Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Buy Norvasc Over The Counter, You have probably seen Ron P.'s comments on various blogs. Ron P. attended Criswell College from 1986-1988. He currently works in the IT industry, but has served as an interim pastor, two youth pastorates, and other ministry positions. He is a homeschool father of three sons (of which the second is starting college) and has been married to his wife for over 21 years. Today, he offers the following as a guest author here at Reason for the Hope:
For the past several months, I have been trying to understand the current reform movement by some SBC bloggers, buy Norvasc Over The Counter. In jest, I have come to call this movement The Irenic Reformation, 150mg Norvasc. I became aware of the Baptist blogs with repeated references to bloggers as source material in the religion section of one of our local newspapers. I just assumed it was the online chatter that traditionally was done in person at associational meetings and state and national conventions (not that gossip in person is any better than gossip by blog). I should have been aware of the movement, but I confess, like many, I was inattentive. Buy Norvasc Over The Counter, I realize not all those within this crusade hold to all of the beliefs and practices that are prevalent in this movement. I do not wish to paint all with a broad brush, but it is not easy to ignore what has taken place in the "Baptist blogs", 50mg Norvasc, unless, like me, you have not read them.
Part of the problem I have encountered in this endeavor, is the apparent change in the definition of words. In the computer software industry, this same practice with software standards is called "embrace and extend", which one particular software monopoly is infamous for. An existing universal standard is taken (embraced) and then subtle undocumented changes to the standard are made (extended). The changes are pushed out, and by default, the change is now the standard, which is now owned by the one making the change, buy Norvasc Over The Counter. This very same thing is being done with the definitions of words by these so called reformers, Norvasc ebay. History is replete with examples of words that once meant something to only be morphed into something analogous and sometimes disparate. A recent example is the word evangelical. It no longer carries the purpose and intent that it once did, as evidenced by the belief that one in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church can still serve as President of the Evangelical Theological Society. Buy Norvasc Over The Counter, Another example is the word gay no longer really means merry, but something quite different in our culture. I believe that several words are being co-opted in this movement, such as conservative and inerrant. I find it ironic that some of the reformers have to endlessly remind us that they are conservative, just like moderates kept reminding us that they were conservative and inerrantists during the Conservative Resurgence (CR). 10mg Norvasc, However, just as it was during the CR, their words and actions betray them. The use of the word irenic has especially been "embraced and extended" in this movement. In essence, Post Modernism is thoroughly embraced, buy Norvasc Over The Counter. Definitions of words are changed, so that they can "embrace and extend" their version of the truth. You can even call yourself conservative and inerrantist if you want to. For the purpose of this analysis, I am not referring to the definition in the dictionary, as someone wanting to promote peace or reconciliation, 750mg Norvasc, but to those within this movement, that quite frankly, are promoting neither.
Being irenic apparently necessitates the acceptance of those that do believe and practice what is being published (and commented by those that are a part of the irenic) on the blogs. Buy Norvasc Over The Counter, These bloggers have chosen, again I state emphatically, CHOSEN, to make their blogs and comments the public persona of this Irenic Reformation. I amassed this incomplete list of beliefs and practices, with website links for you, the reader, to reference. Norvasc overseas, I apologize for the length, as what originally was only 894 words proliferated to this current document. Yet there is so much more out there. The more I researched and read, the more appalled I became. When reading the linked sites, please also read the comments posted by the irenic ones addressed to those that dare disagree or question them, buy Norvasc Over The Counter. Many times the comments by the irenic ones are much more atrocious than the blog entry itself. Some of the links below are from conservative bloggers that point out the fallacies of their logic (and theology). The number of links that could have been posted is too exhaustive for this work. Since I am relatively new to these blogs, I freely admit that there are probably better links available than what I have provided, 1000mg Norvasc. Buy Norvasc Over The Counter, Without further adieu, here are some of the beliefs and actions of the Irenic Reformers on full public display:
The Irenic Reformation appears to be nothing other than an attempt to undo the CR using technology (blogs and blackberry's) as a tool, but employing an age old tactic: the politics of personal destruction. If you can not win on the issues, attack any and all who stand in the way. Again, I do not want to paint all with a broad brush, as some who agree with the irenic have been most kind and Christ like in their comments and actions. Buy Norvasc Over The Counter, But some of those same sweet brothers and sisters stand by silently while repeated caustic attacks are made. Those that have been the most vociferous mistakenly believe that if they take down the leader of the CR, the whole resurgence will fall. How naïve of them. Despite their prating, the CR is not tied to any person, though we are most grateful to all who led the battle for the Bible. The CR is the belief in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Holy Scripture to guide us in all matters, not the one who led it. I must humbly stand in opposition to a movement that would seek to strip Southern Baptists of their historic identity and do it in a manner that is more reminiscent of Absalom and Diotrephes than of Christ, the Apostles, and our Baptist forefathers. Those that have bled and burned for that heritage deserve so much more from us.
Wake up, Stand Firm, and be Vigilant.
Similar posts: Where Can I Buy Hgh. Discount Toprol. Hydrochlorothiazide For Sale. Buy Toradol Over The Counter. 40mg Petcam. 200mg Stromectol. Antabuse uk. Ampicillin uk.
Trackbacks from: Buy Norvasc Over The Counter. Buy Norvasc Over The Counter. Buy Norvasc Over The Counter. Buy Norvasc Over The Counter. 10mg Norvasc. Norvasc mexico. Norvasc overseas. 200mg Norvasc.
Wes Kenney
Geoff Baggett Aug 20 2007 - 7:42 am
Ron (& Wes),
You have spoken what so many of us have felt over the past several months. I, too, think there are many things in the SBC that need to change. But I also know there is an honorable way to bring about change. Much of what I have read is anything but honorable.
