Founders on Dr. Malcolm Yarnell: "Dangerous to Biblical Christianity" by Peter Lumpkins

  When I attempted the blogging gig a few years ago, a few blogs were the obvious Kingpins.  Wade Burleson's ceaseless attacks on the IMB trustees was one of them.  In the beginning, like most who read but resist comment, I just loitered around in the background, observing what churned his butter. I finally logged on and churned mine.  Today, Burleson is out of the mainstream Southern Baptist commodity, his blog being thoroughly infested with anonymous wackos from Lord knows where.

Pioneer Baptist blogger, Marty Duren, was the strongest site, pulling in all "the big boys" for interaction on his thread.  Frankly, if the truth be told, most of miss Marty's provocative pieces, which inevitably drew some good--if spicy--interaction.  Alas, when SBCOutpost was farmed out to lessor stars, well...you know the rest.

And, there was Founders.  In many ways Founders was THE Kingpin Baptist blog.  Everybody knew not to mess with Founders.  Major hit men from Calvinists' network would quickly squash dissenters on their Big-Daddy site. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a Calvinist" may have been the unspoken feeling one received if unwarily logging on there--especially if one were a NonCalvinist like myself.

Those days are passed, however.  Just as Burleson hit rock bottom and Duren dedicated himself to missional pursuits, Founders no longer puts fear into the blogging community.  With their coating scratched...their agenda partly disclosed, now rather than just running smoothly along, getting away with promoting just about anything they desire while receiving a free pass from Southern Baptists, they're scrambling to make enough noise to regain their lost footing among Southern Baptists.

I have evidence.  Today demonstrates it.  Tom Ascol had this to say about one of Southern Baptists brightest theologians:

"Do you see what [Dr. Malcolm Yarnell] is asserting? If a person has not been baptized as a believer then that person is not saved, or at best, that person has no reason to hope that he or she is saved. Yarnell gives no room to the prospect that a brother or sister may be sincerely mistaken in their views of baptism and thus may fall short of complying with what is required, not out of rebellion or wilfull disobedience, but out of error.  That kind of narrow-mindedness strikes me as more than simple theological immaturity. It strikes me as dangerous to biblical Christianity" (link/embolden added).

For Ascol, he shifted from suggesting Baptist Identity possessed an inferior hermeneutic to boldly proclaiming Baptist Identity--with Dr. Yarnell as its "champion"--is so narrow-minded it becomes "dangerous to biblical Christianity."

My brothers and sisters, there is no call for war-mongering rhetoric such as this, and Founders has stepped completely over the line. 

A few months ago, Wade Burleson went on a ridiculously absurd rampage that some Southern Seminary professors were teaching heresy in their understanding of Christ's Eternal Sonship.  I showed from historical theology how Burleson's charge of heresy, if true, would indict most of our early, 19th century Southern Baptist writing theologians with heresy as well.

So far as I know, the only possible teaching purported as "biblical teaching" that also is "dangerous to biblical Christianity" is out and out heresy.  Hence, the charge to Baptist Identity broadly, but more significantly, the public charge to Dr. Yarnell specifically that his view is "dangerous to biblical Christianity," reduces in my mind to charging Dr. Yarnell with heresy. Thus, just as I defended Southern's professors from the ridiculous fabrication Burleson invented, I am no less passionate defending against the absurd notion that Dr. Malcolm Yarnell is "dangerous to biblical Christianity."

Ascol continually pounds the pulpit about unity, working together for the gospel's sake, reaching across the aisle offering his hand of cooperation, etc. etc., but necessarily one must query, in light of Ascol's present post, how such a gesture could be seriously taken when he's explicitly asserting "your view is dangerous to biblical Christianity."

My view is simple:  if it can be shown Dr. Yarnell embraces and holds to views dangerous to biblical Christianity, Dr. Yarnell needs to be immediately released from his duties at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Period.  No discussion.  He is unfit to teach in our institutions.  I'll make the motion myself in Louisville.

The fact is, it is not going to be shown.  Nor did Ascol show it to be.  Dr. Ascol committed again what I have pointed out repeatedly on several posts--he over-stretched in both language and conclusion;  that is, drawing unwarranted conclusions from weak premises.

This time, however, Dr. Ascol has gone too far.  Dr. Yarnell should receive a public apology from Ascol.  For whatever differences Ascol has with Yarnell's hermeneutic, it is wrong-headed, unwarranted, and flat-out bearing false witness against his brother to accuse Yarnell of holding views "dangerous to biblical Christianity"--or, in short, heresy.

