"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

The Antioch Network of Churches; March 4, 2007

Introductions were made this morning during the 8:30 a.m. session this morning. It was interesting to hear the background of the men and women present at this Antioch Netwrok fellowship. The senior pastor of the largest multi-racial congregation in Arkansas sat beside me and spoke from the heart about his excitement of being in a multi-racial meeting of pastors. Across the room the pastor of a large evangelical church in Kansas City shared about his vision for a network of churches that would work together across economic divides. A small church Southern Baptist pastor from northeast Oklahoma spoke of the move across the country to establish networks of churches that operate in ministry without centralized structure or authority. A Southern Baptist couple, with six degrees from Southwestern Theological Seminary between them, and who co-pastor a large 'Cowboy Church' spoke of the excitement of being involved in a network of churches that was not afraid of spiritual gifts or genuine revival. Two men with Ph.D's in church history and theology respectively spoke of their pleasure of being exposed to evangelicals with different backgrounds.

Paul Littleton was the first speaker this morning. I realize that I am prone to superlatives and have to guard myself against exaggeration in writing. With that awareness, I honestly believe every evangelical Christian who is a member of a denomination or convention could read or hear Paul's presentation. It was understated in emotional presentation but one of the most powerful statements on the modern church I have ever heard. I encourage you to go to Paul Littleton's blog and read his paper.

As promised, the revised and adopted Antioch Network of Churches Doctrinal Confession and Statement of Cooperation is below. Changes are in bold italics

An Antioch Network of Churches Doctrinal Confession and Statement of Cooperation



The gospel is the story about Christ, God’s and David’s Son, who died and was raised and is established as Lord. Churches forming the Antioch Network desire to join together to proclaim the good news that God's Kingdom has come in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Lord and Messiah, in fulfillment of the Word of God.

The gospel we declare evokes faith, repentance and discipleship --- its accompanying effects include the forgiveness of sins, justification, reconciliation, adoption, wisdom and the gift of the Holy Spirit. We accompany our proclamation of the gospel with cooperative works of compassion and mercy for those in need or distress.

We strive to advance Christ’s kingdom on earth with the confession, proclamation, and application of the good news. The Bible is undoubtedly central to our cooperation, but Jesus Christ is the center of it. Therefore, we resolve to cooperate with one another, affirming the essentials of the gospel and our identity as Christ followers in these five doctrines:

(1). We affirm the authority, sufficiency, reliability and consistency of God’s infallible revelation to man in both the Words of Holy Scripture and the Person of Jesus Christ
(2) We affirm that the one true God exists eternally in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these, being one God, are equal in deity, power, and glory. Furthermore, we affirm both the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ.
(3). We affirm Christ’s virgin birth, His substitutionary death for sinners, His resurrection from the dead, His second coming, and His gift of eternal life to all who are in relationship with Him by grace through faith alone.
(4). We affirm that God has ordained the gospel message by His proclamation of the gospel message by His people in the power of the Holy Spirit, who is both the gift of God to the church and the giver of diverse spiritual gifts. We also affirm baptism as the public testimony for those who have come into covenant relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
(5). We affirm that those apart from a relationship with Christ will face God’s judgment.

The sole authority for faith and practice among the Antioch Network of Churches is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Doctrinal confessions, including this one, are only guides to interpreting the Bible, and have no authority over the conscience. Christians have historically differed in interpretation on finer points of doctrine not essential to Christian faith. Yet, with all our differences on secondary issues, we who form the Antioch Network of Churches desire to cooperate in ministry because of our love for the gospel.

Therefore, we intentionally put aside our differences on secondary issues for the sake of cooperative gospel ministry. We desire unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, but charity in all things. This statement of cooperation defines the necessary essentials which must be affirmed in order to participate in the cooperative ministries and fellowship of the Antioch Network of Churches.

We desire to send to the world and our evangelical brethren through this statement of cooperation a sure and certain message: It is the gospel that unites us, and what unites us is greater than anything that might potentially divide us.

The Statement of Cooperation is simply background on the doctrinal confession, and is not considered doctrine itself. In addition to this statement, the group issued an additional statement that defined Antioch as a network and not a denomination or convention.

The group officially adopted the name The Antioch Network of Churches and a leadership team of twelve was elected. Over the next several months the network will evolve as the Lord leads. Our church and - I myself as pastor - will remain committed to the Southern Baptist Convention both financially and in full participation in missions and evangelism. I look forward to being a part of an additional network of churches - broader than just the Southern Baptist Convention - that will work toward the expansion of the kingdom of Christ.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

136 comments:

ml said...

Wade, Interestingly, we could say that this network fits squarely into the fundamental[ist]s camp :)

1. Affirms the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible--I know y'all didnt use the word but it is real close
2. the deity and virgin birth of Christ
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ.

Fracis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 73-4.
Actually yall have gone further than Schaeffers original list to include Holy Spirit talk and trinitarian concepts. You all might even be more fundamental. HeHe.

I am glad to see that this statement is at least a little more meaty along these lines.

Anonymous said...

I think you ought to call your network the Pergamos Network, since every body of doctrine goes. I mean come on... a couple as "co-pastors"... sad.

I thought so-called secondary and tertiery issues were not that important? Well... somehow this statement made it into the list of the 5 most important doctrines... "and the giver of diverse spiritual gifts."

Disappointed... Joe W.

stearnsybears said...

The comments by ML and Joe W. brings to my mind those who were more interested in tithing mint and cummin than the weightier matters of mercy and love of God.

Charles

Anonymous said...