I have been almost entertained by the repeated use of this term, “irenic.” But, far from being irenic, I think that the movement is a bit more “sirenic.”
There are many of us out here who want to talk about the difficult issues, but not act belittling and mean to one another.
Geoff
http://geoffbaggett.com
Scott Gordon Aug 20 2007 - 9:42 am
Ron & Wes,
Thank you for this THOROUGH distillation of information. The aspect of the “irenic” label has been most troublesome to me. Beyond the issues being discussed, the acerbic, vitriolic posts and comments have nearly been enough to turn me off to this debate. If I were not so stubbornly convicted about my theology and ministry as a Southern Baptist, I would leave well enough alone. BUT, we must be ready (vigilant) to post warning signs warning of the dangers which lie ahead.
SOLA GRATIA!
Nice piece of quote mining.
Wes,
I believe the “sides” that have formed have become so polarized that we are no longer able to give the other the benefit of the doubt. I see this occasionally on the Outpost and I see it often in the status quo blogs (here, Robin Foster, Tim Rogers, Joe Stewart, etc.).
Unless we can find a way to come to some sort of mutual agreements about our cooperative efforts I don’t see how the SBC can not further fracture. If we all keep posting this sort of stuff we’ll simply see further fracturing.
Debbie Kaufman Aug 20 2007 - 12:29 pm
I strongly agree with what Paul has written.
Jeff Richard Young Aug 20 2007 - 2:33 pm
Dear Brothers Wes and Ron,
Thank you for this good post. You’ve really done your homework. Please allow me to add my perspective.
Early in this process, about 20 months ago, I had great admiration for Brothers Wade and Ben, for bringing perceived (and in some cases actual) abuses of power to light. To the extent that they continue to do that, I continue to admire their work.
Each of these men has also been very polite and brotherly to me personally, and has actually helped me in tangible ways when I was on my recent sojourn between pastorates. Ben invited me to preach at his church in his absence, and led the church to welcome me warmly and compensate me generously. Wade made a well-placed phone call to a search committee, and that search committee eventually did invite me to come to their church “in view of a call.”
But, in the case of Brother Wade, his stances on such things as inviting “moderate” SBC-ers back into leadership, joining in President Carter’s new NBC, and dismissing Dr. P’s position on women out of hand have forced me to distance myself from him, and withdraw from his chorus of supporters.
In the case of Brother Ben, his tactics and rhetoric in criticizing Dr. and Dr. Mrs. P have been out of line with Christian principles. He has shot himself in the foot with these methods, in that some of the very people most ready to believe him (me included) are being driven away by his behavior. His method has made his message non-credible. To his credit, his recent reports on financial dealings of agency heads, although transparently anti-Patterson, have been heavy on facts and light on spite. (Hey, that rhymes!)
As for the leading persons of the CR, I have developed a strange sense of admiration mixed with distrust. It seems obvious to me that zeal for the SBC has confused their minds on certain points of doctrine. The IMB trustees, for example, are undoubtedly fine Christians. But their ridiculous November 2006 baptism policy, especially the ludicrous white paper belatedly issued in its defense, left me baffled as to their interpretation of both the Bible and historic Baptist distinctives. Likewise, the CR’s strong emphasis on total abstinence from alcohol led them to do some hermeneutical gymnastics that revealed their lack of commitment to the text of the very Bible they so strongly contend to be inerrant. I say this in love of men such as Dr. Jim Richards, who has been very brotherly to me (a very small fish in his SBTC pond) on two different occasions, and Dr. Al Mohler, whom I view as a heroic spokesman for Baptist Calvinists.
That’s why I stand here looking at the “Irenic” Burleson-Cole-Duren-Cross camp and the “CR” Patterson-Corbaley-Mohler-Richards camp, not wanting to enter the tents of either. Neither group’s positions and persons seem worthy of full allegiance, so until a better camp is formed, I will just try to operate effectively and contribute meaningfully from out here in the wilderness.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Ron P. Aug 20 2007 - 5:33 pm
Ron P. Aug 20 2007 - 6:06 pm
Geoff,
Thank you for your comments. I wish I had thought to use the term “sirenic”. Also, I read with great interest your post “My Last Visit to SBC Outpost”.
Scott and Geoff,
Thank you for reading. All of us on both sides should sincerely be ready and willing to debate, but as gracious servants of the Lord who regard each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. It really may come down to agreeing to disagree. Our historic confessions, I believe, are biblical and I am not prepared to abandon those convictions. I will try to graciously stand my ground, while respecting those that disagree.
Paul,
I was not mining for quotes. I truly was trying to come to an understanding of what they believe by researching their writings of these reformers.
Regarding your statement about the polarization, you state in part: “I see this occasionally on the Outpost and I see it often in the status quo blogs (here, Robin Foster, Tim Rogers, Joe Stewart, etc.).” is quite a statement. Only occasionally at SBC Outpost? Even the former editor and several contributors would not claim that. I tried to find, but don’t have the time to search for it, the post that someone made that had a graph of the stories of SBC Outpost since it was launched. The great majority of it was dedicated to attack articles. It looks like many of those articles and comments are not going to be posted on the New,New SBC Outpost. With the utmost respect Paul, I hope you do not seriously believe that SBC Outpost only occasionally was polarizing.
Ron P.
An excellent pice of work reminiscient of “The Truth in Crisis”.
Well done!