With that, I am...
Peter    

Comments

[cb scott]

Peter,

Are you familiar with the difference between an "activist" and an "antagonist"?

An activist is a person dedicated to a cause. He seeks to change the thinking or behavior of a group. You may disagree with an activist, but it is evident they are committed to the substance of issues. They really care about the issue they are addressing. They seek change. They are issue-oriented and not person-oriented.

An antagonist is something else entirely. He gathers nonsubstantive evidence and goes out of his way to make insatiable demands for conformity to his personal idealism. He attacks the person or performance of others, especially leaders whom he feels he is better suited for their position of leadership than are they. The basis of an antagonist's attacks is always founded in selfishness. His goal is never really about betterment, but destruction which satisfies his own need for attention.

Peter, You have an uncanny ability at uncovering nests of antagonists. Be careful. They can be mean. But you already know that.

cb

[Rob Faircloth]

Peter,
Dr Yarnell did not merely suggest that baptism was important in the life of the believer. He insisted that one cannot "perform theological triage on the Lordship of Christ," and that, therefore, every single command of Christ -- baptism included -- is as important to salvation as the other. If one does not obey Christ, according to Yarnell, it is an indication that he is not saved. This smacks alarmingly of the type of thinking Paul confronted in Peter, when the obedience that secured salvation was circumcision.
Perhaps Dr Yarnell did not state his thoughts carefully enough. Perhaps he was misquoted. Perhaps Dr Ascol misunderstood. But it is not 'crossing the line' to sound the alarm about such teaching. We seem more concerned about how someone describes a statement than with the implications of that statement on the gospel.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

Let me say up front that I have not read Yarnell’s entire chapel message. Therefore, my ignorance of the broader context of this quote I am about to give can cause me to misinterpret him.

Accordingly, if there is something in the broader context that I need to be aware of, then I ask you to please point out what it is.

Yarnell says "Now, does that mean that baptism saves you? No! But if you are saved then you will obey and you will be baptized according to Christian baptism not according to something of your own invention."

If there is nothing in the broader context that I really need to be aware of to understand these statements rightly and if I may take them in the most straightforward manner, then his logic is pretty plain.

Yarnell does not say "if you are saved then you SHOULD obey and you SHOULD be baptized according to Christian baptism..."

Yarnell says "if you are saved then you WILL obey and you WILL be baptized according to Christian baptism..."

Yarnell is presenting a simple "if, then" statement. If saved, then will get baptized. To reverse it would be this--If you will get baptized, then you are saved [excluding, of course, that baptism is what saves].

Therefore, is it not a necessary implication from Yarnell's statement that "if one does not get baptized [i.e, immersed], then one is not saved"?

If so, then is it not a necessary implication from this that all those not immersed that are a part of the Presbyterian, Methodist, etc denominations are not saved according to Yarnell.

If my logic is flawed, then please [you or anyone else] show me. I am not calling Yarnell or his view any name.

Now, I also want to say that when we preach, we can sometimes overstate things in the midst of preaching. I am open to the idea that Yarnell may have done this. I can do it too.

I do not want to have some self-righteous attitude towards Yarnell. We all have clay feet. It's not like Yarnell was on some kind of committee that was putting together a confession of faith so that there was time to discuss and reflect.

He was preaching. And if Yarnell wants to explain that it was zeal that caused him to overstate his case, then that is an understandable explanation.

God Bless,

Benji

[wade burleson]

CB and Peter,

My hope and prayer for you both is that people will treat you with Christian love and grace. C.B. by your own confession to me, I know you understand what it means to be mean to others in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention, and I would not wish what you have done to others in the 1980's on anyone, including Peter. Likewise, Peter, I trust that the "wackos" you seem to fear will turn out to be simply Christian people who know how to disagree with you in Christian grace. I'm not sure what you men are seemingly afraid of, but I can assure you the Southern Baptist Convention is a better place because of challenges to the "Baptist Identity" movement, as seen in the challenge offered by men like Tom Ascol.

In His Grace,

Wade

[selahV]

Rob, I don't recall Jesus saying anything about circumcision in His last directive to, "Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you...". Perhaps that's why Paul confronted Peter. selahV

[Alan Cross]

Peter,

"We reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches." - Dr. Paige Patterson in explaining why SWBTS did not publish Dwight McKissic's chapel sermon in reference to private prayer language on August 29, 2006.

[selahV]

Wade, by cb's own admission he has said and done things in the past for which he has repented and is sorrowful for. I'm sure he wouldn't wish those things upon anyone now either. Personally, I wouldn't wish what you did when you published an accusatory, inflammatory and highly unnecessary post about Peter Lumpkins and his love of buttermilk and cornbread that sent the blogworld into a furor of hateful remarks and unfounded judgments against his character, either. At least CB has apologized. selahV

[Dave Miller]

Peter, first, I hope you will read my last comment and apology over at Impact.