I would still like an answer to an early question of mine. How will the uniqueness and perseverance of salvation (as opposed to apostasy taught in more Pentecostal and AG churches) be responded to when a church and/or pastor who believes in apostasy wants to affiliate?

Amy

K. Michael Crowder said...

I am so happy to now have a better understanding of what this "Network which is not a Denomination or Convention" is.

It is the new ‘One World Religion.’ Allow me to explain. The following Denominations, Conventions, Associations, Networks, and Fellowships (all the same thing nowadays) would be able to accept and affirm this statement (in general terms) as a bare minimum--simply worded poorly:

SBC
All other Baptists
Lutherans
Methodists
Presbyterians
Non/Trans-denominations
Pentecostal/Charismatics
Holiness/Faith/WOF churches
Reformed and Bible Churches
RLDS
Catholics of all stripes (a tiny variance would need to be made here as to the full implied meaning of the word "sole."

So you see. What on earth is the point? Could it be? 1 Tim 4:1 Surely not…


It is not the folks in the SBC who are being divisive. Mr. Burleson and Mr. McKissic: You have just driven a deep wedge in the Convention. It would be better for you both to withdraw completely than to have one leg in the Kingdom and the other in hell. For that is what a mixture of the above churches would look like. Oh how the god of this world is rejoicing.

K

truth, not religion said...

One really nice, Godly response and the second response is screeching and snarling.

No one is surprised.

Wade, God Bless you all as you endeavor to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

1Ch 16:22 Saying, Touch not mine anointed,

Psa 105:15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed,

1Th 4:9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.

Then there is the thought/verse "if it is not from God it will fail, If it is from God, it will stand"

You screechers remember that if this is from God, then you will be "kicking against the pricks".

Pretty risky to kick.

grace
wtreat

Anonymous said...

I am not kicking... I am crying...

Isa 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

Still Disappointed... Joe W.

truth, not religion said...

OK, I just want to know, could KMC stand for KICKING MANY CHRISTIANS?!

OR KILLING MANY CONVERTS:

OR KILLING MESSIANIC CHARGES:

OR ????????????

I say all that in humor but it is really sad that so many only post here to be nasty and ungodly.

What these arrogant, hateful people are doing is hurting the Kingdom of the One that died for you.

If a non Christian was reading some of these post, what would they think.

If I took all of your post and showed them to a pulpit committee, or your deacons, I wonder how they would react.

Lighten up, your attitudes and opinions do not run the world any more than mine.

The difference between "run" and ruin" is the "I"

I don't want to be a stumbling block to the gospel. do you??

According to God's Word, there is no uncertain sound. Only people following God.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE YOU, ME, OR ANYONE EXCEPT GOD.

WE DO NOT STAND BETWEEN THEM AND GOD
wtreat

Tim Guthrie said...

Wade,
Is Baptism that is acceptable to be done by immersion or?????

That seems odd to me that it was not clarified.

Steve said...

This Antioch Network definitely sounds like it will push forward the cause of Christ in reaching the lost. May it be energized and blessed.

I continue to be amazed at how angry, self-absorbed, and - well, lost-sounding - some people can be when they spout off here out of their own frustrations and lack of understanding. I do feel sorry for those who are counting on some of these respondents to be their source of teaching and spiritual giudance.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

I am not counting on anyone to be my source of teaching or spiritual guidance. Simply asked a question that I would like answered. I think it is an important question, as it relates to issues of soteriology. Don't you?

Amy

truth, not religion said...

Steve, I just looked at your blog.

great stuff! amen on Dorcas.

In His Service
wtreat

landmarker said...

Joe W.,

Do you deny that the Holy Spirit is the giver of "diverse spiritual gifts"? I find it hard to believe you would do so -- have you not read 1 Cor. 12? And if you acknowledge that the Spirit does indeed give diverse gifts -- teaching, mercy, prophecy/preaching, among others -- what is your problem with the statement?

K. Michael Crowder,

How does one "have one leg in the Kingdom and the other in hell" by affirming this statement? More to the point, which of the denominations listed do you consider to be "in hell", since that is the logical conclusion of your statement? Finally, could you please articulate for us your theology of salvation? I suspect you do not hold to salvation by grace alone through faith alone, for if you did, you would not declare the denominations you listed to be "in hell". Perhaps you need to clarify your thought.

Anonymous said...

Steve... I am not angry, just disppointed. I am disappointed that men of God have turned to the ways of politicians. The politician says... "Personally, I am against abortion, but who am I to deny a woman here right to choose?" The politician says... "Personally, I am against gay marriage, but who am I to dictate what someone can and can't do?"

Now... we have men of God saying the same thing. Personally, I am a complementarian, but who am I to say a woman shouldn't pastor? Personally, I don't believe in or practice tongues, but who am I to judge another's practices? Personally, I believe in believer's baptism by immersion, but who am I to judge another "believer"?

Well... I thought it was the man of God's job to preach and teach what the Bible says and what he believes. If you can't fight for what you believe in; shut your Bible, shut your mouth, and sit down.

I am sorry if that sounds angry to you... but in reality it is just disappointment.

Anonymous said...

Sorry... I meant to sign the above post. Don't want the anonymous police to get me.

Still Sadly Disappointed... Joe W.

WTJeff said...