Steve
Ron P. Aug 20 2007 - 6:14 pm
I found the article to which I was referring in the above comment. An excellent analysis by Colin McGahey regarding the content of SBC Outpost articles at: http://seminaryblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/sbc-outpost.html
Ron P.
Alan Cross Aug 20 2007 - 6:22 pm
Jeff,
I am in no one’s camp. I tend to agree with some on certain positions, but I am my own person and desire to walk in truth. I certainly have no one following me and I am not making any decisions. I was asked to contribute and I have tried to do so in a respectful way.
Ron P. Aug 20 2007 - 6:42 pm
Jeff,
Forgive me for misspelling your name in my comment to Geoff, Scott and you.
Steve,
I am not even in the same hemisphere with regards to that great work. But I thank you for the kind words.
Ron P.
Tim Sweatman Aug 20 2007 - 8:21 pm
“I must humbly stand in opposition to a movement that would seek to strip Southern Baptists of their historic identity and do it in a manner that is more reminiscent of Absalom and Diotrephes than of Christ, the Apostles, and our Baptist forefathers.”
Uh, isn’t this statement an example of some of the things you criticize the “irenic reformers” for?
Anyway, I agree with your statement that “some who agree with the irenic have been most kind and Christ like in their comments and actions. But some of those same sweet brothers and sisters stand by silently while repeated caustic attacks are made.” I don’t know that I could be called “sweet,” but I know that there have been quite a few instances where I thought some people with whom I agreed went too far in their rhetoric, but I didn’t point it out because I didn’t want to give the impression that I disagreed with the point of their statements. I freely admit that it was wrong for me to do so. That being said, I’m sure that many of the readers and I would have differing views on whether someone has gone too far, but that’s another matter.
While your post was not meant to be humorous, I almost laughed when I read the following statement: “This time it is not just the inerrancy of the Word of God that we must defend, but the sufficiency of it as well.” I have no doubt that the status quo group is committed to inerrancy, but to me they seem to be a bit soft on sufficiency. I have yet to find anyone who can explain how the IMB guidelines, the insistence that abstinence from alcohol is the only acceptable choice for a Christian, or a crusade against Calvinism demonstrate a commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture. While I’d guess you probably don’t agree, to me it is clear that the reformers are the ones who are committed to defending the sufficiency of Scripture.
Ron,
Since we have heard so many voices quite recently vociferously challenging the research of LifeWay regarding charismatic practices let me challenge our brother Colin’s “research” as well. First of all you state that all of those written about Patterson/SWBTS are attacks and they simply are not.
I would also disagree with his method of categorization. As we heard so many say just a couple of months ago, it’s all in how you ask the question, and Colin has given some fatally flawed answers. For instance, I would imagine that he included my post regarding the SWBTS minutes. While SWBTS is mentioned in that post, it is only illustrative of the problem I was addressing: an entity refusing to send public minutes to the local church. That is, at it’s heart, an accountability issue, not a SWBTS issue. Had it been NAMB or Southern that refused to send the minutes the issue would be the same, only the particulars of the illustration would have changed.
In addition, Todd wrote three pieces focused on the dangers of sectarianism, yet Dr. Patterson’s address to the convention served as the illustration. The post, at heart, was not about Dr. Patterson but was based on Dr. Patterson’s illustration in his SWBTS report to the convention. Had Morris Chapman given that same address Colin would have categorized the post differently, yet the issue would not have changed one bit.
I’m guessing Colin has not had a course in statistics and research. This has led to a fatal analysis. It may be good fodder for these blogs, but it is not scientific, it is not scholarly, it is a perspective given by a blogging SWBTS student. I guess I could point out the obvious – that being that he has an obvious bias in favor of his school. If you guys want to continue to hold that up as the standard by which to judge the Outpost that is your prerogative, but let us not assume it is some kind of unbiased research from a disinterested blogger. It clearly is not.
Tim Rogers Aug 20 2007 - 9:20 pm
Brother Tim,
You said; “to me it is clear that the reformers are the ones who are committed to defending the sufficiency of Scripture.” I believe you have just presented something that clearly defines the differences that are between many. We all would affirm the sufficiency of Scripture. I believe my question would be; what are the reformers desiring to reform? Once the reform is in place how far does one desire that we reform? You have seen where Brother Jeff Richard Young was concerned with the alliances being formed and the presentation of moderate-SBC’ers as something good to place back in leadership.
I believe our separation is that we all understand we cannot be what we were in 1960 and move into 2020, but it appears there is no line of demarcation out there that even remotely resembles Baptist as to where the reformers are going to stop reforming.
I do not say this in any derogatory way as I have been accused of being divisive in this comment stream. However, this is where I see the division. There is no limit to where we will stop the reforming. We throw theology and Baptist distinctives out of the window in the name of relativism.
Blessings,
Tim
Wayne Smith Aug 20 2007 - 9:28 pm
Wes and Ron P,
I agree with Brother Jeff Young and Brother Tim Sweatman. I also agree with Paul because in the beginning I saw peaceful dialog and sharing of information on the Blogs. Then came the attacks from some in this group and I told them I could not see Their Hearts. Les Puryear was one of those in that group. Brother Les Puryear did a complete turn around and God Has been Blessing His Ministry ever since. So I ask what has God Been Doing in your Ministries???
For REFORM by Being in GOD’s HOLY WORD to be INFORMED!!! Why don’t you Join Me???
