« Who's Coming Over for Breakfast? by Peter Lumpkins | Main | The GCR Task Force: Flexing Muscle They Ain't Got by Peter Lumpkins »

Sep 22, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20120a58ea016970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Southern Baptist Convention: A Parachurch Organization? by Peter Lumpkins:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JR

Peter,

Is this the worst you could dig up on these guys? They are both outstanding leaders and we are fortunate to have them. Also, I have read and heard enough from Stetzer to know that the one partial quote you attribute to him does not give a clear picture of the true dedication and service he has given to the SBC (be it parachurch or not). He has actually provided one of the most compelling cases for younger pastors to stay in the SBC.

As for Grear's children, I believe one of the most likely things that might drive them away from the denomination would be putting leaders in place who continue to try and prop up the SBC culture of a bygone era.

Les Puryear

Peter,

Interesting post. Your definitions notwithstanding, I can see J.D.'s point a little bit. One could take the view that SBC agencies exist to support the local church. Parachurch ministries also do the same, or at least, that is what they claim.

I think JD's and Ed's statements are unfortunate at best. Perhaps that's what happens when one speaks at too many conferences.

Les

Frank Gantz

Peter, surely you can understand a father's desire that his children grow up to be devoted followers of Christ. The vehicle for this isn't as important as the journey to that destination. If the SBC is a worthy vehicle, so be it. If another vehicle is better suited, so be it.
I often pray that my kids be faithful to Christ and lovers of his church. I don't think I've ever prayed that it should be in the SBC.

Frank

peter lumpkins

Les,

Thanks, Les. I'd be interested to know if, in your experience at SWBTS, the usual terminology for convention work was "parachurch" ministries?

Obviously, just because the convention comes "along side" the church assisting them does not mean conventions meet the critieria of "parachurch". Fulfilling the literal definition of the word does not equal fulfilling the meaning the word intends.

The agencies of the SBC are commissioned by the convention to do tasks. Moreover, agencies may take on more than one task. In that sense, the agencies are not singularly oriented as are parachurch ministries like World Vision. Also, no state convention, to my knowledge, exists for the sole purpose of church planting as Greear seems to believe. All conventions--including the SBC--exist to fulfill many purposes.

Moreover, convention causes historically have catered to convention people. Parachuch have cut across denominational lines.

It seems to me if we insist on calling SBC work "parachurch" we've needlessly conflated two causes which have enough differences to merit separation.

As for Stetzer & Greear's misfortunate language resulting from fatigue, I wish you were right. Sadly, I think it reveals a settled attitude toward the SBC.

Thanks again, Les.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Frank,

Obviously that's not my point. It's one thing to say I ultimately hope my kids are followers of Jesus and quite another to say I don't give a whet whether my kids are Southern Baptist. The former rightly reveals a love for the Lord. The latter curiously reveals an apathetic attitude toward SBs. If I am correct, while a person is to be commended for his or her love for Jesus, such a love does nothing to qualify him or her as a leader among Baptists. That's the point.

With that, I am...
Peter

Tim Rogers

Brother Frank,

I understand and agree that I desire my child to be a Christ Follower Christian. My Biblical understanding of a church structure closest to the 1st century church is a Southern Baptist Church. If I believe a SBC church is the closest to the 1st century church, then why would I not give a whit about my child being a Southern Baptist?

Blessings,
Tim

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

Good morning. It appears we are both up at the same time. One came to mind as I read your post. Ravi Z. said it this way recently; "one is entitled to one's own opinion, but one is not entitled to one's own facts".

Great research.

Blessings,
Tim

peter lumpkins

Tim,

Good morning!

I like Z's wisdom. No spin and down to earth. I think we're missing simple common sense in today's conversations. Hopefully, we can weave what we can of common sense into the fabric of our discussions.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

Trevin Wax

Peter,

For the benefit of your readers, here is the context of Stetzer's quote about not being "impressed" by the SBC.