As to this sermon, do they provide transcripts? I, like Benji above, wonder if there is some kind of context to this.

In the quotes that are listed there, Dr. Yarnell does seem to be saying that if you were not baptized by immersion, there is something fundamentally lacking in your salvation experience.

He seems to put the doctrine of salvation on the same level as other fundamental doctrines.

Are the quotes accurate?
Does Dr. Ascol accurately represent what Dr. Yarnell said?
Is there a context or explanation that gives light on this?

Because, if Dr. Yarnell meant what is said in these quotes, what he says would deeply disturb me.

[Dave Miller]

Above, that should have been:

He puts the doctrine of baptism on the same level...

[wade burleson]

SelahV, the staff of Cornerstone Baptist Church has expressed to me their appreciation for my defense of their pastor and the manner in which I challenged what I believed to be an inappropriate comment. The staff, unlike their pastor, took great offense at the remark and voiced their strong appreciation for what you call the "accusatory, inflammatory and highly unnecessary post." They themselves believed it necessary. But please know that I accept Peter's public admission that he meant no intentional harm by his remark - and so assign no motive to him - but remain steadfast in my belief that his comment was intemperate and unwise.

In His Grace,

Wade

[Brian]

I vote with Benji above. I don't know Yarnell or Ascol, but the logic presented here appears to be flawed.

I also like Benji's admonition that we all can be prone to overstatements and that we all have clay feet. Perhaps overstatement is specifically what we're dealing with here and not blatant error.

[peter lumpkins]

Rob,

Unfortunately, you completely ignored the main point of this post: did or did not Ascol accuse Yarnell--as champion of BI I might add--of embracing views "dangerous to biblical Christianity?"

Second, to read Yarnell embracing a kind of Campbellite understanding of baptism is, quite frankly, absurd.

Third, just because one does not embrace Dr. Mohler's "theological triage" speaks absolutely nothing for or against his position. I like Dr. Mohler. But Al Mohler does not define hermeneutics for Southern Baptists. In fact, he's spoke on more than one occasion that people tend to twist his "triage" for their own purposes.

Fourth, and contrary to your assertion that it's "not 'crossing the line' to sound the alarm" about Dr. Yarnell, it most certainly is. Ascol continues to call for peace, reaching across the aisle, working together, etc. to the very one he accuses of being "dangerous to biblical Christianity."

If this duplicitous nature does not cease, there will be no peace--at least not as far as cooperating with Founders is concerned.

And, I stand to be corrected, but I honestly believe most SB who've had no dog in this fight thus far, who've perhaps just lately been introduced to Founders and its agenda, will note the curious belligerence oozing from public debacles like the present one with Tom Ascol charging a major SBC theologian with espousing views not unhealthy for Southern Baptists, not being inconsistent in his theology, not making a category mistake in interpretation, not embracing a traditional Baptist view, not wound too tight into Baptist Identity, not being too denominationally loyal...NO..None of these were Ascol's concern.

Instead Founders broadsides Yarnell as being dangerous to biblical Christianity, pitching him into the pot with a host of unbelievers:

--Charles Darwin was dangerous to biblical Christianity.

--Sigmund Freud was dangerous to biblical Christianity.

--Friedrich Nietzsche was dangerous to biblical Christianity.

--Friedrich Schleiermacher was dangerous to biblical Christianity.

--Julius Wellhausen was dangerous to biblical Christianity.

--Adolf von Harnack was dangerous to biblical Christianity.

--John Shelby Spong is dangerous to biblical Christianity.

--Marcus Borg is dangerous to biblical Christianity.

So, shall we add to the list, Rob, according to Founders:

--Malcolm Yarnell is dangerous to biblical Christianity.

In closing, with you I am "concerned about how someone describes a statement" and its "implications of that statement on the gospel."

Yet, I am also doggone concerned about how someone presumptuously describes a statement, and, without warrant, impugns someone's position as being dangerous to biblical Christianity, assigning them a place in the dungeon of deviant enemies against our faith.

With that, I am...
Peter

[selahV]

Wade, and I remain steadfast in my belief that your post about his comment was not only intemperate, unwise, but "accusatory, inflammatory and highly unnecessary" and I might add, divisive. selahV

[Dave Miller]

To be precise, Peter, Ascol did not say that Malcolm Yarnell was dangerous, but this narrow-minded view is dangerous.