In His Name
Wayne Smith
OK, I’ve asked this question a number of times in the past and it continues to go unanswered, but I’ll try again. In this post Ron P. suggests there are some in the reform camp who wish to give away our historic Baptist identity. Wes has suggested as much in the past. Tim Rogers says so on his own blog and here in comments. Robin Foster has made the same charge and I’m sure the list go be extended. In light of Wes’s question to Wade where he asks him to name one Southern Baptist who believes “it is wrong to educate women in the classics, the languages, or Biblical theology…,” may I now ask any of the aforementioned to name one Southern Baptist reformer who believes we should give away our Baptist confessional identity? Who is saying we should abolish the BFM? Who is saying believer’s baptism should become optional for all Southern Baptists? Who would have us give away eternal security, the priesthood of the believer/all believers (however one might want to phrase that one), local church autonomy or any other specifically Baptist distinctive? Just one example will do.
Ron P. Aug 20 2007 - 11:52 pm
Tim Sweatman,
Thank you for reading and for your comments. RE: “Uh, isn’t this statement an example of some of the things you criticize the “irenic reformers†for?” No. I stand by the statement as an allusion to the behavior of some.
I believe that Tim Rogers very capably answered your statements in your last paragraph.
Paul,
Thank you for your questions. I really appreciate you stopping by. One of the points that I think is clear, even by some of the contributors and the editor at the 2nd iteration of SBC Outpost is that it seemed to be all about Paige Patterson. That is what I was referring to when mentioning Colin’s analysis, which you affirm with several references to Dr. Patterson in your comment. Paige was the focus on SO much of the writings there. It became so abhorrent and reached a crescendo that it apparently caused many to decide to quit going to, posting on, contributing to, and editing SBC Outpost.
You brought it up, so I do have one question for you. Since “…a course in statistics and research” determines whether or not an analysis is good, can I assume that you agree with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell’s ” assessment of the Lifeway study on PPL, since he IS an expert? See: here.
Wayne,
My dear brother in Christ. I am (almost) at a loss for words. Though you did not intend to do so, you have shown that what I have found on the “irenic” blogs to be true. Your attack on Wes (and myself) as to whether or not our ministries are as successful as Bro. Les’ is something that should be grieved by all. I for one hope that Les is extremely successful in proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ! I have the same hope and desire for you, just as I do for Wade and Ben and others with whom I do not agree on some of these issues. Your comments confirm my point above that: “If you are an irenic one, your comments are logical, thoughtful and scholarly. If you are not one of the irenic, you are just one of the minions of the evil one, blissfully ignorant of your blind stupidity.” Les was bad until he agreed with you.
Ron P.
Scott Gordon Aug 20 2007 - 11:53 pm
Paul,
UM….a SBC institution trustee who would sign the BFM with caveats (baptism)? One who would have us water-down the identity of Southern Baptists to attend the NBC? One who would lament the removal of the SBC from the BWA? Could it be that you would prefer that be called a redefinition of Southern Baptist rather than a changing, or losing, of the identity of our convention?
If we need to broaden the tent so large, why don’t we just follow in McLaren’s footsteps in being a “a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian”?
Ron P. Aug 21 2007 - 12:01 am
Paul,
I copied the wrong link above in regards to Malcolm’s post on the Lifeway study. It is here and just in case it was not my fingers making the mistake: http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2007/06/dr-malcolm-yarnells-response-to-lifeway.html
Ron P.
Jeff Richard Young Aug 21 2007 - 12:06 am
Dear Brother Alan,
I hope you and all readers here understand that I hold you in extremely high esteem. Including you in my “camp” name is because you have come down opposite the traditional CR leadership on several issues over these past two years, as have I. I know, and I’m sure it’s obvious to everyone else here, that you are operating on an ideological basis, not a political one. In include you as a leader of this particular “camp” because you have been a consistent, respected spokesman for the “reform” position on these issues.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Wayne Smith Aug 21 2007 - 12:18 am
Ron P,
I don’t see your credentials or a Blog reference anywhere. I’m one of the dumb one’s that spent his life In the Computer World 1954-2001. What your handle?
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Ron,
Once again, I only mention Dr. Patterson because he is an illustration of some of our accoutability issues. Sometimes names have to be put on issues because the issues are predominantly being created by the one carrying the name. But in the end, it is the issue that matters.
Regarding Dr. Yarnell, I would assume his analysis of the issue would be contrary to the analysis of the same issue by the people at LifeWay who actually make a living doing this sort of statistical research. Thus, we do not simply have Malcolm Yarnell who has some expertise in the area, but a team of researchers at LifeWay to consider as well. And in that case I would probably lean toward those who do that sort of thing for a living over a professional theologian who had some limited experience in the past. But I still don’t know where Colin’s “research” fits into all of that. Pretty low, in my view, particularly because of his obvious bias.
Scott Gordon,
I’m sorry, but none of those things you mention threaten Southern Baptist identity. Wade’s caveats are still in line with historic Southern Baptist identity. Not everyone in Southern Baptist history has held to close communion and some of our historic Baptist confessions actually seem to lean against such a thing.
I don’t know of any Southern Baptists who have said that they will definitely be attending the New Baptist Covenant and if they did they would not be jeopardizing our Baptist identity by attending a Baptist event. Does the irony of those very words not speak volumes?
As for the BWA, surely you know that Southern Baptists were instrumental in the founding of the BWA. So now it is preserving our Baptist identity to distance ourselves from an organization we helped found? And please tell me which Baptist distinctive the BWA has given away. Is it a Baptist distinctive to be vindictive toward the CBF? Oh, wait, maybe you do have a point with that one. 
I’m sorry, brother, but you still haven’t shown how any of this is causing us to lose our Baptist identity. What would we be if we remained a part of the BWA, had a pastor all on his own attend the NBC or allow a trustee to disagree with close communion? Presbyterians? Non-denominationalists?
And the McLaren quote is a fine example of a straw man.