"I think I’ve worked probably for more agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention than, well than anyone actually, in maybe a long time. I’ve worked for Southern and NAMB and now I work for LifeWay and for you and for IMB, and maybe the WMU’s next. I don’t know. But I’ve got to tell you, I’ve seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I’m not impressed with the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m not seeking to get my identity from it. However, what I would say is, you know, I started my first church in the inner city of Buffalo, New York among the urban poor 20 years ago, and we gave 10% to the cooperative program. And we gave 10% to the cooperative program because we believed in this. No one required us to. Now they’ve got all these requirements and all these rules. You’ve got to do this or that. I started another church in Erie, Pennsylvania and we gave 10% to the cooperative program. So we believed in it. I still believe in it. And so for me, you know, I’m kind of at the place now where we’ve got to make some substantive changes. And there are a lot of voices that; the voices of division are becoming more shrill at the same time when the Convention is coming together. But I’m really a believer that if we can come together over the next few years, that in the process of doing so we’ll have a better allocation for where our finances go, we’ll be more focused on global missions, and church planting in the United States will become more efficient and effective. I really believe we’re at that tipping point. However, I believe I have a stewardship before God. I’m a local church pastor. After I’m done with the interim at First Baptist Hendersonville I will, you know, join the staff of a local church as a teaching pastor. I have a stewardship before God to make sure that this money is spent well, and I will not, if I do not see the Southern Baptist Convention or my state convention going in the right direction, which I do have great hope; if I do not see that, I will not wait forever and simply say I’m going to not be a good steward of those resources. But for what it’s worth, I do not think now is the time for you to pull your resources out of the established system that has been created. Now is the time for you to engage that system, to fix that system. And in the next few years you will know if that is doable, fixable, and if we can cooperate together for the Gospel. Don’t be fooled. Remember, the voices of division get more shrill before cooperation becomes more evident. That’s part of it. I just think that now is not the time to begin to do that."

Also, see Stetzer's comments today at the "Between the Times" blog: Why I am a Southern Baptist.

http://betweenthetimes.com/2009/09/22/why-i-am-southern-baptist/

Grace to you,

Trevin

peter lumpkins

Trevin,

Thanks for the context which usually gives greater light for understanding. As I read through it again, I still fail to see, nevertheless, how his fuller statement you've rightly provided dilutes the horrible insult toward those for whom Stetzer works. That's just me. And, I am not immune from bias I fully realize.

Indeed Stetzer go on to suggest "if I do not see the Southern Baptist Convention or my state convention going in the right direction...I will not wait forever and simply say I’m going to not be a good steward of those resources." What Stetzer meant by that he does not say. Presumably he meant he'd funnel funds into other ministries. Threats like these are becoming routine from many of the younger, vocal Southern Baptists. Frankly, I for one have never taken too kindly to a "if-you-don't-then-I'll-not" type of relationship.

In addition, when Stetzer's justification for being Southern Baptist popped into my reader earlier, I read it with interest. Again, if one only read today's article Stetzer wrote, surely no one could lift a little finger in protest. But placing the insulting remark(s) in the category of self-deprecating denominational humor--which is the only category Stetzer gave to us--seems much too convenient from my perspective.

Thanks again, Trevin. Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jason

This whole article is very disappointing to me and at best it serves only to distract from some of the great things that MAY soon happen in the SBC.

For the first time in a very long time the SBC is, what Jim Collins calls, "Confronting the Brutal Facts". While I don't necessarily agree with (or care about) J.D Greear's definition of parachurch, it seems the author of this article has merely sought to find a point of contention with Greear and Stetzer. The point being made by both of these men in their quotes above is that the SBC IS BROKEN. A believer with a love for the KINGDOM and not for the SBC should be willing to stick his neck out to point out problems with an underperforming organization.

You seem to be unwilling to confront reality and more than willing to criticize those who do. Many are willing to play in the band while the ship sinks, but I'd rather try to fix the leak. My heart aches for the lost souls around me. I am offended when I see how Satan is destroying the lives of my friends and neighbors. I take NO offense,however, at the remarks of 2 men who are seeking reform the badly broken SBC so that it can again be a passionate Great Commission organization.

peter lumpkins

Jason,

You have every right to think as you wish. And, know I at times have earned the description as refusing to face reality. Granted. Whether or not you are right about this is arguable.

One of the dilemmas you find yourself in, it seems to me, is committing to me blame for doing only what to the others you happily commit praise. Why? If they are courageous for proclaiming "X is broken" when proclaiming such is quite popular, why is proclaiming "X is not broken, given the evidence to date" not also praiseworthy when proclaiming such is not so popular?

In fact, I'm trying to assess the evidence as I see it. That's all. If you don't see it like I do, hurray for diversity! But why tar me or others for disagreement?

Now as for the evidence itself, not one shred of tangible evidence has been forthcoming that the SBC is, in your words, "broken." Does Greear offer evidence that the SBC has degenerated into "BAD parachurch" model? I can't find any.