If Dr. Yarnell was actually intending to say what the quote seems to indicate he was saying, then I would be disturbed by what he says as well.

I am listening to the sermon now.

[Alan Cross]

My comment at 11:12 am was meant to show that Dr. Patterson said a very similar thing about what Dwight McKissic shared at SWBTS' chapel in saying that he was promoting doctine that was harmful to the churches. I never heard him apologize for that nor do I recall Peter calling for one. But, that was over two years ago and my memory might be kind of fuzzy on that.

My point is that it is likely that Dr. Yarnell overstated his position, just as it is likely that Dr. Patterson overstated his - just as it is likely that Tom Ascol did the same thing. But, if Ascol was responding to Yarnell's overstatement, then perhaps some grace could be given him and maybe this will cause Dr. Yarnell to clarify what is a very confusing statement that he has made? In fairness to Dr. Yarnell, I am not of the opinion that he believes this directly. That is because I questioned him on this issue for a week in December. But, his position does cause the mind to spin a bit trying to piece it all together and not jump to dangerous conclusions.

Maybe some grace is needed all around. There seems to be little of it these days.

[volfan007]

Peter,

Is it not ironic that on of the most divisive, agenda driven groups in the SBC would say this inflammatory, mean remark about Dr. Yarnell? I mean, the Founders crowd has been causing division for years with their we're more spiritual and smarter than you thinking and rhetoric. They've been trying to convert the SBC for years to aggressive, extreme Calvinism. And now, they act like they want to join the GRC with the man who coined the phrase "Aggressive Calvinists" to describe them? And, they want to throw a mainstream, Baptist theologian like Dr. Yarnell under the bus with their meanspirited statements? Incredible.

What I got from Dr. Yarnell was that he didnt accept the triage theory because it's important to obey the Lord in all that He commands...that you cant regulate some commands to some inferior position. Now, I tend to agree with Dr. Mohler. There are, of course, essential doctrines of the faith....things we must believe to be saved. And, there are secondary doctrines...things that are clearly spelled out in Scripture...things that should be believed in order to believe right and to practice Church right, but I would still consider those who dont as Brothers and Sisters in Christ. And then, there are tertiary doctrines...doctrines that are not clearly spelled out in the Bible...things that we can disagree about all day long, and they shouldnt divide us.

I think that you will find that Dr. Yarnell considers truly born again Methodists as fellow Christians. He just thinks that putting doctrines into a triage system cheapens some of the commands in people's minds.

Disclaimer: I'm not Dr. Yarnell. I cant read his mind. He is much, much smarter than me. So, I hope that I represented him well in here.

David

[Tim B]

It seems that Baptism was important to Jesus. In fact, it was important enough for Jesus to connect directly to discipleship in Matthew 28. In light of Jesus' clear command that disciples be baptized can a person rightly consider himself to be a follower if he refuses the clear command of their Lord? I think not. Can one be saved but not a disciple? Some apparently think so. I suspect reaction of some to this concept is when we start defining what constitutes proper baptism and whether someone may be sincerely wrong about mode and timing of baptism and still be saved. Many Baptists of past generations took the Lord's command so seriously that they were willing to endure persecution and even death to make sure they carefully obeyed the Lord's command.

Tim B

[Chris Faro]

Peter,
I find it interesting that you are yourself doing the very thing that you are accusing Tom Ascol of doing. You have accused Tom Ascol of saying that Dr. Yarnell is "dangerous to Biblical Christianity" and yet he did not say that. He said "That kind of narrow-mindedness strikes me as more than simple theological immaturity. It strikes me as dangerous to biblical Christianity."
You have mixed his words to say that he accused Dr. Yarnell of being dangerous and then you extended it further to say that he was accusing Dr. Yarnell of heresy, which was nowhere in his words. It sounds like you might want to listen to your own assesment of what it means to have "over-stretched in both language and conclusion; that is, drawing unwarranted conclusions from weak premises."
I know Tom Ascol to be a man who has a heart for the Gospel, the truth of God's Word, and for the church. The obsession that you and several other bloggers seem to have with attacking Tom Ascol and others associated with Founders is amazing to me. It would appear to me that if you expect Tom Ascol to apologize to Dr. Yarnell for not doing what you accused him of, then I would expect that you would first apologize to Tom Ascol for your doing exactly what you accused him of.

[Dave Miller]

I am, as I said above, listening to this sermon now.

It is an absolutely powerful exposition of Matthew 7:21-23 and the lordship of Christ. Every person who comments here should listen to the sermon.

However, that does not change the fact that there are a few statements in the sermon that I find disturbing.