A man died and went to heaven and was escorted through the heavenly realms by non other than the apostle Peter. Peter showed all the glory of heaven. Then he took him to an area that had several groups of people. One group looked rather solemn but happy. "Who are they", the man asked. "Those are baptist", Peter replied, "they like to get together and talk occasionally." The man noticed another group that was very loud and boisterous. Before he could ask, Peter replied, "Those are charismatics. They like to get together and have a good time!" Then the man noticed a group all alone, separated from the other groups far enough that they were barely visible. "Who are they", the man asked. "Shhh" Peter replied, "That's KMC and his bunch. They think they're the only ones here."

Sorry....old joke, but couldn't resist.

Jeff

Tom Parker said...

Joe W:

You believe the Bible does not allow women preachers. That is fine with me, I would not break fellowship with you. Some believe the Bible allows women to preach. That is not fine with you. I believe they would fight for what they believe, but your words--"shut your Bible, shut your mouth, and sit down." What a shame!!

K. Michael Crowder said...

what is a thought/verse???


Is that something like what you "thought" should be in the "verse?"


I am with
"Disappointed Joe"----The Pergamos Network would be a better name.


Landmarker, (paradoxical name)

My post does NOT need clarification. Anything that is not of God is of Satan. A "mixture" of the churches which I listed is syncretism--the new religion of this world--indeed of hell!

I have no problem explainign to you the plan of salvation-----that is until you said this: " I suspect you do not hold to salvation by grace alone through faith alone"


Go "suspect" somewhere else please.

K

Anonymous said...

Tom Parker,

Congratulations! You have just won the out of context award for today.

First, I absolutely would break fellowship (in the sense of sharing pulpts and etc.).

Second, my comment while seemingly harsh, was not directed at people who are standing on what they believe is the truth. It is directed at those who "know" the truth, but talk out of the side of their mouth.

I have great respect for those who have different opinions and interpretations than I do, but I have lost all patience with those who simply refuse to take a stand... on either side. Some people have never seen a fense so high that they didn't think they could straddle it.

It is just too bad the Lord put all that "non-essential" and "divisive" stuff in the Bible, when all we really needed was John 3:16.:)

Joe W.

K. Michael Crowder said...

"That is not fine with you. I believe they would fight for what they believe, but your words--"shut your Bible, shut your mouth, and sit down." What a shame!!"



Here is the problem with Joe's shameful statement---anyone who believes that a woman can have God's pastoral calling has already shut their Bible.


So the more proper imperative would be: "Shut your mouth and sit down!"

K


(Said with love, this is a most excellent admonishon to those who spew heresy)

Steve said...

I was in a steadily-shrinking church for a big chunk of my life and may have a bit of advice for those of us who see themselves as the protectors of valuable things. My old church thought it was focused on so many traditional things thought to be vitally important. These were largely the comfortable things of man, not of God. We’ve all seen the list, usually starting with the color of the carpet, and climaxing in judgmentalism.

At first, I thought it was religious first-tier issues we protected so valiantly, but most of the time, the wizened group were carrying out grudges from generations before, or making things ready for the 1850’s to break out again.

Some writers here, and not just lately, seem to be so caught up in fear of identified or unknown outside influences. To what degree is our self-righteous foot-stomping just chasing away the things Jesus could do in our presence if only we could get our of His way? The one who opens and closes with anger is the LAST one who will notice God moving, in my opinion.

Just a suggestion.

Darren Casper said...

Interesting...

Too often among Baptist circles I read/hear conversation regarding the revelatory spiritual gifts such as tongues and prophecy spoken of in the same context as the seven deadly sins. That may be a bit of a stretch, but not much...

Perhaps "Antioch" may provide the future "Jerry Rankins" of SBC life a place for fellowship and expression.

Fact is fellas, men like this at the present time in SBC life are not welcome to plant churches in the states nor serve as missionaries overseas.

Considering the recent narrowing of parameters for partnership in SBC life, it's amazing to me that some SB's wonder why the growth of similar type networks is ever increasing.

It seems that all a lot of Southern Baptists are asking for is a place where the cessationist and the continualist, the reformed and the 3 pointer, etc.; could gather together under the same umbrella for the person of partnership and cooperation to start churches and send cross cultural missionaries. Perhaps we'll figure it out and say "you know, the BF&M...is enough. Let's get to work!"

K. Michael Crowder said...

"the BF&M...is enough. Let's get to work!"

Who’s not working?

I am. You are. Wade is. We can work and talk at the same time. But I fail to see the urgency of evangelism apart from the timing of the Holy Spirit. I am more in tune with God's will now more than ever before. I am in tune with it because I am more in tune with His Word than ever before.

The BFM2k covers only part of the Luke 1:1 example. To say that it is “ALL of those things believed among us” is wrong. To say that it covers all of the essentials is wrong.

I have many Pentecostal relatives and friends. I love them, I pray with them, but I will not build and plant churches with them.

We can all cooperate for the Kingdom in many ways. But everyone around here keeps talking about the freedom of conscience. My conscience, which is rooted in the pages of holy Scripture and guided by the Holy Spirit (at least is my desire) refuses to allow my church to participate in the building of those churches which do not align themselves with Scripture as I do on issues of 1st and 2nd tier doctrines and in some cases a very few of the 3rd tier…

[As Dr. Sproul has said, “It is not good enough to simply ‘agree to disagree.’” I am personally of the opinion that the SBC is about as big as it needs to get. We need to “Plant new Conventions—so to speak.” But that is another dog in another fight.]

…the fact of the matter is a large portion of MBC pastors hold to this view as well. Granted some carry it too far. And I admit that I carry it further in thought than in practice--for the true needs in "the field" become more clear and plain than from the bleachers--but we must not be so quick to pounce on our brothers when they have true intentions of upholding Scripture. (My rabbit has indeed taken me full circle.....I shall stop before I have to apologize to the Antioch folks.)