A definitive difference in the way the GCR is attempting to move forward, gaining support to "fix" the convention and the CR's strategy is centered in this very concern. The CR did not say, the SBC seminaries are "filled with liberals" hence the SBC is "broken" so trust us. Instead, they said, "SBC seminaries have liberals as teachers. Here's what they are teaching. Is this who we are or what we want to be?" The very reason the CR was so decisive was because the tangible evidence was so over whelming.

What do we hear concerning the GCR? "bloated bureaucracies" "not impressed with the SBC" "too much money kept in states" "bad parachurch" "redundancy in ministries," etc etc. Every single criticism thus far has been inflammatory and strictly rhetorical. Where's the tangible proof? Who will be courageous enough from the GCRTF to stand up and speak pointedly precisely what is being done wrongly, who's doing it, and why they should change?

Until this happens, don't expect all of us to just trust that the SBC is broken.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

Tim Rogers

Brother Jason,

While I am not Brother Peter and do not desire to look as if I am answering for him, I do desire to respond to your comment. If 2 men who are seeking to reform the badly broken SBC so that it can again be a passionate Great Commission organization are able to point to what they say is broken, why can't one question their analysis? It seems that you want it both ways. You desire for someone to criticize the organization but you do not desire for someone to criticize the critics.

First, I do not believe the the SBC has lost her passion for the Great Commission. Please name for me pastors that are not leading their churches to lead people to Jesus Christ. Also, please name for me any leader in the SBC that you believe is not passionate about the Great Commission. Second, you stated that the SBC is broken. I am not in agreement with that statement. ARe there areas that need to be fixed? Certainly! Does that mean the the entire organization is broken? Certainly NOT! It is there, my Brother, that the disagreement is within the SBC. Some seem to want to trash the entire convention and start from scratch. Others, feel that we should just fix what is not functioning properly.

Blessings,
Tim

Jason

Tim and Peter,

First let me say that I NEVER wish to stifle debate on an issue, as a matter of fact, I think we should promote it as often as possible. Ed Stetzer's remarks are his assessment of the SBC... remember he opened by stating that he is as familiar with the various entities of the SBC as anyone...most likely more familiar than you or I. I most enjoy Stetzer in his dissent (although he certainly is not alone) because he often employs numbers to show that the SBC is becomming less and less effective.

I just don't understand the perspectives of many of the conservative resurgence guys. I appreciate their work, but it seems that they got so caught up in recovering theological conservatism that they lost sight of what Baptists are really about - missions! For some reason we have been content to be less effective in our mission efforts so long as we PRESERVE our conservatism. Conservatism of orthodox theology, conservatism of the WMU, conservatism of the bureaucracy...etc. We have preserved our conservative principles by refusing to change...ANYTHING. And then we have lengthy discussions about why the SBC is hemorrhaging young people...I hope we wake up and recognize that it is beneficial to look back and to assess ourselves in order to realign ourselves with our biblical mission. How can this EVER be a bad thing?

But the old guard fights it..tooth and nail... and the young people find other places to invest their gospel vigor while the SBC continues going the way of many aging organizations like GM and Ford... hoping that little tweaks here and there will somehow restore the struggling organization to its former greatness.

Is this anecdotal...yes. i could give you more concrete examples of SBC BROKENNESS, but I will not do so on this public forum. I love the CHURCH and I like churches partnering together to spread the Gospel.. IF the SBC serves that end well then I am all in. BUT IF the SBC ignorantly continues down it's current path then I won't have to worry about it because it will all but disappear in a matter of a few generations... what a tragedy.

Debbie Kaufman

but it seems that they got so caught up in recovering theological conservatism that they lost sight of what Baptists are really about - missions!

I agree.

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

You raise some good points and equally good questions.

I too have never heard of a denomination, which is made up of local churches, referred to as a para church organization. It certainly has not been uttered in SBC circles.

Does not a para church organization fundamentally exist as a self governing and self sustaining (albeit through gifts from others) organization? Whereas the SBC entities as a whole and in part, exist at the behest and will (via Trustees and CP) of the local churches that make up the SBC? This seems to me to underscore that the SBC is diametrically opposite of a para church organization.

