« Baptist Identity or Evangelical Anonymity? Part II: Dr. Malcolm Yarnell | Main | An Unapologetic Conservative for Environmentalism: It's Time to Wake Up »



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

Tim B


In fairness to Tom, I think he said that the association came up with some of the wording and so perhaps it was stricken or whatever committee was working on it chose not to use the word "repent." I am not sure why the word "repent" is necessary since the other other motion exhorts churches to change if they aren't being biblical in these areas. There are a few other differences in the two motions and maybe these are the sticking points and not the call to "repent."

Tim B


Tim B:

Thank you for the explanation.

Here are a couple of points I just realized that weaken my argument. What I thought of as the "slavery resolution" actually bears the title, "Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention". As such, it addresses not only the SBC perspective of slavery as a past sin but of racism as contemporary sin. Also, it was, according to the website as I just now looked it up, issued in 1995, which probably would qualify as "many years ago" now. Finally, I am at fault for not actually re-reading it before basing an opinion on it.

Though this weakens my argument, I believe the core part of my argument still stands, concerning the essence of the convention being the collective of its churches, and without some aspect of this idea, I fail to see how corporate repentance would have validity in any circumstance, especially in the resolution I incorrectly referred to as a "slavery" resolution. I will not argue the point further as I appreciate your explanation but continue to respectfully disagree.

Thanks for the further explanation concerning the prophetic versus the exhortative. That makes sense. And I agree that some will take the Ascol resolution as intending arrogance (though I believe they are incorrect in doing so).

peter lumpkins


Thanks for the thrilling anecdote. Actually, it is refreshing to hear from one who attempts to speak a positive word about the Church. I think you make a valid observation--at least as far as your Church is concerned...

Dr. Welty,

Unfortunately, I have not read the comment thread you mentioned--at least not your statements. I read it early on when Dr. Yarnell was logged on for a few.

As for your questions, I would no more think Timmy would lead us to literally "worship" at Calvin's feet any more than I think Wade literally "kicked sand on the trustees" or literally "poisoned my soup".

And, yes, I do think, from my reading, Founders ultimate goal is creedal Calvinism and is precisely what is involved in "reforming" churches.

As for "without debate", in my mind, that obviously referred to future not present circumstances. We presently "debate" Calvinism virtually everyday in some way, I suppose. Yet, supposing "reform" takes place, creedal Calvinism, from my perspective, will prohibit such dialog.


I've said about all I'm going to say about your contentless question. I've asked for substance but you've offered none. Only dislike of the statement.

Now, you suggest it "appears" I mentioned it to discredit. Would you suggest the same about Hansen? In addition, I mentioned above my admiration for Timmy's courage to stand on conscience even facing termination. But neither is that enough. I quit. Think as you wish...


I appreciate your comments about repentance...

Grace to all. With that, I am...


peter lumpkins


Please read my latest post. It may assist you. Especially the third from last which reads:

I affirm commenting on a post is a privilege; I deny commenting on a post is a right

Grace. With that, I am...



to the ones who answered my questions about tom ascol and the association in florida and his resolution not containing anything about repentance....thanks.

also, to those of you bringing up the repenting for slavery resolution...i voted for it. i still dont think that i had anything to repent of...i didnt own any slaves at the time, nor had i ever owned any slaves. but, i voted for it...if....as we were told...this would help us reach black folks with the gospel, and it would make black folks feel better about the sbc. i thought...well, if it does that, then i'll vote for it... even if i really didnt do anything to repent of.




I had to admit I was wrong, because the resolution was not solely about slavery like I had thought it was, but focused primarily on racial reconciliation.

I want to make a clarification on my views however. I do not believe that slavery as an institution is inherently sinful, as I cannot see that from the Scriptures. I do however detest it, and think it arises as a result of the fallen condition of mankind. I do not for a moment consider one "race" superior to another or any nonsense like that. I also agree with others I have read that believe that the basic principles of Christianity will and must naturally abolish slavery in any form it takes, including modern forms. Racial bigotry is not only based on myth, but is sinful. There is only one race: the human race.

Morris Brooks

Christ is the gospel, and without Christ there is no gospel...however, in Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." We also have Mark's version in 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel." The first word of Christ in His first public sermon after His time of temptation in the wilderness was repent. His call to believe in the gospel was tied to repentance, because without the change of mind man won't believe. In Acts 20:21 Paul summarized his own ministry to the Ephesians by saying he solemnly testified to both Jews an Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter's call in Acts has already been quoted.

The Gospel call to faith in Christ, who is the Gospel, begins with repentance, which is mostly ignored in most Gospel presentations.

I am not taking up for Timmy Brister, don't know much about him, but I am taking up for the Gospel, which Christ and his apostles preached.

Morris Brooks

peter lumpkins


Thanks for reminding us of the significance of repentance in the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles. Know, however, there is no need to "take up" for the Gospel here. I assure you, my Brother, the Gospel stands front and center.

Grace. With that, I am...


The comments to this entry are closed.