Kevin

truth, not religion said...

About the thought/verse:

I guess some might need a little help with their Bible Study: :-)

Notice here in the Holy Scriptures that God is showing us that even His Son had to deal with
"know-it-all" religious people.

Notice the self-rightousness in these leaders. Notice they believe they are the only ones who are right.

AND THE SON OF GOD IS STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM!

What a statement our Lord is making in allowing us to see these verses in His Word.

If Jesus had to put up with people like this, so will we.

Anyway, here you go on my thought/verse: (notice especially vs 38-39)

Act 5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin (self rightous, know it all leaders) and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.

Act 5:35 Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men.

Act 5:36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.

Act 5:37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.

Act 5:38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.

Act 5:39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

Rex Ray said...

Jeff,
I like your old joke. May I give it a bit of a twist?

… “Who are they?’
“Shhh” Peter replied, “They’re Inerrantists. They think the rest are illusions.”

Sorry.…Dave Miller, but couldn’t resist.

Anonymous said...

Folks,

Asking legitimate questions is not being Pharaisical. Asking legitimate questions is being a Berean (Acts 17).

If the Antioch Network cannot or refuse to respond to legitimate questions (mine is ... not sure about KMC), then this should reveal something about their doctrinal soundness.

Questions such as establishing the boundaries regarding soteriology is a basic premise for Christian organizations. My simple question, of which I am still waiting to hear the answer, is have they considered all the potential ramifications of the issue.

Therefore, what is so Pharaisical about my question? And actually what aren't all of you asking your own set of questions? That is the work of a Berean.

Amy

K. Michael Crowder said...

Amy,

I reviewed my posts and as I thought, I have no open questions for Wade. I try to not ask question to which I already know the answer. (but you are wise to separate yourself form me ideologically…others have experienced Holy Ghost fire and begin glossolating all over themselves and those around them for aligning with me on the Internet—its shameful! ) I have no plans on even entertaining the idea of being a part of such a group. I am simply here because only on this site can Francis Schaeffer be called a fundie, and Wade to the right of that.

Wade does have something in common with Schaeffer though....Schaeffer too was(at least for part of his life) a separationist...but one of the exclusionary flavor.....not this rainbow of fruit flavors which Wade's new Denomination is posing under.
Plus, Wade owes Drs. Patterson an apology for his sinful war he waged on them. I pray one day that this happens before the Lord calls our not-ok brother in OK home.

K

Rev. said...

Kevin (KMC): You state you would be unwilling to plant churches with Pentecostals? Would you be willing to plant churches with paedobaptists?

Amy has asked a legitimate question in a respectful manner. It deserves to be answered.

Are churches affiliating with the Antioch Network approving women pastors/ co-pastors, at least implicitly, even if they subscribe officially to the BFM(2000)?

I wonder, will ANoC affiliated congregations be viewed more as solid conservatives who affirm the BFM in faith and practice but feel expelled to the fringes of SBC life; or merely as those who have remained in the SBC despite feeling a stronger kinship with those in the CBF? I tend to think the "Moderate" tag will be thrown at ANoC affiliated congregations by some, and not without a certain amount of justification.

Rex Ray said...

Amy,
I keep asking what does ‘illusions’ have to do with inerrancy, but no one but Dave Miller has even tried to tell me.
So don’t feel lonesome.

Since Webster says apostasy is “abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed; total desertion of principles or faith”; maybe, more would get involved if they knew what you’re talking about.

K. Michael Crowder said...

Rev.,

The answer to your paedobaptist question is NO. I would not. i feel the baptizing of infants of beleivers is to (in the words of A.W. Pink) "cauterize them in their sins." Of course this is NOT the intent of our brothers who practice this, but it is indeed the result. When we do not follow the commands of our Lord in Scripture, and the commands and principles laid out for us in Scripture, then the results are never of God.

K

truth, not religion said...

Doesn't Titus 3:5 cover it?

"He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."

I am not the spokesman but this is really a simple thing.

next question?

w

landmarker said...

K. Michael Crowder,

You say the other denominations you listed are "of hell" because their doctrine does not coincide with yours. Which leads me to a couple of questions.

1.) Which one of your doctrinal beliefs is wrong and unscriptural?

2.) If your answer is "none of them", please point us to your theological justification for claiming papal infallibility for yourself.

3.) If, on the other hand, you admit that one or more of your own beliefs is wrong, does that not mean that you personally, and your church, are "of hell" by your logic?

To paraphrase G.W. Chesterton, the answer to the question "What's wrong with the church?" is "I am." Perhaps you should meditate on that thought.

Curiously,

Landmarker

landmarker said...

Obviously, I should have referenced "G.K. Chesterton", not G.W. As bushed as I am, it took me a moment to recognize my spelling error.

Rev. said...

KMC:
If you wouldn't plant churches with them, then should you even quote them?

Benji Ramsaur said...

Joe W.

I think I understand where you are coming from but I I'm not sure if the comparison is a good one.

In the political realm I can understand your frustration with politicians who say "Personally, I am against abortion, but who am I to deny a woman here right to choose?"

In politics, sincere politicians would be nice, but it is not a very high priority on my list.

In other words, I would rather have a politician who could care less about the unborn who simply wanted to "use" my pro-life vote to get elected, but would do something about it [like support pro-life judges], than have a politician who sincerely was against abortion but would not do anything about it.

However, in the theological realm I don't think Wade or anybody else is trying to talk about of both sides of their mouths.

