Buy Tindamax No Prescription
Posted on Jul 11, 2007
in Baptist Faith & Message, bloggers, SBC issues by Wes Kenney
I’m fascinated to read today that those who seem threatened by a “narrowing of the parameters of cooperation™†in our convention are now claiming to have drawn a line in the sand with Rick Garner’s deceptively-presented motion in San Antonio.
Buy Tindamax No Prescription, There are a lot of folks who are twisting this motion to make it say what it so clearly does not, specifically that the Baptist Faith and Message is our maximum standard of cooperation and that entities may not address doctrinal matters not covered by it without convention approval. This patently absurd notion does violence to our trustee system, 750mg Tindamax, 100mg Tindamax, and it should be obvious to anyone that that is not a road we should be eager to travel.
But the folks who are doing the twisting here have had, from the beginning of all the blogging, Tindamax ebay, 50mg Tindamax, one characteristic in common: They don’t want anyone drawing lines. This is why I found it almost humorous to read the claim that the Garner motion was a “line in the sand.†Those who support this twisted reading have been decrying the drawing of lines from the beginning, 20mg Tindamax, Tindamax uk, wrongly accusing convention leaders of drawing ever-tighter lines. The truth is, Tindamax australia, 30mg Tindamax, there has always been a line of clear Baptist identity, and I’m grateful for trustees and denominational employees who are willing to defend that line against those who would see it blurred beyond recognition or erased entirely.
It brought to mind the recent controversy when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome made the assertion that “ecclesial groups, Tindamax mexico, Tindamax coupon, †(they refuse to call them “churchesâ€) that fail to recognize papal authority and priestly succession are “wounded†by that failure. I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be deeply flawed in much of their theology, Tindamax japan, Tindamax india, but you have to admire their willingness to stand for their identity against a wave of voices saying that identity has no significance.
According to the Vatican’s official website, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith exists to “spread sound doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines (see here).†Their spokesman, 150mg Tindamax, Tindamax usa, Father Augustine Di Noia, said, Tindamax canada, 250mg Tindamax, “...it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, Tindamax craiglist, 500mg Tindamax, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.â€
It seems that in our present dialogues within the Southern Baptist Convention, one side has determined that the very reason for the dialogue is “to accommodate or soften what [we] actually understand [ourselves] to be.â€
The problem with lines in the sand is that when the wind blows, 1000mg Tindamax, 40mg Tindamax, the line can be blurred or obliterated. This is where some in our convention want to lead us, 200mg Tindamax. Tindamax overseas, Will they succeed?
μη γενοιτο (You can choose your own translation here, but for sentimental reasons, 10mg Tindamax, Tindamax paypal, I prefer the KJV: “God forbid.â€)
. Tindamax us.
Similar posts: Clonidine For Sale. No RX Medrol. Buy Toprol Over The Counter. Buy Flovent No Prescription. Hydrochlorothiazide ebay. Tindamax paypal. 200mg Buspar. 50mg Abilify.
Trackbacks from: Buy Tindamax No Prescription. Buy Tindamax No Prescription. Buy Tindamax No Prescription. Buy Tindamax No Prescription. Tindamax mexico. Tindamax usa. 20mg Tindamax. Tindamax canada.
Tim Rogers Jul 11 2007 - 8:21 pm
Brother Wes,
It would appear that we are having a hard time addressing a clear Baptist identity.
You have placed together well the issues both denominations are dealing with.
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
Paul Jul 11 2007 - 8:37 pm
Wes,
Exactly who is twisting the meaning of the motion? Did Dr. York? Dr. Hadaway? Jeremy Green? Would Dr. Land have?
Also, something I note about Roman Catholics: they are quite a diverse bunch. If you call allowing people like John Kerry (who holds views vastly contradictory to his church, yet continues to be welcomed in full fellowship) to be a part of the definition of what it means to be Catholic and you wish to call that holding the line on Catholic identity then Wade Burleson must be a downright Fundamentalist with a capital “F.” Southern Baptists look like an entirely homogeneous bunch compared to our Catholic brethren. There’s simply no comparison whatsoever in that regard.
