Pastor’s letter challenges seminary’s proposed stance

Okay, I guess. Why don't some of us see if we can't come up with a schedule to vote for or against the "heresy of the year"? Let's see, how about this?
Next year is spoken for with "private prayer language".
2008 will be "open-theism".
2009 will be "mega-church".
2010 will be "woman's role." There still seems to be some question about the SBC on this, but unfortuantely that seemed to be the earliest open year.
2011 will be the "Founder's Movement."
2012 will be "other religions".
2013 will be "world hunger".
2014 will be "Calvinism".
2015 has been tentatively set for "missions'.
2016 has been suggested for spiritual gifts that are not included under the 'private prayer language' heading.

I believe there were a couple of other things that escape me at this second, as my memory isn't what it once was, so we'll allow for those, and tentatively pencil in "dispensationalism" for 2019 since that seems to the earliest 'open date' we can count on - How's that?

And that way we won't have to worry about the little annoying 'confession' guideline known as the BF&M. We just take an annual vote on the current heresy, and "Voila!" Problem solved!

Majority vote can work wonders!

Ed

 

:laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup: :laugh:
Good one Ed!

 

Ed

Can we limit 2015 to be against bad "missions'?

Or will the only option to be anti-mission?

 

No, "What approaches exactly should missions entail?" is I believe the suggested title. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Uh, who exactly is "they"?

Ed

 

That is exactly what they are saying. Shame.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Same question, as I asked the last person. Who exactly is "they"?

G'nite, all.

Ed

 

You would be amazed at the amount of baptists on this board which are ecumenical. Most pentacostals and Charasmatics don't understand salvation. They mix it up with works. They have to maintain their salvation. Are they saved? Mabey today if they had a good day.:applause:

 

Those who are trying to sneak pentecostalism into the Baptist Churches and act like this is normal and no big deal.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Does this "politics and fighting" 'run the gamut' of the SBC, or is it limited to one group or the other? Is it "OK" as long as one is a "calvanast" as one person wrote (which almost caused Language Cop to have a stroke), but not "OK" if one is an "Armenian" (as another wrote which also caused a dangerous rise in L.C.'s blood pressure), or is only the converse true? Is this limited to the so-called "conservatives" vs. the so-called "moderates" as the SBC fights over inerrancy doing The Battle for the Bible© as the "moderates" have attempted to have their views continued, especially in the educational institutions, or were the "moderates" fighting to hang on to control and "open-minded" approaches to the Scriptures, and not be limited by those closed-minded "Fighting Fundamentalists" who doggedly maintained that the Bible was "literally true" as e.g. the late W. A. Criswell preached, and that was OK, if you were one of these so-called "moderates", but that was 'politics' if you were one of the so-called "conservatives"?

Did I just miss something along the way?? Because if I did not miss any of this, it seems that it just might depend on "Whose ox is getting gored?", to me.
I make no bones and offer no apologies for believing that "...the Bible... has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter." (And I don't have to have my fingers crossed to make this affirmation, either.) I support those who believe and teach this, without any reservation, mental or otherwise. If one cannot freely subscribe to this, then, IMO, one should not be teaching, for any reason or excuse, at a So. Baptist institution at any level, that has this doctrinal stance.

I have no particular stake in this on any personal level, save as a member of a Baptist church, that has chosen to align with the SBC, although she was never a So. Baptist Church, per se, and could not be even if she wanted, having been constituted in 1782, over 60 years prior to the existence of any such thing as the SBC. I have said this before in other threads. But for the most part, she has clearly stood for a verbally inspired Scripture, as far as I know, consistently for 224 years.

Obviously I cannot speak about everything that occurred before my close family and I were around and cognizant of such, but I do have fairly good knowledge of the last 100 years or so. Okay, I'll get off this soapbox, for now.

No wait! I need to climb back on it for just a sec!
gb, Did I hear a subtle reference or hint to so-called "Calvinism" in your response. here? As in, perhaps you consider yourself a "Calvinist", and hence would tend to agree more with Al Mohler, than, say, Paige Patterson? And maybe the resurgence of "Calvinism" is a good thing, a la 'Al', and maybe, say, "dispensationalism" is a bad thing, a la 'Paige'? Just wonderin' if I'd read more into this, or something that isn't there, maybe? And if I did, I apologize. NOW, back down off the 'box'.