They may just believe that to try and persuade others over to their positions on some doctrines would be a better approach than being overly dogmatic about it so that it hurts the big picture of cooperating with others to get the gospel out.

Personally, I think the art of persuading people over to one's theological position might not be practiced enough in Southern Baptist life.

It seems to me that what is used today is a "heavy-handed" approach--which I suspect is used with the justification in mind that one must "stand up" for absolutes in an age of relativism and confusion.

However, I think a heavy-handed approach can turn people off to one's position even if one is right.

Plus, I think when people resort to heavy-handedness and [to throw in another one] a "clinging for dear life" to their creed/confession, it often times does not reveal a man of conviction, but a man who is insecure in his ability to exegete and defend his position from Scripture.

I would encourage you to go back and look at E.Y. Mullins appeal to the Southern Baptist Convention that Wade has posted on his blog.

Now I am not one who is thrilled with the theological direction he helped lead the denomination in [although I think he was an orthodox gentleman]. However, that address he gave showed me how whimsical he could be. And who could argue with how effective he was as a leader to influence others?

And I think that there is simply not enough of that kind of leadership in SB life today.

But beyond Mullins [and more importantly], I would encourage you to notice how tactful and persuasive Paul was in the book of Philemon--to me, he's amazing.

Anyway, please lift up a prayer for my family--tornado coming our way.

Grace

Benji

davidinflorida said...

K

What other problems do you have with the church in the book of Acts?

Wade Burleson said...

K Michael Crowder,

I wish your attitude and spirit were more gracious. I would ask you to evaluate the impression you give to people about the Southern Baptist Convention. I am not sure you understand the manner in which you come across.

Wade

Lin said...

"I am in tune with it because I am more in tune with His Word than ever before."

What is the 'new' commandment that is really old? (1 John)

:o)

Rex Ray said...

Rev,
My comment to Amy was in reply to her saying, “How will the uniqueness and perseverance of salvation (as opposed to apostasy taught in more Pentecostal and AG churches) be responded to when a church and/or pastor who believes in apostasy wants to affiliate?”

You said she asked a legitimate question in a respectful manner (“Are churches affiliating with the Antioch Network approving women pastors/co-pastors…?”) and deserved an answer.

I believer her “apostasy” ruled out a “respectful manner”.

BTW, may I ask you or anyone else, what do “illusions” have to do with the Chicago Statement on inerrancy?

Anonymous said...

Sadly Missouri has been deludged with the type of spirit displayed by KMC for years. You can also see it in other states, but especially in Florida and Texas. All of these have current or former people in place that have been in all 3 states. Anybody want to guess who?

Tim Guthrie said...

Wade,
I guess you missed my question. Is the position on Baptism open to all types or immersion only? The statement does not address this. Would the network unite with a church that sprinkled or????

Karen in OK said...

Rex Ray,
I don't think Amy was saying that AOG churches are apostate. I think she was using "apostasy" in the sense that they themselves think that you can fall from grace, that is, commit apostasy.

Which ties in with the controversies at the IMB about being baptized by immersion in a church that does not believe in such "apostasy", that is, believes in the security of the believer.

Rev. said...

Rex:
Karen in OK obviously understood the intent of Amy's question, you did not.

What do "illusions" have to do with the Chicago Statement? I have absolutely no idea.

K. Michael Crowder said...

Wade,

I was thinking the same thing about you and your Outpost minions.

Only I had a sweeter spirit in my mind than did you. ;)

K


Landmarker: "You say the other denominations you listed are "of hell" because their doctrine does not coincide with yours. Which leads me to a couple of questions."

No, I did not say that. Apparently you cannot read very well. I am not restaing it a 3rd time.

G'nite!

Rev: "If you wouldn't plant churches with them, then should you even quote them?"

Yes, I have deemed that this practice is indeed ok and a separate matter from propagating ecclesiastical bodies.

But thank for the question.

K

Paul said...

Wade,

I returned home to find that my son was playing in a basketball tournament tonight (they won!!), so I was delayed in getting my notes posted. They are now up and can be found here.

Paul said...

I think it should be stressed that, in true Baptist fashion, this network is completely voluntary. If you do not like what it stands for and hopes to accomplish for the gospel you are as free not to partner in it as you are to do so.

By the same token, Baptists have not historically told other Baptists what their associations must and/or must not be. Mark Dever made a very good statement to this effect and everyone would do well to read it.

For those who want to carp at the people who were and will be a part of this network you just might ought to check your Baptist credentials because you are acting more like Catholics, Episcopalians and Presbyterians than Baptists.

Rex Ray said...

Karen in Ok,
I believe I understand Amy’s question better than I understand your defense or explanation of her question.
In essence you said that AOG churches are not apostate, they commit apostasy.

I feel like saying: ‘Make up your mind.’ If a church teaches and practices adultery, how can you NOT say that church is an adulterous church?

First, let’s agree on what ‘apostasy’ means. (I had to consult Webster.) He states three conditions:
1. Abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed.
2. Total desertion of principles.
3. Total desertion of faith.

Karen, which of these has the church in question committed?

I believe ‘once saved always saved’, but there are many Scriptures that indicate otherwise. Even John 3:16 in King James says “…should be saved” while we Baptists like translations that say “…shall be saved.”

My goal is not to quote Scripture that defends their belief, but I want to point out that “apostasy’ is a word way over the top and I believe it belongs to the legalists that are trying to run the SBC.

Rex Ray said...