Wayne Smith Aug 21 2007 - 12:35 am
Ron P,
How do you measure success? I said God is Blessing Les Puryear’s Ministry. I don’t know what your Ministry is. I also do not know how Wes’s Ministry is doing either. Les Puryear and I do not see eye to eye on everything, so how has he come around to my way of thinking?
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Ron P. Aug 21 2007 - 12:42 am
Paul,
Though I have links to posts and comments above that reference this already, I will answer your request to “name one”. Wade has made it abundantly clear that he finds the BFM to have “tertiary” issues. Southern Baptists have absolutely rejected this by adopting and affirming our confessions over these many years. Indeed, the messengers have affirmed, as stated above, that these doctrines are “precious and essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” Removing any of these doctrines, I believe, would be throwing away our historic identity as Baptists.
Let me add that the accusation that those of us holding to the historic/doctrinal/confessional beliefs, are trying to narrow the parameters of what it means to be a Baptist. Quite the contrary! It is the “reformers” that are trying to aggrandize what it means to be a Baptist and blur the lines of historic confessional beliefs and identity. This appears to this humble Baptist, to be nothing but the beginnings of ecumenism within the SBC.
Ron P.
Ron P. Aug 21 2007 - 1:11 am
This will be my last post tonight, as it is 1:00 A.M. here.
Wayne, you ask how I measure success? By being faithful to God’s Word. Isaiah, when he answered God’s call, was told that he would preach to those who would not hear. Noah labored for 120 years, and only 8 people out of the population of men and women on the entire earth were allowed by God to be on the Ark. Faithfulness to God’s word is what I believe will bring about that desired response of our Father to say: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”.
Blessings, and goodnight.
P.S. It is the blogging software, not my fingers that put this post as the hyperlink twice above.
Ron P.
Joe Stewart Aug 21 2007 - 8:53 am
Paul
Perhaps you’ve read my blog. I almost always land my plane on a certain runway, but I also attempt to circle the landing strip to look at other approaches. I do appreciate you parachuting in to drop the ‘occasional’ and ‘often’ packages. I assure you it’s a rarity that the status quo label is ripcorded my way, but I’ve often misunderstood the implications of missives spread in the comment zone. I honestly have no animosity towards you despite your group think assertion.
Blessings
Joe
JIm Champion Aug 21 2007 - 9:17 am
Paul
I agree with most everything you have posted in your conversation with Ron.
I have really enjoyed the outpost, and in my opinon what I have seen as honest questioning of the entities and changing of what it means to be a Baptist are seen as attacks.
Most of the attacks I have seen have come from those that come from the status quo camps, from Jeremy Green who relentlessly attacked Wade Burleson, calling him a theological moderate on countless occasions – and then providing proof by referencing his own articles! Then Brad Reynolds got into the act with his multiple commenters who seemed to be his own alter egos to Tim Rogers and even Bart.
The fact is, the questions asked by Ben Cole are questions that should be made available to all churces at least once a year to show us how our CP dollars are being spent.
Questions demanding accountability are not attacks, and just because someones name is used in an artilce or post is not an attack on that person
Jim
Trish Aug 21 2007 - 10:17 am
Jim,
If I understand your comments right, if the question being asked is valid, it doesn’t matter how it is being asked or why it is being asked? That’s not in line with scripture. 1 Cor 10:23-24, “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things are edifying. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.” and 1 Cor 10:31, “Whether then, you eat of drink, whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
While the questions might have been lawful, I did not see them as profitable or edifying in the manner in which they were asked. I found the questions to be asked in a destructive manner and not a constructive manner. We are to build up, not tear down. If something has been done wrong, it should be brought to light and corrected. If sin has been committed it needs to be confronted, speaking the truth in love with the goal to be confession and repentance, plus a renewed, stronger relationship with Christ. I did not get this from the articles that were posted about SWBTS and Paige Patterson. I did not see how the method used gave glory to God.
Something I was recently taught, by a professor at SWBTS, that really gave me pause to think and reshape my actions, was how I should not look at what I want to do and ask myself if it is sinful, but instead to ask myself if it glorifies God. I see now how that is a good, common sense approach but I was not operating that way. I was more focused on not sinning and less focused on making sure God was glorified. It has definitely made me stop and think before acting, and that applies to this post. I am striving very hard, praying as I type, to have the right attitude and share my thoughts in a manner that gives God the glory. I think we can all agree that this is right, we serve Him for His purposes and at His pleasure. We owe Christ our lives, the very least we can do is to put Him at the front of all our actions.
If there is a problem at SWBTS, if Dr. Patterson has sinned, if there are problems at the other SBC Entities, I trust that God will bring them to light and see that they are corrected, if we will seek His will in how to go about getting things identified and fixed.
I keep reading about the need to get both sides together to discuss the issues that are causing division and separation, but some feel that the gulf is too wide to cross. I think some have forgotten that Christ bridges that divide and there is nothing that can’t be accomplished when it is done through His strength and for His glory. If all both sides can agree to is that Christ is Lord and Savior, then start there and build on that. It’s a great foundation, He is solid rock!
Since learning about the SBC this summer and attending my first convention, my heart has grieved over what I see happening between people who all love Christ as their Lord and Savior. If my heart has grieved, and I’m just a wretched sinner, how much has God cried over watching the behavior of His beloved children?
Let’s meet at the cross and go from there. God is big enough to handle this problem, it can be fixed. He just needs to be allowed to do it His way, not our way.