Whether or not this is "a big deal" is closely akin to the previous response, IMO. "Whose ox is getting gored, here?" The "they", here that Joseph is speaking of, is a different "they" than gb was talking about.
And the subject would seem to be different, as well. As far as I am aware, the SBC has not taken a doctrinal stand regarding so-called "Pentecostalism" in the BF&M, in any of its three plus incarnations. And as far as I know, such was never addressed by any of the New London, Philadelphia, or New Hampshire Confessions of Faith, to name three I am aware of.

Again, I will state my own position. I would be classified as a cessationist, I guess. And the SBC may well need to look at this as someting to be included in, or expanded on, in the BF&M. But I also believe that the wrong place for debate on this is the board of SWBTS, and the "International Mission Board", which appear to be the two locales where this is occurring. The knowing wink, grin, and/or frown, or under the table handshake is not mentioned in any statement, as far as I know. Subtly "sneak"ing in any position, by subterfuge, to the exclusion of another, above and beyond the instuitution's statement or statements, is, IMO, and as I previously stated, "dirty pool".

I admit, I am not particularly concerned with Wade Burleson, Jerry Rankin, Dwight McKissic, Ronny Hunt, Frank Page, or Paige Patterson, to name a few of the leading "usual suspects', and their prayer lives and/or prayer languages. Frankly, I don't care all that much about theirs. I'm not sure that it is any of my business, to begin with. And if it were, I figger' I still have a rather large amount of work to do on my own prayer life before assisting others with theirs. When I get all of my own problems fixed, then I can start to talk about that of someone else.

Is the SBC tent large enough to accomodate any such with "charismatic ideas"? From my perspective, 'Yes!" Although not one, myself, I don't see that big a problem with this.

Let me tack on one more thing. l am personally far more concerned with three more camels that are currently attempting to get their nose inside the tent, namely the so-called "Open-theism", the so-called "Emergent church", and the so-called "New Perspective on Paul". As I look at the edge of the tent, I'm already seeing three sets of nostrils. I don't like what I'm seeing, here in these!

Ed

 

Great point, the obvious of course is ____ ?

 

Well, I agree as to the confusion I see, but don't have time to expand much on this, at the moment.

Ed

 

Ed

Criswell, like Our Beloved Lord and Savior, is often used by whatever wind blows . . . As I clearly stated, FOR MANY YEARS, a Baptist would not find a church if he went to DTS.

CLEARLY, that was WHAT I stated.

If you want to argue, use your own words - don't twist mine.

If you remember your Kentucky history, then the name Whitsitt should come to mind . . .

He was FIRED and a big part of that was dispensationalism . . .

Tho't you were from those parts?

 

There are many third-tier (probably even some second-tie) issues over which I would not be willing to die. Lose my job, check. Lose my denomination, check. Be called names for standing up for my beliefs, check. Die? Not likely.

I'm not sure that people making noise from either side should be willing to die over the matter. I'm not even sure its worth breaking fellowship over.

Frankly, I'd be more inclined to worry about the person willing to die for a third-tier issue...

 

Marcia,

I can think of no one who has advocated that it be made a Baptist distinctive. I believe we're having these discussions because some are saying that a person CAN'T be a "good" (or fill in your modifier of preference) Baptist and believe differently than them about an issue about which Baptist have never codified a single strict position.

If you are aware of Baptists who are campaigning to make sign-gifts a normative Baptist practice, please cite them here, it would be most helpful to the discussion.

So, far, the predominant discussion has centered on missionaries, Rankin, and McKissic.
* Missionaries are fired if they advocate tongues, so I don't think you'll find them advocating to make their interpretations normative for Baptists.
* Rankin has never advocated for it. He has acknowledged it and had basically left it at that until events that occurred last year required him to speak to Baptist state editors. Even then, he has never advocated for his gift to be considered normative for Baptists.
* McKissic spoke against policies that marginalize other Baptists because of how they pray. He shared his own experiences, but never suggested his interpretatin should be made into Baptist doctrine. In fact, he went to great lengths in his chapel sermon to state otherwise.

So where, exactly, are these advocating that certain gifts of the Spirit be elevated by Baptists over other gifts. Because, really, all I see are efforts to exclude otherwise sincere brothers and sisters for their differences on a subject not germaine to what it means to be "Baptist."

 

Now you're trying to go from preachin' to meddlin'