Rev,
So you have no idea what ‘illusions’ has to do with the Chicago Statement? If you believe ‘inerrancy’ as explained by the Chicago Statement, you should know the Chicago Exposition C, and Paragraph 6:

“Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will
encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.”

Dave Miller explained the above by saying, “The phase ‘illusions’ in the exposition does not refer to the Bible, but to those apparent contradictions in the Bible. No part of the Bible is an illusion, but the contradiction itself is an illusion.”

So, Rev or anyone else, can you explain what “illusions” means in the Chicago Statement?

Rev. said...

Rex:
It seems you are not the only one who has problems understanding particular questions. I thought you were referring to a specific comment somebody made about the CS, not the CS itself. Yes, I do understand what "illusions" refers to in the CS. It refers to the conviction that the "apparent inconsistencies" are just that - apparent - but not substantial. Dave Miller answered the question accurately (I didn't see his comment, but did obviously see your most recent comment).

You still aren't understanding the terminology employed by Amy and Karen. AoG churches teach the doctrine of "apostasy," that is, "falling from grace" (as opposed to "eternal security"). Neither of these ladies is using a slanderous term, they are using a theological term in the proper context. It is not "over the top" or a term used merely by "legalists."

A Former AoG,
J.

Michael said...

Rex,
In logic, contradictions can be real or not real. By illusions they are referring to not real contradictions, not phantasms of a persons mind.

to some others,
I do not think that this network will create an identity per se. unlike denominations(eg when replying to questions such as "So, who you with?" you respond "southern baptists"). obviously it is still in its infancy so those questions of how it will be carried out will have to wait.

Anonymous said...

Mornin' Rev.

I have a question. I mean this as kind as I can and am a will student.
On these blogs it is sooo easy to be misunderstood. I don't mean the to be anything but 2 christian Pastors discussing a topic.

I have studied Baptism from front to back including the evolution of the word through history.

I believe and practice complete immersion.

Does the Bible actually teach it?

On many subjects we fudge and on others we don't.

EX. Christ used wine and real bread at the Last Supper. We use grape juice and crackers. Aren't we adding out traditions to the Bible and ignoring Gods model

There is no mention of Christian church buildings only home church, shouldn't we use the model from the Bible? home church. Aren't we adding our traditions to the Bible and ignoring God's model.

So, although I don't sprinkel, is it really aposty?

When it says Christ "came up out of the water" could it mean He walked out of the water to the riverbank?

(once again, I am just playing the devils advocate here and am speaking tongue in cheek)

thanks
grace
w

(having trouble getting signed in on my blog.....again!

greg.w.h said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
greg.w.h said...

Sorry...had a thought...then I unthunk it. Carry on...

Greg Harvey

landmarker said...

K. Michael Crowder,

Perhaps I can't read well, but your words don't leave much room for interpretation. You said in your original post that by standing with both the SBC and with other denominations, Wade et al have "one leg in the Kingdom and the other in hell", which plainly implies you consider the other denominations to be "in hell."

By your reasoning, Wade is standing "in hell" because he is fellowshipping with believers whose doctrines, to some extent, contradict and cannot be reconciled with his own. You describe this as syncretism (I think you misunderstand the meaning of that word, but let's go with your definition for the sake of argument).

Is it not true that each of us (including you) holds within ourselves beliefs that are contradictory and cannot be logically reconciled with each other? If you deny any inconsistency in your own beliefs, you are essentially claiming papal infallibility for yourself, and I am confident that you would not do so. Thus, using your reasoning and wording, you are guilty of this same "syncretism" that is "of hell", for within yourself you are maintaining doctrines that contradict and cannot be reconciled with each other.

So, once again, must we not conclude that you too are standing "in hell", as you put it?

And also, since you describe any fellowship between diverse believers as "syncretism", do you honestly believe that God desires, wills, and prefers division in the body of Christ over unity? Do you think it pleases God that you, whose doctrine is imperfect, refuse to associate with those whose doctrine is likewise imperfect?

Maybe this can resolve our impasse: can you point me to any NT passage that explicitly directs us to separate from other believers on the basis of a doctrinal difference other than salvation by works?

Rex Ray said...

Rev,
Thank you. You seem like a person that will not run away or do a Jack Maddox (no talkie-talkie).
Starting with you last point first, you said you were a former Assembly of God. Do you agree with the definition that Webster gave to ‘apostasy’? Which is:
1. Abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed.
2. Total desertion of principles.
3. Total desertion of faith.
Congratulations on learning or accepting the truth of ‘once saved always saved’, but will you agree with WEBSTER that makes you ‘apostasy’ under HIS number one definition? That is; you once believe a person could be saved two or more times, and now you have abandoned what you once believed.

You indicated ‘apostasy’ is NOT a slanderous term. That’s the trouble with arguing ‘words’. Are you saying “total desertion of principles or faith” is not slanderous? Please explain.

ILLUSIONS
Dave Miller agreed that his statement said:

1. ‘Illusions’ does not refer to the Bible.
2. ‘Illusions’ refer to those apparent contradiction in the Bible.
3. The contradiction is an illusion.
4. No part of the Bible is an illusion.”

I’m sure Dave won’t mind me giving his explanation and it will save you the trouble of saying the same thing.

”The Chicago Council dealt with some of the difficulties related to inerrancy and its critics. It admitted that there are several apparent contradictions in scripture, but affirmed that when the full truth is revealed, the apparent contradictions will prove to be illusions. An illusion is something that appears to be real, but is not. The Chicago Statement never asserts that there are illusions in the Bible; it just states that the apparent contradictions in the scripture will one day prove to be illusions.