Well, I wrote far more than I intended. I pray I did give God the glory through my words and actions. I pray my motives were pure and honoring to Him. I’m new to the SBC and was totally against it for years. But God worked in my heart and showed me the value of this denomination. I want to see it continue to be a light to the world, reaching the lost for the Kingdom, training disciples and sending them out to the world. I am confident that all of you want the same things.
God Bless all of you and the love you have for Christ.
Trish Reilly
Robin Foster Aug 21 2007 - 11:31 am
Paul
Real quick three come to mind. I will leave the names out since I don’t want this to be about personalities, but facts.
Authority of Scripture – Some believe that women should not pastor a church, but they come to that belief over cultural influences and personal preference. Baptist, while at times have not always done a super job, have based their beliefs on the Word of God. It is the final authority of faith and practice, not cultural influence and personal preferences.
Lord’s Supper – Some seem to want to advocate taking the Lord’s supper with paedobaptists. This has not been the historic view of Baptists.
Congregationalism – To take the authority of decisions away from the congregation, under the Lordship of Christ, is to devalue the priesthood of all believers. Some are advocating elder rule. While many don’t have an issue with a body of elders, Baptists have always drawn the line at allowing any body outside or inside of the church to make decisions that the church should make.
JIm Champion Aug 21 2007 - 2:04 pm
Trish
If evidence is shown that our entities are being wasteful in the spending of CP $$ thier trustees need to deal with the situation. If the trustees are afraid, or unwilling to deal with the situation, they need to be replaced.
The only way that we as church members can find out how our entities are spending thier funds is to examine the financial reports that are produced by the entities. If those entities refuse to produce the reports, or are afraid that those reports will make them look bad, most likely it is because they will.
Ben Cole asked the questions, several of the entities responded to him, some did not. We as SBCers that send our CP contributions faithfully each and every month (Our church contributes 9% of our undesignated funds to the CP – total missions giving is close to 12%) deserve the answers. We should demand accountability from all of our entities.
One thing that Ben has never brought up that I have wondered about for several years is why is it that SWBTS gives its VPs seminary provided (company)cars! Why in the world do they do this especially when enrollments are down and then on top of that they added a few VPs in the last three years or so!
I do not think that Ben Cole attacked Patterson in asking this question, I think SWBTS opened Patterson up for critique by not answering the questions, as did any other entitiy that does not provide full disclosure.
Wes, I sent you an email in response to the email you sent me
Jim
Robin Foster Aug 21 2007 - 3:07 pm
Jim
You said, “I do not think that Ben Cole attacked Patterson in asking this question.”
The problem isn’t that Ben asked the question. He sent this request out to all entity heads. The issue is that he gave detailed reports for Dr. Patterson (from SEBTS) and left other entity heads unchecked. There are no details concerning Morris Chapman. Why is that?
I am not out to get Dr. Chapman. Frankly, I have more important things to worry about than how much he makes, but it seems that Ben is protecting some and going out of his way to ruin others.
Wayne Smith Aug 21 2007 - 3:54 pm
Robin,
I think Ben has shown us who is open and willing to show where and how CP Funds are used for GOD’S GLORY. If you are really interested in what they provided Ben, why don’t you ask these People yourself? They don’t have anything to Hide. I wonder why those you and your friends are protecting don’t want the Church to know what Good Stewards they are with CP FUNDS?
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Steve Aug 21 2007 - 5:21 pm
Paul, your stated question:
“And please tell me which Baptist distinctive the BWA has given away.”
It is good to see a revision in directors at the BWA this year. Former Ruschilkon trained Barthian office holders explored universalism and so had issues with evangelical soteriology.
The General Secretary made a public statement in a newspaper that “There is no dofference between Baptists and Catholics except in regard to ecclesiology.” Canberra Times.
I would have to say what I said of one BWA member, she may be a good Baptist, but she is a lousey christian”.
In short, its not the Baptist distinctives that are of great concern with the BWA, its those things that are NOT distinctives, but essentials for evangelicals that are at stake with the BWA.
Steve
Debbie Kaufman Aug 21 2007 - 5:49 pm
I have read twice now that Wade has wanted moderates to come back into leadership. Could you please provide a quote with a link to show this to be true. To my knowledge it has not now nor ever been the truth.
Trish: We have the freedom Biblically to ask any question from any SBC institution or agency. I would go so far as to say we are foolish and poor stewards if we do not ask the hard questions.
I again agree with the rest of what Paul has written. It seems the Great Divide is still going to be. The issue is that of will you be able to work side by side including in leadership and missions with those who disagree. Will you allow them to be in leadership and missionaries etc. if voted in although you had no part in voting for them personally. This is not a matter of changing anyone’s view. It’s always been about cooperation. Period. Allowing things in that you may not see in scripture, but that someone else clearly does. That is the issue here and this keeps getting stepped over.
Ron,
It seems to me to be anachronistic to read the BFM2000 (let me spell that one out just for a little emphasis “two-thousand”) – a Baptist document adopted a mere seven years ago – and claim that everything in it is essential to an historical Baptist identity. What did that make those Baptists who crafted and adopted the First London Confession, the Second London Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, The New Hampshire Confession and the hundreds of other Baptist confessions? Were they Methodists because they didn’t have an article on Education? On Stewardship? On the Christian and the Social Order? On Peace and War?
I would also say that your contention is not only with me but with Dr. Mohler who sat on the 2000 revision committee and then turned around several years later and proposed a view of theological triage in which he puts some of those very topics covered in the BFM2000 into the “third tier” (a synonym for “tertiary”) category. Is Dr. Mohler one of those you are critiquing here? I didn’t notice a link to his series of articles on theological triage in your post.