I only point out that the sermon is powerful and wonderful. The controversial points are mostly applications of his positions. in the context of a wonderful exposition, he says some controversial things on which I think reasonable people can disagree.

[selahV]

Dave, I wonder. On any given Sunday, in any given church, in any given pulpit, could we not find a few statements in a sermon someone might find disturbing? I like Alan's thoughts on grace, however it seems so foreign to some of the greatest proponents of the DoG to muster up some to bestow on one's admitted opponents. And isn't that exactly what Jesus did when He suffered at Calvary? "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do."

I use to go to Founders when I was trying to understand the DoG and found that grace was lacking in responses to my questions. I found far more grace from reformed believers outside the Founder's site. And have multiple friends now who are eager to explain a particular portion of what they believe when I have a question.

This continual battering against those who hold to a Baptist heritage is wearisome. selahV

[selahV]

Tim B., I was thinking the very same thing about baptism and even started working on a post about that very idea. So glad you brought that up. Like I said above, "circumcision" wasn't in the directive in Matthew when Jesus rose to join His Father above.

However, I think this is far afield from the point of Peter's post. He's only addressing the pronouncement upon Dr. Yarnell's thinking. And that, Ascol holds a bit "dangerous to Biblical Christianity". How one separates Yarnell's thinking from Yarnell himself baffles me. A bit like separating what "is" is. selahV

[Dave Miller]

SelahV,

I agree with the gist of your statement, but I would also point something else out.

Your last statement "those who hold to a Baptist heritage" is the tip of the spear.

I believe that I hold to a Baptist heritage. But it seems often that those of us who do not hold to Dr. Yarnell's (or BI, or whatever other term you want to use to describe it) view are presented as NOT holding to Baptist heritage.

It is the idea that there is only one view of Baptist heritage that troubles some of us.

I am afraid you are very right in your second paragraph. We all tend to respond with a lack of grace to those who stand in opposition to us. It is a constant struggle.

[Benji Ramsaur]

"In light of Jesus' clear command that disciples be baptized can a person rightly consider himself to be a follower if he refuses the clear command of their Lord? I think not. Can one be saved but not a disciple? Some apparently think so."

As one who has worked on staff at a PCA church, may I say loud and clear that a nonimmersed person can rightly consider himself to be a follower and thus saved in the light of Jesus' clear Great Commission.

My view is that it is a mere tradition of men--covenant theology--that causes some to misinterpret the great commission. You cannot just look at believers in the PCA, for example, with your own theological framework and wonder how they "don't get it".

You have to look through the lens of their own theological framework to see how they come to the conclusions that they come to.

Covenant theology is an erroneous theology that leads one to erroneous conclusions in my opinion.

It's not as bad in some Baptist theology as it is in Presbyterian theology, but it is bad, I think, nevertheless.

If you don't try to understand how they come to the conclusions that they come to by looking through their lens then I think you can be overly harsh with them.

When I accepted New Covenant Theology it sealed the deal for me to never be able to go back to the Presbyterian fold.

I even rejected allowing my two children, at the time, to be "sprinkled" while I worked on staff at the PCA church.

I am wide open in my R E J E C T I O N of covenant theology [no matter the form] and thus my rejection of "covenant" infant baptism. However, to imply that nonimmersed Presbyterians are not disciples/saved is going WAY TOO FAR!!!!!

I still have "Christian" friends [some of whom were the former youth I personally ministered to] from the PCA church I once worked at.

They WILL be in glory!

God Bless,

Benji

P.S. You must look through the lens.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I thank you for the comments. Some are very good; some are very funny. I promise I'll get back sometime this evening.

Play nice,

With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris Poe]

After listening to Dr. Yarnell's message, I agree that it is a powerful message on the Lordship of Christ as well as looking to some purported golden age in church history and seeking to conform to that, as so many do.

When taken out of context, a few of the passages can come off as troubling when viewed in isolation. But it seems to me that it needs to be seen in it is proper context. The key point to me was his emphasis about halfway through of KNOWINGLY going against what Jesus commands.

I also find it ironic that Dr. Yarnell is essentially being accused of believing you cannot be a disciple unless you're a Baptist. Yet he references non-Baptists several times in the message.

However it seems that some are so eager to pursue an agenda that they are unwilling to hear their brothers in the best possible light. If Dr. Ascol's post isn't an "event that widened the divide" then I don't know what is.

[Chris Poe]

In post 26, in the first sentence I should have typed "Warning against looking to some purported golden age in church history and seeking to conform to that, as so many do."

