinal accountability” when those who are to be held accountable (trustees, denominational employees) can write their own caveats stating their disagreements with what we as a convention have decided will be our “instrument of doctrinal accountability.”
Unless we can agree on acceptable “caveats,” there will never be true doctrinal accountability.
I believe Wade has made a good start with his proposal for something like a “statement of cooperation.” I’m not comfortable with all of his five points (it would be five, wouldn’t it?
), but perhaps we need something less detailed about which we can all agree should be affirmed unequivocally by those who hold positions of trust in our convention.
As this conversation has evolved, I would say that this would be a worthy goal for this post and the other conversations taking place along these lines.
If I’ve left a concern of yours (Bryan or David) unaddressed, please let me know. As you both said, it’s kind of late for this party. CB has broken all the dishes, and I was just sweeping up when I noticed you.
Thanks for contributing.
Reply
on Oct 29th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Lost my comment, so this is a brief. I hate the security code!
Debbie: if you believe Scriputre teaches believer’s baptism, then what is infant baptism? What is lack of believer’s baptism? And is you are NOT a covenant theologian, how would you define infant baptism?
Paul: Remember my, “if you believe.” Jesus and Paul give didactic material on the Lord’s Supper. This is much better than following inferential arguments that Paul “did not” do something, like call the Corinthians a false church. It is significant, however, that Paul strongly corrected the wrong administration of the sacrament. What do you think he would say if, upon his next visit, they said, “No thanks, we will conduct it how we like. Thanks!”
I threw my comments out there to get people to think about theological implications of certain views, so that we are readily prepared to understand the logical conclusions of laying aside certain doctrinal distinctives in honor of the tent’s spaciousness.
Reply
on Oct 30th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Colin,
Thanks for the reply. Let me use your own argument, then. Where in scripture do we even find the implication that the proper administration of the sacraments is a sign of a “true” church? I know you wrote, “if you believe,” but you obviously believe. That’s why I asked.
By the way, my argument was anything but inferential. Paul positively calls the Corinthians “the church of God that is in Corinth.” He does so in the context of their not properly administering the sacraments.
Now to your own inference – what would Paul say if they simply chose to go their own way? We don’t know because that didn’t happen and Paul didn’t say.
Reply
on Oct 31st, 2006 at 1:04 am
Paul, you would have to make an inferential argument, for Paul was not writing to a church who practiced wrongly, but ignorantly. In other words, he wrote in part to correct them in this matter. Now following the theme of the 2 Corinthian letters plus those that are spoken about, consequences would have ensued if they would not have repented and changed in certain matters. The inference, if any, should be that they were expected to change their ways in regard to administering the ordinance. Further, I don’t believe I have tipped my hand at all as to my belief in what constitutes a true church. BUT, I am certain you would be surprised as to what Southern Baptists, and Baptists throughout history, have regarded as essential to be a NT church. Thanks.
Reply
on Oct 31st, 2006 at 10:51 am
Colin,
I’m sorry to have to disagree again, but I simply can’t read 1 Cor. 11 and conclude that the problem was that they simply didn’t know what they were doing. I think that’s the reason that Paul used such stern warnings about examining/judging themselves in this matter. He didn’t simply tell them that they didn’t know any better and then inform them. He scolded them for doing what was shameful. Paul helped found the church in Corinth. Surely he didn’t leave them without giving them instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper. Dr. J.W. MacGorman writes in the Laymen’s Commentary series that his instructions in 1 Cor. 11 did not constitute new teaching, but a reminder of what they already knew. MacGorman describes it as “shameful,” and “deplorable circumstances.” Paul charged the Corinthians with “profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” If that isn’t practicing wrongly then I’m at a loss as to what Paul is describing.
I don’t deny that there would have been consequences had they not changed their practice, but nowhere do I see Paul leaning toward declaring them something other than a true church. The burden of proof is on those who would claim that the improper administration of the ordinances is the sign that a church is not a “true” church. If that is not what you are saying you believe then your original statement is confusing. You apparently believe that there are some who do believe that and you appeal to that belief in a positive light – or so it appears to me. If that is not what you believe you could clear all of this up and say so. There’s no need for us to spend a lot of time discussing a position on which we may be in agreement.
As far as Southern Baptist and Baptist history goes, I’m a big fan of history. I enjoy reading some of the old guys like Dagg. On some things Baptists have been absolutely right. On others (civil rights, for instance) we have spent the vast majority of our history being absolutely wrong. In the end I’m much more interested in what the Bible says is essential to be a NT church.
Reply
on Oct 31st, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Paul,
There is obviously a gap in communication, and it must be generational. By “ignorant” I do not mean without knowledge. I mean stupidly, casually, without seriousness, etc. When someone is being ignorant, I take that to mean (in today’s american vernacular) they are simply not thinking about what they are doing. As I said, Paul wrote to correct, not instruct which would have been the case if they knew not. If they had, they would have known they were guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ. Further, if they would have continued to profane Christ in this manner, do you think Paul would have continued to affirm their nature as a true church?
I have been posting these only to respond to you, which I am doing half out of courtesy half out of pride, and in reviewing, I have been less than clear. I believe the Corinthian church was right in their partaking of the ordinance, but wrong in their handling of it.
I see my role in comments as more of a questioner than declarer. I do not wish to invite judgment on myself by letting known my opinion as fact and sway anyone the wrong direction on this issue. With that said, we must be careful of giving definition to the church absent of Christ’s commands for His own body. A government that does not administer justice is not a true government. And, either the command is to baptize as believers, or it is not. That was my point, and you must call one or the other sin. Thanks, I am out.
Reply
on Oct 31st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
NAMB resource on true baptist church
Reply
on Oct 31st, 2006 at 3:01 pm
NAMB resource on true baptist church, this time
Reply
on Oct 31st, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Colin,
Wow. Are you calling me old?
I’m only 41, but if there is a generational gap can I call you the snot-nosed kid in the conversation? [that's a joke...only a joke].
My confusion comes from these statements of yours: “Paul was not writing to a church who practiced wrongly, but ignorantly,” and “By “ignorant” I do not mean without knowledge. I mean stupidly, casually, without seriousness, etc.” Maybe it is a generational thing, but to me, stupidly, casually and without seriousness – when we’re talking about the Lord’s Supper – is also practicing it “wrongly.” Call that ignorant or make up a new word for it. In the end it is the improper administration of the ordinance. Certainly I am not contending that anyone or any church should allow that sort of thing to continue. Paul wouldn’t have stood for that. Nevertheless, he began his letter to one of the most dysfunctional churches recorded in all of Scripture by calling them the church of God.
I’m not convinced crackers and grape juice being distributed in silver trays to the seated masses while the organ plays in the background is exactly what took place in the NT church which would beg the question as to how many Southern Baptist churches are “true” churches if being a true church requires the proper administration of the Lord’s Supper.
If I understand your final paragraph then I think we have found agreement.
Reply
on Oct 31st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
BTW, thanks for the link to the NAMB article. I went to seminary with that other old fellow Stan Norman who wrote that paper, so I’m looking forward to reading it.
Reply
on Oct 31st, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I agreed my statements were not clear. That is what happens when I post on the fly and do not carefully measure my words. I don’t think we can call a church not a church if they have the right meaning for the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and actually practice it without profaning Jesus.
But, as far as baptism is concerned, if you believe Scripture teaches believer’s baptism, then infant baptism cannot be called baptism, and thus the church is ignoring Christ’s ordinance of baptism.
Reply