This is the same thinking of those that thought it was only an illusion the king had no clothes.

Allow me to give an example. Every translation except one says the ruler’s daughter is dead in Matthew, but that she was very sick in Mark and Luke.

Now that “ONE DAY” has arrived because the Holman Bible has all three books agreeing. See, it was only an “illusion” in Matthew. It was so simple to solve the ‘error’ in Matthew because majority rules and the vote was two to one.

This brings out the truth of the twelfth qualification of an inerrancy by James Denison saying:

Inerrancy is to be accepted as a faith assertion, not the result of an inductive study of the evidence at hand. Inerrancy is always to be accepted on faith!… no corroborating evidence for Biblical assertions is necessary or sought for. Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is not founded on or subject to evidences for its veracity. As a result, no evidence can dissuade an inerrantist from his conviction.

Dave asked me how I determined what parts of the Bible are true?”

I answered: “The same way you determine what parts are illusions.”

So, Rev, if you would continue from there, I’d appreciate it.

Bob Cleveland said...

KMC,

Are you really a mind-reader? You seem to know what Wade is, and was, thinking.

All: I was at the meeting. It was positive and profitable and I find no fault nor divisiveness at all.

None.

If you have a softball team and you play out there with teams from other churches, how divisive is that? Fellowshipping and cooperating with folks from different churches? Well, it's NOT.

Neither is cooperation with others as set forth in what Rev. Burleson outlined here. If you can't see that, maybe you're the problem.

Chris Johnson said...

Tim,

I think you ask a legitimate question, in context to SBC cooperation. There is an organization that came out last year "The Gospel Coalition" that have a similiar charter as Antioch that spell out baptism somewhat, but not narrowly.

Good question though,
Blessings,
Chris

Bryan Riley said...

It's interesting, when I read 1 Timothy 4 I see the falling away occurring similar to that of Galatians 3 - Those who have let the gospel become a gospel not of grace but of law. And, when I read your histrionics, KMC, I see a man who has a form of godliness but denies it power, focusing on his own idea of truth as reasoned and determined by intellect. Instead of trusting in the Father, he relies on his ideas and sharp tongue, rather than the grace of God and His Holy Spirit to encourage and lift up the Body of Christ.

I pray I am wrong. I do know that we war not against flesh and blood but against the Great Deceiver. And his deceptions is really good, making things that are extremely evil look really good. I suppose you would say that that is what this network is doing. But I am willing to let God work and see what fruit comes forth. I believe we will see much good fruit harvested from it.

Anonymous said...

Brian

Well said.

Now a little humor.

A Baptist and a Methodist, both ministers, are out fishing. They begin talking about theology when the Methodist says, "You Baptist are so narrow minded that you believe only the Baptist are going to Heaven."

To which the Baptist answers, "Oh no, we are more narrow minded than that, we don't even think all the Baptist are going!" he he

Jim Atkisson

Anonymous said...

Bob Cleveland,

Normally you make excellent arguements and analogies, however, your comparison of the "Pergamos Network" and Church Softball competition is stupendously poor.

Wade has specifically told us that the meeting had... "singing, praying, teaching and fellowship." This idea that we should just all come together, lay aside our doctrinal differences, and sing Cum Ba Ya is simply not Biblical. Yes, one day all God's children will be together and have all things common, but that day is not here.

"Never sacrifice truth for unity"... Dr. Adrian Rogers

Sorry... that is the problem.

Joe W.

Rev. said...

Mornin' W.

Why would you believe and practice immersion if the Bible doesn't teach it?

Yes, the Lord Jesus used wine and bread at the Last Supper. Why do some use grape juice and crackers? Because, as you have pointed out correctly, they are adding their own traditions to the Bible - afraid of using alcohol.

You are correct, there is no mention of "Christian church buildings" in Scripture. There are however, references to the Temple and to synagogues - buildings for worship outside of homes. To use a church building, therefore, is not "ignoring God's model."

I never said that sprinkling was to be equated with apostasy. I said "apostasy" is a theological term used to identify the teaching of "falling from grace" (as opposed to "eternal security").


Rex:
I would agree with Webster to a point. His 3rd entry is the closest to what the AoG teaches in relation to "falling from grace."

Again, Amy was referring to a doctrine/ teaching. She was asking how one who believes in "falling from grace" would fit into a group such as the ANoC. The soteriology of Baptists tends to be "Calvinistic" on the matter of "eternal security," in marked contrast to Pentecostal/ AoG groups. Is it slanderous to say that a Pentecostal teaches the doctrine of "falling away" ("apostasy")? No. It's a matter of fact. Is it slanderous to inquire about how those with differing opinions on that subject will be able to work together effectively? No. Some would argue the doctrine of "conditional security" results in salvation by grace and works (e.g., "working to maintain your salvation"), as opposed to sola fide / sola gratia. This is what makes Amy's question a legitimate one.

Inerrancy:
CBF's James Denison and I obviously have differing views of inspiration. I'm an inerrantist both as a matter of faith and as a result of thousands of years of evidence of inspiration (e.g., archaeology). I believe in creation, that Isaiah has one author, that a multitude of prophecies have been fulfilled and will be fulfilled, that Christ Jesus was born of a virgin, etc.

As for the account of the ruler's daughter. While Mt 9:23-25 does not mention death specifically, it mirrors Lk 8:49-55 and Mk 5:35-42, especially in noting that the Lord Jesus was "laughed to scorn." It does not say in Mt 9 that she was merely ill. He was mocked in this way because He dared to say that the girl wasn't dead, when everyone knew she was. Was He lying or mistaken? No. He was pointing to the fact that her life was not yet over. There isn't even an apparent contradiction between these passages.

