Floyd or Burleson

I don't think Dr. Mohler would run. He seems to be focused on his role as seminary president. But I'd take him, or Dever, or perhaps Burleson (from what I've read.)

I've heard Floyd preach in chapel once, and was turned off by his lack of accurate articulation of protestant theology. That's the best way to say it. I had a prof. say the next day "I don't know if that was a case of being bitten by a dog or having a dog that bites." Meaning, he didn't know if Floyd's theology was that bad, or if this sermon didn't do justice to his understanding.

 

If you like Mohler you would like Burleson.

As I've said before, W.B. is as good a bible teacher from the pulpit that I've heard.


http://www.emmanuelenid.org/sermons/Romans/

 

Isn't he of the charasmatic persuasion? Personally, I would rather not have a person who is charasmatic as president of the convention. I also disagree with him that we don't need to narrow the parameters for fellowship and that we need to be more ecumenical.

web page

I have a problem with the Charasmatic movement and the false teachings that are prevelant among them. I have a big problem funding folks like Pat Robertson through FamilyNet via the CP. I have a problem embracing heresy for the sake of unity. If we are to be unified in something, let it be unity in the teachings of Scripture.
I personally, agree a lot more with Mohler and others of the Together for the Gospel statement than I do the ecumenical Memphis Declaration. I would much rather have Mohler as president. Quite the opposite of Mr. Burleson, I think we should be narrowing our paremeters even more than we do.

Joseph Botwinick

[ May 11, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Joseph_Botwinick ]

 

I would likely support Burleson. Several reasons:

1. Unlike nearly every SBC leader over the past 20+ years, Burleson's church actually supports the Cooperative Program with a meaningful percentage. Every year, we are reminded how important CP giving is and how we need to increasing our giving. And every year, folks like Floyd lead their churches to give 1% or less.

2. The SBC and SBC agencies are not well served by Mega-Church pastors. I have no problem, per se, with SBC megas. But the leadership styles in mega churches are simply incompatible with that needed in the corporate management style required in the large SBC agencies. Mega church pastors function as (mostly) benevolent dictators and over see staffs of dozens and churches of thousands of volunteers. The IMB and NAMB, for example, are corporate institutions with thousands of salaried employees. Completely different dynamic. Reccord failed at the NAMB largely because his pastoral experience had not prepared him for corporate governance. That it took so long for him to step down (due to the silent support by the other Mega brethren) is also reason to see pastors of smaller churches (and layman with professional experience) take leadership positions.

3. Simple fresh air. The resurrgent generation of SBC leaders has nearly passed from the scene. The 2nd generation of leaders were largely political stair climbers who have had an air of haughtiness and self-importance (anyone who has ever attended an annual meeting and witnessed the entourage of lackeys and syncophants who surround these men know exactly what I'm talking about). We need a new generation of hungry brothers and sisters who see the SBC as vehicle for carrying out the worldwide mission rather than as a jobs program for political contacts.\

4. The fun of having a calvinist who has a passion for missions as SBC president. I always enjoy category smashing.

 

web page

I have a problem with the Charasmatic movement and the false teachings that are prevelant among them. I have a big problem funding folks like Pat Robertson through FamilyNet via the CP. I have a problem embracing heresy for the sake of unity. If we are to be unified in something, let it be unity in the teachings of Scripture.
I personally, agree a lot more with Mohler and others of the Together for the Gospel statement than I do the ecumenical Memphis Declaration. I would much rather have Mohler as president. Quite the opposite of Mr. Burleson, I think we should be narrowing our paremeters even more than we do.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]This is precisely one of the major problems facing the SBC (and Burleson has it nailed). If we wish to see doctrinal parameters narrowed, it must be done convention wide via the Baptist Faith and Message. What the IMB trustees want to do is create an separate set of doctrinal standards for missionaries than for anyone else who would serve denominationally.

If these new standards are so crucial, then propose them as an update to the BFM and let the messengers decide.

 

I have no idea what you heard, but theology is not Ronnie's strong suit.

 

I have no idea what you heard, but theology is not Ronnie's strong suit. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless I heard a conversation with him and someone asked "Did you really mean _____ when you preached. Because that's how it came out"

-----

If you like Mohler, you'd also like Dever.

 

Realistically speaking, if Burleson were to be elected how much could he accomplish? This ship is not going to be righted by just one man. It must be a commitment for the long haul.

 

What you say sounds strangely familiar... It's the same sort of thing that was said at the beginning of the so-called "conservative resurgence".

This time, please do it by persuasion and transforming lives through the power of the kingdom of God instead of lies and power politics.