Reply
Wes Kenney Jul 11 2007 - 9:21 pm
Tim,
Thanks, brother.
Paul,
Thanks for your comments.
I tried to be very clear about what twisting would look like, so that readers could decide for themselves who is twisting the meaning.
Anyone who asserts that the effect of the motion is “that the Baptist Faith and Message is our maximum standard of cooperation and that entities may not address doctrinal matters not covered by it without convention approval” is twisting it to say what it does not.
All analogies break down at some point, and certainly one between the SBC and the RCC will break down rather quickly. But when Fr. Di Noia said “dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be,” it caused me to be thankful that there are leaders within the SBC willing to say very similar things.
Reply
Wayne Jul 11 2007 - 10:00 pm
Wes,
Is the phrase “narrowing of the parameters of cooperation™†truely a registered trade mark?
Reply
Wes Kenney Jul 11 2007 - 10:03 pm
It sure seems like it should be, don’t you think?
Reply
Wayne Jul 11 2007 - 10:29 pm
I just noticed in your text where the “TM” symbol was attached to that phrase and I was curious who registered it. So did someone really registered that phrase?
Reply
Tim G Jul 11 2007 - 11:06 pm
Great post Wes! I have also posted on this from the standpoint of the SBC Bylaws.
I think some are getting desperate or fearful. The Garner motion is a nothing! But it is all some have for now.
TG
Reply
Paul Jul 12 2007 - 12:10 am
Well Wes, I’m surprised that you would attribute the twisting to those that I previously mentioned as well as some of the rest of us. At least you’re consistent.
I don’t think anyone (not that I know, anyway) wants us to lose our “Baptistness.” In some cases (e.g. the IMB baptism policy) we simply want it to mean what it has always meant for Southern Baptists and not take on this brand new meaning.
Tim G,
Hahahahah! That’s a good one.
Reply
cb scott Jul 12 2007 - 7:49 am
Now Wes, “There has always been a line of clear Baptist identity” just does not hold to the “line of clear” history. We have always struggled with identity simply because we are a people that seek to follow the Scripture. That in itself makes us far different than the Catholic church.
Due to our fallen nature we (and any group that makes an effort to be biblical will) as Baptist have struggled with identity. Why do you think there are so many different groupings of Baptist on this planet? There are more kinds of Baptist than there are brands of pocket knives. It is because of the constant struggle of an imperfect people to more purify our lives before a perfect God in light of His perfect Word.
The Catholics have historically drawn their “lines in the sand” as has conveniently adhered to papal whims of the moment. Baptist, on the other hand, have historically struggled to live by the Book. There is a big difference.
Reply
Tim Sweatman Jul 12 2007 - 10:11 pm
Wes,
As you are probably aware, I disagree strongly with your basic premise regarding the motion. I also do not share your great faith in and admiration for the trustee system as it currently operates, but that is another matter.
The main reason I am writing is to call attention to a couple of statements you made in this post. First, your description of the motion as “deceptively presented†does not seem to be an accurate or fair description, unless you consider basic political maneuvering to be a deceptive practice (in which case the entire Conservative Resurgence must be considered deceptive). To refer to the presentation of the motion as deceptive is a strong accusation, one that should not be made without solid proof that someone acted or spoke with the intent to deceive someone.
Second, I take great offense at your statement, “But the folks who are doing the twisting here have had, from the beginning of all the blogging, one characteristic in common: They don’t want anyone drawing lines.†In fact, I would consider that remark to be deceptive. Having read what we have written, you surely must know that we are NOT against the drawing of lines. What we are against is the drawing of lines around issues that are of secondary importance and where there is more than one interpretation with credible biblical support. (Not that there are multiple correct interpretations, but there are some issues where THE correct interpretation cannot be determined with 100% certainty.) What we are also against is allowing anyone other than the convention itself to draw lines that delineate what is acceptable for Southern Baptists to believe.
Reply