Blessings,

Ron P.

gabaptist

Peter,
Some good points in this article. The blurring of terms seem to be popular among Baptists today. Denomination = Parachurch; Convention= Denomination; Tomato/Tomaatoe...
Central problem is in the leadership that has never accepted the true conventional model of the SBC. It's hard to get a "society guy" to diversify funds for a "conventional" model.
Yet, I would like to see the SBC highly restructured to avoid waste. The failure of the conservative resurgence of the 80s and 90s is the wasteful spending they promised to rid us of...They wound up wasting more than their predecessors.
GaBaptist

Byroniac

How does there exist a blurring of terms between the words convention and denomination? I have looked up both definitions on Merriam-Webster online. I looked at the SBC web page at http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/default.asp and the official answer is, "The term 'Southern Baptist Convention' refers to both the denomination and its annual meeting." This seems to imply "both/and" rather than "either/or" though there is a distinction of purpose in the way the terms are used.

Les Puryear

Peter,

You asked, "I'd be interested to know if, in your experience at SWBTS, the usual terminology for convention work was "parachurch" ministries?" No, never heard that phrase used in that context at SWBTS. :)

Also, I didn't mean that Greear's and Stetzer's language came from fatigue. My point, which I did not state clearly, was that when one speaks at too many conferences, one tends to make statements for shock value. It's the "I can't believe he said that" syndrome.

Les

gabaptist

Convention is your system in organizing a denomination. For example, there is no longer a Northern Baptist Convention, but the American Baptists. Before the Triennial Convention in 1814, the Baptists in America were a unified denomination in doctrine and they visited each assn, but they were not a convention. Most Baptist groups outside SBC detest the term convention as being unbiblical or extrabiblical.

volfan007

For someone to say that the SBC is broken and needs to be fixed is as silly as saying that the govt. is a well run organization. I, like Peter and Tim Rogers, would have to question anyone who would say that the Pastors of the SBC have lost thier zeal for missions and evangelism...that they dont want to do the Great Commission anymore. What?????? Who are these people?

Also, for Jason to say that the CR has focused so much on keeping conservative theology that they have lost thier zeal for missions and evangelism is totally false...untrue....and an ignorant statement. All of the CR guys that I know are the most interested in evangelism and missions. In fact, without the CR guys, the SBC would be involved with saving the whales and other social gospel ministries, and they probably wouldnt be doing much of that either...just talking about it. Liberals love to talk about things, but then dont do much about it. Without the CR, we'd have women pastors and limp wristed, sissy boy professors regulating the Bible to an Oprah Winfrey, Joel Osteen view, and the Gospel would be for people to feel better about themselves. There would be no missions, nor evangelism without the CR guys.

This whole line of thinking coming out of certain camps within the SBC is so disturbing to me that it really makes me very concerned for the well being of the SBC. I can really see our SBC turning back to a societal method, where a lot of Churches are wild and extreme, and are unsound in their doctrine; while all the time claiming to be Bible believing people. God help us.

David

cb scott

I would like to add something to a statement out of Vol's comment #20

He said: " In fact, without the CR guys, the SBC would be involved with saving the whales and other social gospel ministries, ...."

I would like to amend that statement thusly, if and of course, Vol does not mind.

I would amend it thusly:

" In fact, without the CR guys, the SBC would be involved with saving the whales, "pandering to Sodomites" and other social gospel ministries, ...."

I just wanted to say that about what you would be facing right now had it not been for all us old CR guys.

Now please continue with your present dialogue as to the strict subject of Peter's post. I just wanted to throw that in because it seems to me that many folks today really do not understand what we were actually facing "back in the day" of the "Conservative Resurgence" as Bob "The Bear" Tenery first coined the term to reference the literal battle for the authority of Scripture we were in back then.

God bless Bob Tenery and all the boys and "girls" like him who stormed the "walls of liberalism" with an open Bible, a typewriter full of motions and resolutions and bus loads of screaming, Blood bought, Bible believing, local church lovin', soul winnin', liquor hatin', gates of hell shakin', grassroots Southern Baptists who took the SBC "back" from the liberal masses who were feedin' it pure poison, and kept it (by the grace of God) from the jaws of that Old Dragon, the Devil himself.

cb

Byroniac

Thanks. Honestly, I'm a little confused, though. Seems like I got the idea from hearing others that "denomination" was really the ugly word. But I heard nothing about "convention" either. Other than being good dictionary definitions, I'd guess both words were extrabiblical, so I don't see why the fuss over "convention" when really, both words sound OK to me (in context).