Historically Baptists have not considered many things in the BFM2000 as “essential to our Baptist identity and practice.” Thus, I think your argument is not against what is historically considered to be Baptist, but what is recently (as recent as 2000) considered to be Baptist. Now, if you want to make the charge that many are not good current-day Southern Baptists you might have a better case, but to say these same people are not good historic Baptists is historically false.
Robin,
I think your first charge cuts both ways. I see a great many from the status quo side who uphold Biblical authority with their lips yet deny it in their practice. We’ve even seen it in a number of our leaders who have said that total abstention cannot be supported exegetically from Scripture, but then conclude that it is the wise thing to do. I fail to see how that is any different from your first example.
Lord’s Supper – a number of prominent Baptists in history have, in fact, practiced a form of open communion including John Gill and Charles Spurgeon. And they were Baptists.
Congregationalism – that is also historically naive. There have been a great number of Baptists throughout history who had a form of elder-led congregationalism. Are you saying that Capitol Hill Baptist Church is actually not a Baptist church? I attended a Baptist conference last year and bought a book in their book store giving the Biblical basis for elder leadership from a Baptist perspective. It may not have been prominent, but it has always been a part of our Baptist heritage.
Tim Sweatman Aug 21 2007 - 10:25 pm
Tim R.,
Part of the difficulty inherent in reform is that while reformers agree that change needs to occur there is a diversity of views regarding how much change needs to take place. For example, within the abolitionist movement there were those who simply wanted to see slavery ended as well as those who desired equality for black Americans. They agreed on the fundamental change (abolition of slavery) but not on what the status of the freed slaves should be.
A similar diversity exists among SBC reformers. Most of the reformers agree on the following points: SBC entities should not be allowed to establish doctrinal parameters that have not been approved by the convention as a whole, SBC leadership needs to operate in openness and transparency about the inner workings of the convention and its entities, and we need to select leaders from diverse SBC (not Baptist, but SBC) backgrounds. Of course, several who have these goals have other goals that are not shared by their fellow reformers, but that does not stop us from working together to achieve those goals on which we agree. If and when the commonly agreed upon reforms are achieved, the reform group will undoubtedly split as some push for additional changes.
Let me correct my statement about Dr. Mohler. He only uses different interpretations of eschatology as an example while affirming all that the BFM affirms in the statement on Last Things. I would certainly be interested to know if Dr. Mohler really believes the statements on Education, Peace and War and the like are first or second order doctrines which identify one as a Baptist. I remain skeptical that he would.
By the way, why are his connections with the Together For The Gospel group not questioned in the same light as those who have shown an interest in the New Baptist Covenant? Several of the TFTG participants are not even Baptists. Is Dr. Mohler giving away our Baptist identity by working with those men? Is he one of Robin’s Ecumenical Baptists threatening the identity of the SBC?
Tim Sweatman Aug 21 2007 - 10:44 pm
Ron,
Your characterization of certain reformers as being reminiscent of Absalom (the traitorous son who waged war against his own father) and Diotrephes (who sought power within the church and used it in an abusive manner) is no different than someone at SBC Outpost questioning the integrity and leadership of certain SBC leaders. I’m sure that those who made such statements about our leaders stand by them just as much as you stand by your characterization of some reformers.
Steve Aug 21 2007 - 11:33 pm
Paul again, your stated question:
“And please tell me which Baptist distinctive the BWA has given away.â€
It is good to see a revision in directors at the BWA this year. Former Ruschilkon trained Barthian office holders explored universalism and so had issues with evangelical soteriology.
The General Secretary made a public statement in a newspaper that “There is no dofference between Baptists and Catholics except in regard to ecclesiology.†Canberra Times.
I would have to say what I said of one BWA member, she may be a good Baptist, but she is a lousey christianâ€.
In short, its not the Baptist distinctives that are of great concern with the BWA, its those things that are NOT distinctives, but essentials for evangelicals that are at stake with the BWA.
I am sorry that you cannot respond to this, as it is public knowledge that BWA issues were those concerning substantial doctrines even more important than our basic baptist distinctives (that which makes us differ from other evangelicals).
The issues with the BWA had to do with essential christian doctrines. I guess from your silence these are of no importance to you either.
Steve
Ron P. Aug 22 2007 - 1:21 am
All,
Just got home a little while ago from a situation at church. I would ask you all to please pray, as we had a young woman show up tonight with her 2 year old daughter and some very serious sin issues. Praise God, she repented, and is going to publicly rededicate her life to Christ this Sunday, but she has a long way to go. I also praise God for the faithful members of our fellowship that visibly demonstrated the love of Christ to her and her daughter. God is so good!
Since my vacation is over and I have to go back to work tomorrow, I am going to have to go to bed and not respond to all that have directed questions or comments to me today. I will try to get to them tomorrow night or Thursday. I really have enjoyed discussing these issues with you all.
Tim Sweatman, I do want to address your comments to me tonight though. I think you are reading more into my statement than what I stated, or intended. I prayed and thought long over this article and especially that statement.
I clearly was making a contrast. Absalom and Diotrephes both sought to usurp authority and did it in a manner that we all would agree was sinful. Absalom was purposely trying to turn the people against the king (authority) and telling all who would listen, if only he was a judge in the land, he would do things differently. He would be just. He would be fair. The Apostle John said that Diotrephes was “prating against us with malicious words”. This is of course in contrast to biblical submissiveness to those in authority. The manner, I repeat, the manner in which the dissent has been made by several of the leaders of this movement, is what I and so many others find sinful. Yes, I said sinful and I mean it. The attempt to turn Baptists against those in authority and wage a personal war against those who lead us, by their prating and malicious words is why I wrote that it was more reminiscent of Absalom and Diotrephes. Again, I emphasize that many who disagree with the historic Baptist beliefs that I and others are defending, have not behaved as such. But there is no question that some leaders of this movement have.