[selahV]

Dave, Okay, I'll qualify that, "those who hold to the Baptist heritage" as that which others think they shouldn't hold to as Baptist heritage. It's semantics and the reason many are discussing the things in the BF&M as germane to our heritage. (at least that's what I'm getting from it all)

Peter, as I have understood his writing, has forever held to the fact that the Calvinists have a place in the SBC and the history of Baptists. (Correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding, Peter) But because Peter no longer holds to the exact teachings of the DoG as Founders holds to it (i.e, that the SBC should all be DoG or not considered genuine regenerated believers or even Baptist), then the BI (as it's been labeled by others in opposition to a few)is somehow the adversary towards the DoG in general and the Calvinists in specifics. That seems to be what I see as the big you vs. them in the SBC. I may be wrong. But that is how I view the discussions and that is how several of my readers see it. I like Christians. I love Christians. Whether they are Calvinists, reformed, un-reformed, ill-informed, non-Calvinists or Armenians. Seems the greater divide is that those who espouse "bridge-building" always seem to be blowing them up as soon as one is built. And that is wearisome to me.

[Dave Miller]

Peter, I listened to the sermon and wrote a review of it. I would love to invite you to read it. However (and I think I can appeal to your understanding on this - neither of us is known for conciseness, are we?) it became a little lengthy.

So, rather than leaving a ponderously long comment on your site, I am posting it on my blog.

I have called in "Thorns on a Rose" and would invite your perusal.

[cb scott]

Wade,

Do you remember saying over at Bart's place:

"I know you don't hate me. I also know that you don't know me, nor have you hardly spent any time with me. That's the point I was making."

Well thanks Wade for verifying the fact that we do know each other when you say:

"C.B. by your own confession to me, I know you understand what it means to be mean to others in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention, and I would not wish what you have done to others in the 1980's on anyone, including Peter.

So what is it, Wade, do we know each other or not? Have we spent time together?

I will answer for you Wade. We do know each other. We have spent time together. We have talked about many things SBC.

Now, as far as "confessing" anything to you; you make that sound like we were all alone and I was making confession to you. Wade, we both know that is not really a true statement is it? Did I talk about mistakes and mean things I had made and done back in the day? Absolutely. Were you there when I said those things? Absolutely. But so were several other guys.

And it was no "confession" Wade. It was just a statement of fact to far more than one person in a group.

And, it is because I know you, Wade, that I call you an antagonist. You are no activist. All the activists have left your side, sickened by your antagonism toward so many things SBC.

You are the very definition of an antagonist just as I described above. You have presented some valid points, but your goal is not repair of anything. You are never really constructive in your criticism toward SBC entities or personalities. Your ambition is to control something that is bigger than you. Your need for attention drives you no matter the cost to others. You are self-serving. You will pick some side of a valid issue and pretend it is what you are fighting for, but it is not.

You present arguments based on some little or grossly misrepresented evidence. Some people call what you do "pettifogging." You tend to provide "strong evidence" for irrelevant points. You tend to exaggerate your chosen "oppositions" positions on things to make your case. And you are really good at making assertions that cannot be disproved and then claiming that the inability to disprove what you say make your claims true.

I can give examples Wade, but I figure you already know them and so does everybody else who really knows what is going on in the SBC.

Wade, it did not take me long to see this about you. And if you look around; so did several others. They are not around anymore either are they?

Now, I can go on with this if you like Wade. But the truth is that you are right about me. I have done some mean things. I have had to deal with that. And my desire is not to become mean here. I have no desire to be mean to you, but I will not fail to call your hand in your own meanness. But you need to do the same. You need to stop doing mean things veiled as concern for the needs of others and feeding it to the uninformed in what has been called that "irenic" spirit of nurture and love.

You can fool all the Wild Geese Wade, but you cannot fool those who know the truth. And you haven't.

cb

[Robin Foster]

Peter

I hope you allow me to plug a new post that is being offered at SBCToday concerning some of the issues that have been brought up. It is a collaborative effort between Dr. Yarnell and me. I hope your readers will pay us a visit and read this document.

Thanks

[Debbie Kaufman]

Those "wackos" have disagreed with more grace than here or others who think as you do. This is where I am almost ashamed to be a Southern Baptist. I'll never be ashamed to be a Christian woman.

[Debbie Kaufman]

BTW give me more of the so labeled "wackos" any day of the week. Christ hasn't excluded them, nor will He.

[volfan007]

Debbie,

Every time I've been to the wild goose farm, I've been called everything from pudgy to ugly to mean to an idiot. In fact, that's about the only place...the wild goose farm...that I'm treated so bad. Grace? Hardly. If that's being treated with grace, then give me mean people.