Byroniac

CB, I wasn't going to reply to this issue, but I got to throw this in. There are two sides to every story. I came down too hard on the CR while ago, as it did accomplish some good. But I know an elderly gentleman who's not liberal, who's BGCT, and seems to me to be a true conservative (too conservative for me, in fact), and he's convinced that the CR isn't all it was cracked up to be, and had more to do with authority than actual rectification of anything. I don't think this difference of opinion will be settled any time soon, in other words.

Having said that, I don't really know Jerry Vines or Charles Stanley that well (from the other post), but I have no problem believing they are men of God with sincere hearts and sincere desires to uplift and inspire the SBC towards positive ends. Was the CR necessary? Well, many people believe it was, that scripture admonishes us to be diligent and take corrective action where needed, and the CR was that much-needed action. That's OK I guess, but since I'm not Baptist any more, it really no longer matters to me. I know the SBC has some of the finest people in it anywhere and that suffices for me.

cb scott

Byron,

I had definitely determined "not" to get into this comment thread at all, for a few reasons.
1. I like J.D. Greear. The guy moved right under the dome of a Cathedral of Hell (Duke) and challenged a dead church to come back to life for Jesus and it did. I say; A-Men.
2. I like Ed Stetzer. The guy is smart as a Redbone Coon Hound. Every time I hear him speak or read his work I learn something of value.
3. I consider Peter Lumpkins a dear friend. He has more grit and steel than a Hatch-Claret bred Game Rooster. He is going to be speaking at least twice here in Alabama about the foolishness of liquor drinking and I am glad to be involved in his coming.

So frankly Byron, I did not really want to throw my dogs in this fight. But, when I read some folks "kicking" the CR guys around again, I just wanted to make a comment about that and nothing more. But I will respond to you on a couple of notes.

You asked: "Was the CR necessary?" Yes it was. It is really not a joke to say: "In fact, without the CR guys, the SBC would be involved with saving the whales, "pandering to Sodomites" and other social gospel ministries, ...." This is especially true about the Sodomites. I don't know for sure if we would have been trying to save whales or if we would have had a keynote speaker at the SBC from Greenpeace by now, but the Sodomite threat was a reality.

Secondly, I am sorry to hear you are now no longer a Baptist. I consider you to be a sharp guy who could have done a lot as a Baptist. I am sure you will do a lot with whomever you are affiliated now. If you don't mind me asking; With whom are you now affiliated in your ministry fulfilling the Great commission?

Best to you Byron.

cb

Byroniac

CB Scott, thank you for the compliment. I consider you a sharp fellow too, and Peter Lumpkins, who is one of the best writers I've seen (wish I could be as good a writer, my predictable and mostly consistent disagreements not withstanding). I respect many people on the CR front. I just can't join in, personally.

I am surprised to hear of a sodomite threat, but I shouldn't be. That particular sin of homosexual fornication is a depravity which will stop at nothing until the whole is corrupted in its favor, much like the agent of yeast. These aren't the last battles on this subject in this country, and I for one won't be surprised if "free speech" goes right out the window in the name of political correctness (mainly because it already is, as I am beginning to discover).

I gave up on "professional" ministry, for the time being, perhaps forever, along with denominations and the like. Technically, I'm still Baptist-affiliated (SBC in particular) because I think the Baptists get the most right. And, not to start a debate, but I'm a Partial Preterist so I believe the Great Commission was already fulfilled in the apostle's lifetimes by the apostles themselves, to all the world (in the Roman context) that then existed. True evangelism remains a wonderful thing because God has still ordained the means of preaching the Gospel to all the world to bring about salvation. But I'm an untold number of generations removed from the Great Commission as it was given then. I'm not worried about leading someone to the Lord or not. If I remain faithful to Christ and He wants it to happen then it must certainly happen.

cb scott

Byron,

I kinda remembered that you were not a fan of Premillennial Dispensationalism and the GC was not necessarily a priority for you.

Tell you what; Why don't you come to the Acts 1:11 conference in November at North-Metro in Atlanta. I'll buy your lunch and we can discuss eschatology and listen to some good preaching.

And even if you don't get there, I still wish you the best, Byron. Keep reading the Book and I'll say I told you so in the Rapture. :-)

cb

Byroniac

Thank you for your generosity! And fair enough, CB Scott. You can crash at my house during the Tribulation, if I ever figure out what it is. ;)

volfan007

The homosexual threat was not only a reality, but also universalism was a huge threat. It was being taught in the seminaries. Also, in pre-CR days, many seminary profs threw doubt on the Bible. They believed and taught that there were errors in the Bible. The miracles of the Bible were challenged. And, one seminary prof wrote in his book that anyone who believes in the literal, physical resurrection is crass!