Let me also point out, that dissent should be done biblically, while still submitting to those in authority over us. If you want to change the BFM, bring it before the messengers. If you believe that entity BOT should not be able to implement doctrinal guidelines, bring that specifically before the messengers to amend our bylaws. If you believe that women should be able to serve in the role of Pastor, add that to the changes you wish to make to the BFM. If you want the SBC to be more ecumenical and you want to broaden the parameters of what it means to be a Baptist, by all means make the motion to the convention messengers. If you believe that an entity president is not acting biblically or is fiscally irresponsible, approach that person privately. If not satisfied, go with two or three privately. If still not satisfied, bring the issue to the BOT. If that does not satisfy you, do what was done during the CR, elect Presidents that would use the appointment process to implement the reforms you desire.
Ron P.
Debbie Kaufman Aug 22 2007 - 8:13 am
You get to call anyone who disagrees with you: gnostic, fundamentalist, legalist, or Landmarker. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
It’s not because we disagree, there are landmarkers and fundamentalists and legalism. One poster is a self proclaimed Landmarker. I’m sorry that this is angering to you, but by definition it is in the SBC and we would be remiss not to say so.
Debbie Kaufman Aug 22 2007 - 8:26 am
One last comment here, irenic does not mean that we do not confront those who are wrong, it does not mean that we do not question and that we just go with the flow. It does mean that we love despite these things, it does mean that we do not want to go up against the powers that be or some of the policies that go both beyond the BFM 2000 or scripture, but it in no way means that we won’t. Irenic means that we care about missionaries and missionary candidates who are being rejected over these policies that churches are being excluded for these policies and more. It should be and we care that this is happening. Irenic is not the definition you seem to be giving it which is “go along to get along.”
Debbie Kaufman Aug 22 2007 - 8:34 am
OK, one more comment. The things that are mentioned in your post with links attached are taking things out of context. That is not bile in your opinion? Sorry Ron, that is simply not true. I am glad that you linked to these posts however, people need to read them. They are what I believe to be happening in the SBC. It also puts what they had said into the right context. So thank you for that.
For the record, I do not say this because Wade is my pastor, I am not in this simply because Wade is my minister. I happen to agree with him on this and the man I agree with happens to be my minister. I sincerely hope that people read these posts you have linked and decide for themselves, but as for me it is there. But I’m wondering if this post does not fall in the very category that you and others such as Wes have accused SBCOutpost of doing? OK I’m done. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
Scott Gordon Aug 22 2007 - 12:10 pm
Paul L,
I have just posted on my blog concerning your assertion/accusation regarding Dr. Mohler and Together for the Gospel. I believe Dr. Duncan’s take on the issue is quite telling.
Scott,
I would ask you to please read my comment again. I make no assertion nor accusation. I simply ask questions.
Robin Foster Aug 22 2007 - 4:29 pm
Paul
Concerning authority of scriptures, while it might cut both ways, I see it cutting deeper on the side of the Baptist ecumenist.
Lord Supper – While Gill and Spurgeon may have practiced this, (I haven’t found Spurgeon advocating this) putting up one or two names does not mean that taking the Lord Supper with paedobaptists was a common practice of Baptists.
Elder led congregationalism – I don’t see your argument here. Our church is pastor led congregationalism. Please don’t try to infer by a question that I somehow don’t think that Dr. Dever’s church is a Baptist church. In his church, the final authority rests with the congregation, not the elders.
Robin,
According to the famous “slippery slope” argument it seems to matter little which one cuts deeper if it is happening at all on both sides. That’s like saying “Well, we don’t completely believe in the authority of Scripture but we believe in it more than you.” If you’ve given that much then it’s just a matter of time before you will either meet or exceed the depths of the cut. You logically lost this point when you made your concession.
As to the Lord’s Supper, neither does it mean that it wasn’t. It simply means that there is evidence on both sides and that both sides were/are Baptists, and thus this is not an illustration of giving away Baptist identity.
Regarding congregationalism my point is that Baptists have historically had a form of elder-led congregationalism in some churches. Some in history even had “ruling elders” who were unordained. In his book Elders in Congregational Life, Phil Newton gives his first chapter the title “Why Baptist Elders Is Not An Oxymoron” and covers this topic from an historical perspective. My argument is that Baptist churches that have a form of elder-led leadership are not giving away historic Baptist identity but are well within that historic Baptist identity.
I’m not trying to paint you into any corners, but you must know that ideas have practical consequences in the real world. If you want to make the case supporting the polity of Capitol Hill Baptist as being well within the stream of historic Baptist practice then I will be thrilled for you to do so. It will, however, seem to undermine your point here.
Robin Foster Aug 22 2007 - 6:07 pm
First, no slippery slope here. I did offer that concession because their might be be some comment tucked away in blogger land that has someone who would be in agreement with me on most stuff making a statement like that. I haven’t found it, but I was only trying to be gracious to your point.
Second, to continue to think that because a few shared the Supper with paedobaptists means that is a baptist view is tremendously wrong. There is a possibility that some baptists handled snakes, that doesn’t make it historically a Baptist practice.
I don’t know what beef you have with me concerning my views on congregationalism. I believe in a Pastor/Elder led congregation as long as the congregation has the final authority under the Lordship of Christ. I believe you would find Dr. Dever agreeing with me. What is unbaptist is Elder rule. I think you would find Dr. Dever agreeing with that also.
To site a few references that skew away from the norm is not evidence that Baptists have held this view as their identity.
Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