David

[Debbie Kaufman]

CB: I disagree. The activists haven't left. They are still active, they just know that trying to dialogue with you, Peter, others, is fruitless. But believe me they are there. You just don't hear or see them anymore. It's more behind the scenes that they are working. I believe strongly that your view, Peter's etc. are in the minority. You may carry a big stick, yell, stomp, scream, so as to make it look as if you are minority, but believe me having spoken to many Southern Baptists, I don't believe you are. OK I'm done now. :)

[Alan Cross]

Nice paper, Robin. It would be wonderful to have a place to discuss it, like maybe a blog or something. :) By the way, I'm still thinking through the questions that I raised over at my place. Thanks for engaging with me. I really am trying to see the whole picture there and the unity in Christ issue was a new twist for me.

CB,

You were pretty hard on Jeremy Green for not allowing comments on his blog. What do you think about the SBCToday guys shutting down comments?

[Alan Cross]

Interesting quote, Wally. I think that I remember when Malcolm said that. Or, it is at least familiar to me. Would you mind posting the link to where you found that?

2 of the 3 ways that Great Commission Christians fall short according to Dr. Yarnell stand out specifically to me:

2) "They do not follow the order of the Great Commission. Specifically, many of them place baptism prior to the making of disciples."

I think that Dr. Yarnell is trying to say that groups that place baptism prior to CONVERSION (like paedobaptists) are not GCC's. If he is saying that groups that place baptism prior to the person becoming s DISCPLE, or full-blown follower of Christ, are not GCC's, the he would have to eliminate most Baptists who baptize soon after conversion.

3) "They do not emphasize the faith delivered by our Lord, but add other requirements."

I guess that "other requirements" is in the eye of the beholder. Those groups that are eliminated from being GCC's, by and large, do not add other requirements besides faith to salvation. They might add other requirements to sanctification and fall into a works-righteousness error.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Robin,

The quotes are yours and Malcom's.

"We must correlate baptism with the covenanted church, because this is the witness of the Lord and His apostles regarding the Christian’s conscience (Matt. 18:18-20; Acts 2:41; 1 Pet. 3:21)."

It cannot be proven that every single case of baptism in the N.T. was correlated with the covenanted church. That would have to be "read into" the text.

"Moreover, once a truth is obtained, we are under spiritual conviction that we may not let it go and slip away from His Lordship in an effort to 'widen the tent.'”

Malcom, you don't have to stay in the SBC to practice your convictions. You could go elsewhere so that you do not take the dollars of open communion SB's, for example, who might want to do missions through the IMB that you desire to see shut out.

"Because the Lord has given us these truths, we may not suppress these truths, even in the name of Christian unity."

Christian unity is doctrinal truth in the N.T.

"It would be a sin against our conscience and the light that God has
shed upon His Word for us to dishonor Christ for the sake of unity in Christ, for there can be no true unity apart from the Lordship of Jesus in His churches."

Guys, I understand your perspective, but no one is making you stay in the SBC.

[cb scott]

Debbie,

How's the family?

How about those Sooners? Will you guys be ready next season?

cb

[Robin Foster]

Alan

Allow me to answer CB for you.

He probably thinks we are a bunch of yellow bellied, pinko commie, wussies.

:-)

[cb scott]

Alan,

Fair question.

I think I said something to Tim Rogers like:

"Now you guys have thrown me under the bus. You have made me the homeless BI guy. That's just great, Tim. And tell Wes he makes an ugly video." I also told him:

"My picture looks much better than John's or Bart's. They are both ugly even with red ties on."

Alan, I think that is pretty much what I said.

Alan, I read your post just a little while ago. I think you should pay much heed to what Robin has said in the comment thread.

cb

[Robin Foster]

Benji

No one is making you stay either, that is if you already belong. At least Dr. Yarnell and I are arguing from the standpoint of affirming our confession of faith in its entirety without caveats. Do you affirm it in its entirety?

[cb scott]

Benji,

Robin has asked you a fair question. I trust you will answer it. You always seem to be a stand-up guy and straight forward in your positions.

cb

[Debbie Kaufman]

david: I would never call you those names, and I have kept pretty close track of the comments in the again labeled blog you have mentioned and I have never read those names call you. I may have missed them, so I would be glad to have them pointed out to me specifically with a link. If anyone has called you those names, they are wrong to have done so, in fact they have sinned in doing so. I would say the same thing to them as I have said here. Discussion cannot be had when meanness is a part of that conversation.