The CR was more than needed. If it hadnt happened there would be no GCR. I believe that we would be hearing about the SBC going green...save the planet...find the real, historical Jesus...evolution would be taught in OT classes....liberation theology would be prominent...and only the Lord knows what else the SBC would be involved in.

David

cb scott

liberation theology?

A possible problem on the mission field, had the CR not occurred.

Byroniac

David,

What do you mean, "They believed and taught that there were errors in the Bible?" That can mean several different things. Most of which are not orthodox, I admit.

Only the original autographs are infallible and inerrant. And since we no longer possess those as far as I know, but only fallible and errant manuscript copies, any Bibles produced from textual criticism of these manuscripts are subject to error. There is not a Bible on the face of the earth which is free from error, in other words. Because the only possible alternative that I know of is to claim supernatural inspiration of language translations, such as some do for the KJV. So you must study and decide something about the various problem passages, such as the 1 John 5:7 area of the text, John 7:53-8:11, and Mark 16:9-20. Right now, I do not believe any of these are genuine, though I could be mistaken. The point remains, however, that I have to speak of inerrancy and infallibility only concerning the original autographs, which I have to make a statement of faith that they even existed, since I have no absolute proof (but lots of good evidence!).

This is a different animal than a blanket assertion saying that the Bible is full of errors, or contains errors, or that no original autographs were perfect.

Big Daddy Weave

Volfan: "And, one seminary prof wrote in his book that anyone who believes in the literal, physical resurrection is crass!"

Name the professor.

Now, name the book.

If you can't, please publicly repent for spreading lies.

cb scott

Big Daddy,

I know nothing of the book to which Vol makes reference. But I can assure you that everything I have said here is true. And if you doubt it; let's take a road trip together and you can read some seminary archives and your doubts will vanish.

And then my brother, you may have to do a little repenting of your own.

cb

Byroniac

CB Scott,

I wanted to reply to your statement of my beliefs that, "...the GC was not necessarily a priority for you."

This is true enough from your point of view, I suppose. For me, however, the GC had the ultimate priority, with divine urgency. God did not leave this command to any but His chosen apostles. The Apostles fulfilled this Great Commission in their own lifetimes by God's Providential will. This is much better than a Great Commission which fails to reach all people universally in each generation, and one which no one can know when will be finally complete, except I suppose it must be finished before Christ comes again (another unknown). I realize you would disagree with my view, and I do not want to be contentious, and I do want to be respectful of your view even while I try to clarify mine in context of the Great Commission.

Byroniac

CB Scott, I also wanted to add that I am an ordained SBC minister, so I do not take my steps lightly.

peter lumpkins

Byron,

I appreciate you not desiring to be "contentious" and your clarifying you're an "ordained SBC minister." I think that's just peachy. But you know darn good and well what you just wrote IS contentious in this community.

To suggest anywhere in SBC circles "The Apostles fulfilled this Great Commission in their own lifetimes by God's Providential will" is a shout for somebody to argue with you about this. Please. Take it elsewhere, Byron.

As it is, there is no warrant to start a side-discussion about an issue that doesn't matter to the SBC on a thread about the SBC.

When and if I decide to put up a post about a non-issue for Southern Baptists concerning the Great Commission--unless, of course, you can show Southern Baptists historically have entertained this notion--perhaps we will deal with the contorted idea that the apostles fulfilled the GC. Until then, I suggest you widen your horizon a bit and put the Presbyterians you've probably been reading down.

With that, I am...
Peter

Byroniac

Peter,

Give me a break. Can someone not simply state what they believe without it immediately being pounced upon and denounced as contentious? Please! I was simply trying to clarify a point of my belief and correct what appeared to be a mistaken assumption concerning it. I did not say anyone had to agree with it, and I did not get it from Presbyterians, not knowingly at least, so that is a new one on me.

I guess the only game I should be playing is the "not seen or heard" one, because most of what I have been offered in return is criticism (sometimes warranted, I admit), and simply being ignored, which could be case here with my question to David Worley.

Oh well, life goes on.

peter lumpkins

Byron,

I do not make it a habit of "immediately [pouncing] upon and [denouncing] as contentious" people's comments. On the other hand, to inject a completely irrelevant point--the GC was fulfilled in the 1st century--on a thread where not 100th of 1,000th of 1% would so much as offer it a passing tip as serious position, Byron, is a scream from boredom for debate. Now if you don't agree, cool. It changes nothing.