 

Well, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless I heard a conversation with him and someone asked "Did you really mean _____ when you preached. Because that's how it came out"</font>[/QUOTE]Ronnie is a former pastor of my home church, and he signed my ministerial license. Many years ago, he preached a sermon that quoted a bunch of "facts" about a subject that were grossly inaccurate. I quietly spoke with him about it in the hallway, thinking that he would be concerned about the effect that sermon would have on his credibility with the congregation, but instead I was treated to an impromptu harangue that said, in essence, the facts were not nearly as important as his conclusions... and that I had no right to "challenge" him. (I didn't realize I was "challenging" anyone.)

But it took another year for me to start questioning the so-called “conservative resurgence”. A friend of mine (who was also a protégé of Ronnie’s) was having personal problems with one of the professors at Howard Payne University, where we both attended. My friend was convinced that the professor was “not saved” because the professor apparently believed that the JEPD theory of the Pentateuch had some validity, and my friend (nor I) did not. Unfortunately, my friend started harassing the professor (in the name of Jesus, of course) by leaving gospel tracts on his car, under his office door, etc. in an effort to “witness” to him. The professor reacted poorly (I suspect, because of sheer frustration) because he and my friend had previously had a very good personal relationship. My friend then went to “go visit Paige [Patterson]” in Dallas to figure out how to get the professor (and two other professors at Howard Payne) fired. A few weeks later, Ronnie came into town to preach a revival at Coggin Avenue Baptist Church in Brownwood. A few of us who had previously been members of his church greeted him as he arrived and we went back to the pastor’s study to catch up with each other. As soon as the door closed, Ronnie started scheming with us on how to get the three professors fired. (Ronnie had had at least two of those professors when he went through Howard Payne a few years before.) I was also familiar with all three and knew that the allegations they were trying to work up had little to do with the truth of the situation or the teachings or character of the professors. I offered a bit of resistance to their scheme and was rebuked for coddling those who “didn’t believe the Bible”. I know for a fact that two of the three professors that were being plotted against believed the Bible (and tried to obey its teachings) more than my friend, and the third professor was simply a very poor professor who had some liberal ideas, but no one really took seriously – in less than a year his contract wasn’t renewed because of the low quality of his teaching.

Ronnie's undergraduate degree is a BA in Psychology from Howard Payne University. I've noticed over the years that he uses psychology quite a bit to persuade and motivate people.

On the good side, God has used Ronnie in a positive and powerful way from time to time that does not seem to have to do anything with psychology. I have no problem believing that God may use Ronnie to do good things at FBC Springdale, but I believe that Ronnie’s ambition has been his chief failure.

If I were going to vote for SBC president, I would not vote for Ronnie. He is one of the hard-core Patterson coalition power-brokers that are now choking the SBC because they are trying to control it. I don’t know any of these younger leaders, but if one of them is nominated, and they are humble and have sound character, I would vote for them.

 

Pastor 1303,

I will explain why I said that, but it looks like some others are going in the same general direction.

Joseph,

It seems by your definition that unless one is a strict cessationist, then one is a charismatic. That would make Grudem, Piper, and Burleson charismatics, though I suspect none of them has ever spoken in an ecstaic utterance.

 

I am not a strict cessationist.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No.

http://www.emmanuelenid.org/sermons/Principles.htm

Me too.

Well Burleson is definitely not your man then. Is one's eschatological view the next "issue" to cause removel from the mission field?

Bingo!

 

Well Burleson is definitely not your man then. Is one's eschatological view the next "issue" to cause removel from the mission field?

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I think we should remove all dispies. Folks who believe like Pat Robertson and John Hagee.


Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph,

You intimated that Burleson is a "charismatic" when in reality his views are not that different than any of the others I mentioned. Are they, too, charismatics to your thinking?

Strange that Mohler, Dever, et al. can co-write the T4G manifesto with Maheney, but some on here wouldn't want a convention president who thinks cessationists and charismatics can co-exist for the sake of gospel proclamation.

 

No, I made no accusations whatsoever. I asked a question. If he is not a charasmatic, then good. I still don't like his ecumenical approach, and agree much more with Mohler and others in the Together for the Gospel Statement.

Joseph Botwinick

 

What ecumenical approach?

 

The Memphis Declaration.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Apparently Southern Baptist cooperating with other Southern Baptist is now ecumenical.

Jack Hyles Lives!

 

I think you're seeing ecumenical where none exists. I don't read the Memphis declaration as ecumenical in the least, unless "ecumenical" means willing to work with a wider range of conservative evangelicals than many current SBC leadership seem willing.

I could be wrong on that interpretation, of course, but I seriously doubt that men like Tom Ascol or Roy Hargrove would have co-authored an ecumenical document in the sense that you're reading it to be.