CB: Being condescending to me will not hamper the fact that I do have a brain, as well as eyes, ears, and a mouth, even though I am a woman. Does that surprise you? and will continue to use them against those things I see as damaging, especially to the people of Christ. So, try and downplay my intelligence. But I believe I am right on target. Been there and done that too many times.

[Alan Cross]

Robin,

If CB did call you guys that, I'd have to disagree with him. There's no way that you guys are communists. :)

CB,

I have given great thought to what Robin said to me in the comment thread. I understand his point about obeying the Lord's commands. I agree that we should do so. We had baptism AND communion last week and I preached a 15 minute sermon before baptism and a 20 minute sermon before communion imploring my hearers to obey the Lord and His commands. We baptized 4 on Sunday and it took us around 40 minutes to do so as I proclaimed the gospel from the waters and the church spoke words of encouragement and affirmation to each of those being baptized. We take all of this very seriously.

My problem is that I am not seeing a specific tie in Scripture requiring those with a differing view of baptism to be kept from the Lord's Table if they have confessed faith in Christ. It is because of my desire to obey the Lord that I am asking these questions, not because I am wanting to compromise. Again, though, I am still asking questions about this. I'd love to talk with you about it sometime.

[Benji Ramsaur]

I absolutely do not affirm [along with B.H. Carrol] the BF&M 2000 in its entirety.

The mega difference between someone like Yarnell and myself, as I see it, is that he is allowing the [non close/closed communion] masses to pay for his paycheck while seeking to keep any of those same masses--who might want to go on the mission field through the IMB now--shut out whereas I receive no such paycheck.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Robin,

It was a fair question.

C.B.,

I do sincerely appreciate the compliment.

[Robin Foster]

Benji

What would Carroll disagree with? Be careful, you are speaking on behalf of a person already with the Lord.

BTW, when the BF&M allows for full open communion, I trust that Dr Yarnell will refuse to sign it and move on. He is a man of integrity and will not accept money from a convention that differs with him on that point.

But I guess that you would want him to ignore the confession he is expected to uphold and make allowances for those who disagree. That is called a lack of accountability and that is where we were in 1979.

Thank God people like Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, and Jerry Vines (among others) did not leave. Because we are continually in a battle against the forces of ecumenism, people like Dr Yarnell, Bart Barber, Peter Lumpkins, or me will not leave until the convention makes a declarative statement that is is moving in an ecumenical direction. So, until that time (if it ever happens) we are here to uphold what Southern Baptists claim to believe.

[cb scott]

Benji,

You have given a fair answer and I thank you.

Now, let me say, in support of what Robin has said; If Dr. Malcolm Yarnell ever does come to the place wherein he says he must, for conscience sake, make it known he is no longer able to affirm the BF&M in its current rendering as approved by the SBC he should resign.

In doing so he will retain his personal integrity as a Believer. He does not have to be a Southern Baptist to maintain his integrity as a Christian. He does not have to affirm the BF&M to have integrity as a Believer. He does have to maintain his integrity to maintain a proper fellowship with the Lord of his life, Jesus Christ. That is far more important than being an employee of the SBC.

Benji, No one should be able to serve the SBC in a ministry position or as a trustee and sign the BF&M with caveat/caveats. No trustee board of any entity should allow any person to serve the SBC in a ministry position who cannot sign the BF&M without caveat.

Of course, that is only my opinion.

Benji, you again answered as a man of integrity and I respect you greatly for it.

cb

[Benji Ramsaur]

Robin and C.B.,

I'll try to be concise.

The formal [i.e, the approved BF&M and its implications] is in your favor.

The informal [i.e., the SB majority] is on my side in my opinion.

I think the informal should make their voice formalized. Not shutting out those who believe in close/closed communion, but opening up the doors for those amongst themselves who might want to do missions through the IMB.

Also, while I do not want to go into the details, let me say this. I strongly believe in New Covenant Theology. Whoever I may influence to believe in that theology would want to personally follow the "order" of the Great Commission.

I might not be as great of a "threat" as you might have thought.

God Bless,

Benji

[Benji Ramsaur]

Robin,

Here you go. I believe the contrast is clear.

BF&M 2000 “The Holy Spirit…He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ”

B.H. Carroll–”Suppose we take the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians. If you want to get muddled you should read what the commentators say on the subject. What is it? It reads in the King James Version this way: ‘By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.’ It reads in the new version, ‘In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.’ Notice the difference in the two renderings. The King James Version makes the Holy Spirit the administrator, ‘By one Spirit.’ THE HOLY SPIRIT NEVER ADMINISTERS BAPTISM. He is the element, not the administrator.” (Emphasis mine–”The Holy Spirit”; Pg. 29 from AGES software)