As for you being ignored, I haven't a clue what to say.

With that, I am...
Peter

Byroniac

No, Peter, I do not agree. Believe it or not, that was not my motive. I was actually just responding to an earlier comment brought up by someone else. I neither know nor care how many people would seriously consider it, as I had no desire to debate eschatology in this post. Your point accuses me of both boredom and desiring debate. But it does not follow, especially when the only substance to your argument is the apparent extremeness of my position relative to others here. If that is truly the way you want to look at it, fine, but it is not true.

peter lumpkins

Byron,

Have a good day day.

With that, I am...
Peter

Byroniac

Peter, I just find it interesting that you think I should "widen [my] horizon a bit and put the Presbyterians [I've] probably been reading down" because, how can I "widen my horizon" if I always read only SBC books and think within the SBC box? I used to hold the SBC position on this and many other issues, in fact. I attempted to widen my horizon by studying Scripture independently and comparing passages in context, which resulted in my change of mind on many issues, such as this one. I do not assert that I am infallible in my interpretation.

Take care... I hope there are no hard feelings.

peter lumpkins

Byron,

Thanks. This isn't about hard feelings. It's about my thinking no good use lies in placing unwarranted ideas into threads not designed for them and you apparently not. That's all.

Now let me be clear. I did not suggest you "always read only" SBC. Also, the reason I mentioned Presb. is because, so far as I know, a group of peripheral Presby. are the only ones today who so much as breathe the view you mentioned. I get the impression you say you've come to this new position through Scripture alone. Thanks for correcting my error.

With that, I am...
Peter

cb scott

Byron,

I am going to wade into this a little. If Peter get riled at me, he can throw a fork at me tomorrow at lunch in Montgomery.

Byron. I don't think Peter is calling for you to read In the "SBC box" or to think in the "SBC box." That is basically because there is no such thing.

Yet, I would suggest you think and read more in a biblical box. The position you now hold is not biblical. I do think you have gotten your feelings hurt in an SBC church and you are still smarting about it. If the reason you got your feelings hurt is because you verbalized the positions you now hold and you were rebuked, then I say; Good for those who rebuked you. They were doing you a favor. Because, frankly , the ideas you now hold, and boast are not biblical.

Now, I have done it. It is probably because Peter knew I would engage you, Byron, in this manner and hijack this post is the reason he told you to drop it.

Well, let me say to Peter and to you, Byron, that I have said all I am going to say about it here with the following statement.

Now, Byron, you either need to get your theology straight and get back into ministry and stop talking about how you were hurt and had to leave the SBC. Or, you need to go your way and find whatever fulfillment you can in this faulty venture you have allowed yourself to become entangled and simply leave the SBC to itself. One who holds the positions you now testify as your own has no business seeking to lead a Southern Baptist church. And in all honesty, if you held this position before you were ordained, then some bunch of Southern Baptists failed not only to do what they were supposed to do as an ordination council. They failed you by ordaining you as a Southern Baptist minister.

cb

peter lumpkins

CB,

Even if you didn't see it, a fork just missed your left ear by less than half an inch :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. I am very much looking forward to seeing you tomorrow...

Byroniac

CB Scott, thank you for your reply, and I guess that wraps up this discussion. ;)

volfan007

Only one more thing. Big Daddy, I'm not spreading lies. We've had this discussion before, and I told you who it was that made that statement in a book. So, why are you bringing that up again? You've been told before.

Here's a list that Jerry Sutton gives of some of the profs in our SBC seminaries before the CR:


Eric Rust's 1959 paper on "The Challenge of Modern Science" in which he viewed Scripture as a parable, but not authoritative nor historically accurate.

-- Elliott's argument for a hermeneutical model that regards the first 11 chapters of Genesis as "a theological preface to the remainder of the book" and presuppositions that biblical writers borrowed and adapted earlier myths and legends.
-- G. Henton Davies' denial that God had ordered Abraham to kill Isaac, which appeared in the Genesis-Exodus volume of the Broadman Bible Commentary;.
-- Southern Seminary professor E. Glenn Hinson's 1977 publication, "Jesus Christ," which Sutton says challenged and questioned many biblical declarations and assumptions relating to reliability of the Bible and the resurrection of Christ.

-- Midwestern professor Temp Sparkman's "The Salvation and Nurture of the Child of God" from 1983 which Sutton says equates child developmental psychology with growth and development as a child of God, arguing that all people are already saved because all people are already children of God.

-- Southern President Roy Honeycutt's commentaries on Exodus, 1 and 2 Kings and Hosea in which Sutton says there were "clear denials of what the Scripture teaches." He cites commentary questioning traditional accounts of Moses and the burning bush, Elijah calling down fire, the miraculous restoration of life to the Shunamite woman's son, and the floating ax head.
-- Southern professor Molly Marshall Green's tendencies toward universalism.

-- Southern professor Paul Simmons' pro-abortion stance and tolerance of homosexuality.
"Repeatedly, moderates and those sympathetic to them argued for freedom and liberty of interpretation," Sutton writes. "Yet one man's liberty is another man's heresy. And much of what has been taught among Southern Baptists has clearly been heretical in nature."


Big Daddy, have a nice day.

David

cb scott

And to say Vol has only scratched the surface would be an understatement.

Big Daddy Weave

Volfan,

Thanks for NOT answering my question.

You wrote: "And, one seminary prof wrote in his book that anyone who believes in the literal, physical resurrection is crass!"

Who was that seminary professor?

It's not Glenn Hinson. Glenn Hinson was my father's dissertation supervisor. My dad - like every other Baptist I know - believes in the "literal, physical resurrection" of Jesus Christ. Pretty confident that Hinson considered my father to be the exact opposite of UNREFINED.

Do yourself a favor and consider reading the actual sources instead of quoting Jerry Sutton. Hinson surely never said that anyone who believes in the resurrection is crass. So, that was a lie. Jerry Sutton doesn't even make that claim in his book.

If you read the writing that Sutton references titled "Jesus Christ: Faith of our Fathers" (1977), you'll see where Hinson notes that, in his opinion, the tools of historiography did not allow him to affirm Jesus' resurrection. However, as a believer, Hinson noted that he did and could affirm Jesus' resurrection.

In the 80s, enemies of Hinson tried to paint him as someone who denied the Resurrection. The argument is not and should not have been whether Hinson believes that Christ was physically resurrected. Hinson affirms the physical resurrection. The argument should have been over the limits of historiography and what an historian can reasonably assert. I disagree with Hinson's opinion regarding historiography.

Anyone capable of critical thinking and examining the evidence probably shouldn't rely solely on the infallible interpretations of Jerry Sutton. Although, I guess it's easy to have someone reach conclusions for you without ever having to read the actual Primary Source.

volfan007

Big Daddy,

I agree with CB. I only scratched the surface with the quotes from Jerry Sutton. The list is huge of the liberal teachings that were going on before the CR. The two Devils that slipped thru the SS material. The universalism of seminary profs and others. As I was told by Dr. Roy Beamon, who used to teach at New Orleans, that before he left New Orleans, that every OT prof believed in evolution over creation. And, the list could go on and on and on over all the liberal, even heretical, things that were being taught and preached in SB life before the CR.

Thank God there was a CR.

David

volfan007

Dr. Norman Giesler writes in the Christian Research Institute: "Wolfhart Pannenburg is a case in point. He believes Jesus left an empty tomb behind but that the resurrection body was by nature invisible and immaterial. He declares that for Paul "the future body will be a different one from the present body, not a fleshly body — as he says — a 'spiritual body.'"1 Southern Baptist professor E. Glenn Hinson agrees, adding, "Paul was convinced that the Christ who appeared to him belonged to another order of existence than the Christ the disciples had known in the flesh. The risen Christ has not a physical but a spiritual body."2 Professor Murray Harris of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School provides yet another example. He argues "that after his resurrection his [Jesus'] essential state was one of invisibility and immateriality."3 He adds that the resurrection body of Christians "will be neither fleshly nor fleshy"4 (emphasis added). According to this view, Jesus' resurrection body was not the same physical body He had before His death, but a second embodiment."

David

Byroniac

So, David, are you ever going to answer my question?

volfan007

Byron,

I'm sorry it took me so long to respond. I overlooked your comment. Sorry. But, yes, I, too, beleive that the originals were inspired and inerrant. And, a scholars job is to make sure that the translations are as close to the originals as we can possibly get.

The error in the Bible views of some of the Ministers and Profs of the pre-CR days dealt with more than errors in translations. It went beyond that. A good book for you to read about all of this is "A Hill on which to Die" by Judge Paul Pressler. It will show you much.

David

Byroniac

David, thank you. Have a good one!

The comments to this entry are closed.