Bryan Riley said...

Grace W and Rev...

Not only does the bible not specifically teach immersion (as in complete dunking - for none of the scriptures spell out what actually occurs other than to say baptized), baptists see baptism as symbolic only. If symbolic, then it would seem they would also argue the method is not the most important issue, so long as the symbol is understood. To fight and clamor and divide the body of Christ over smoething that is believed only to be like unto a wedding ring really seems odd. I think the statement as written with regard to baptism is excellent.

Lin said...

"Wade has specifically told us that the meeting had... "singing, praying, teaching and fellowship." This idea that we should just all come together, lay aside our doctrinal differences, and sing Cum Ba Ya is simply not Biblical. Yes, one day all God's children will be together and have all things common, but that day is not here."

Have you and Tim Guthrie taken your concerns about Baptism to Mohler with his Together for the Gospel group? They are not all Baptists and one pastor that I know of in this group Baptizes babies. Isn't one of them also a charismatic?

I can assure you that T4G receieves much more attention than AN and is quite well known.

I guess considering this, it seems your problems with what Wade is doing is more personal than doctrinal.

Just a side note: Right now I am studying the remnant (anti-state) believers down through the Reformation. So many of your comments sound like the magistrates and judges of the Reformed state church when writing about these 'rebels' who refused to baptize their babies or join the state church. The parallels are uncanny.

Anonymous said...

Bryan Riley,

You say... "Not only does the bible not specifically teach immersion... as in complete dunking..."

In fact the βαπτίζω... baptizō...
bap-tid'-zo... is a derivative meaning "to make whelmed" (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

I am not sure how long it would take to make a person "fully wet" by sprinkling. Immersion is the way the scripture implies baptism is to be done. In fact... the Bible clearly describes Jesus as coming up out of the water in His baptism. The Bible is also very clear... only believer's are baptized.

Baptism is not something to make light off. It is a clear command of Christ, part of the great commission, and something that cost many of my Baptist forefathers their lifes.

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

I have waited for well over a day for an answer to my question. I know you are busy but you have taken the time to respond to others with questions. Why not mine? Your silence is speaking very loudly and I don't wish to make presumptions based upon this silence. However, I am beginning to believe that I have no choice. Therefore, I will ask the question again (and Rex Ray I utilizing appropriate theological terms with my question):

"How will the uniqueness and perseverance of salvation (as opposed to apostasy taught in more Pentecostal and AG churches) be responded to when a church and/or pastor who believes in apostasy wants to affiliate?

Amy

Anonymous said...

Amy,

The answer to your question is... (drum roll)... it won't be. If they thought that was important it would have made the "cooperation statement".

Joe W.

greg.w.h said...

Amy:

I think you anticipate the answer to your question when you use the adverb "when". We could come up with a ton of hypotheticals to bog them down with, but then it's our character that is on display, not theirs.

Greg Harvey

Anonymous said...

Rev, I missed that one!

Give me a great big DUH!

I truly mis-read your post.

I apologize. Please forgive my shortcomings.

Also, I don't think I said the Bible didn't teach immersion, I think I just ask a question about the language.

However, at this moment, I am unsure of what I said. (te-he)

must be old age!

About the buildings, the point was the NT does not give us an example of a CHRISTIAN CHURCH BUILDING

It just seems to me that some (not necessarily you) want to use the literal Bible only when it suits them and fits their way of thinking. EX. wine-crackers-buildings-women-tongues etc.

I think that would be an inconsistant hermeneutic, which is a rampart practice in the modern world.

thanks again, please accept my apologize

grace
w

Anonymous said...

Greg,

Alright I will change the word to "if." The question regardless of the preposition still deserves an answer.

"How will the uniqueness and perseverance of salvation (as opposed to apostasy taught in more Pentecostal and AG churches) be responded to IF a church and/or pastor who believes in apostasy wants to affiliate?"

Now can Wade answer the question?

Amy

Paul Burleson said...

W, [or whomever]

Suppose, hypothetically, a person and fourteen others get together to support a idea to provide some funds, if possible, for someone who might need a little help in getting to a ministry God has called them to in spreading the gospel.

To do so, the fifteen of them, decide what they can agree on as to the message of the gospel. In other words, what the message is that needs to be heard and must be believed to be saved. [Then that little group clearly states the essentials that are necessary to actually believe the unique exclusivity of the true gospel message. They call it their 'statement of faith' meaning for the gospel message to be the true one.]

Agreeing there, they decide, the fifteen of them, that their differing views on lesser truths will not be an issue for them to promote the gospel. In fact, they will even sing together, pray together, give together, share together, believing their unity is NOT, and never SHOULD be, uniformity but, rather, their eyes staying fixed on Jesus when they're together is their personal essential. They learned this in First Corinthians and other places in scripture.

They agree when someone teaches, they will be true to how they see the text in the lesser things but will always practice a spirit that says, "this is where I am on this but my enjoyment of praise and worship of our Lord with you is NOT dependent on you agreeing on this point with me. We have agreed that I won't demand you must agree and you won't demand I can't believe this." [Referencing whatever lesser thing they are talking about.]

Someone might, in the course of sharing a homily, mention their view of a private prayer language, but they would know full well someone present believes those gifts have ceased.

Further, there is an unusual spirit of respect among those fifteen for the Spirit's responsiblity to make clear to each, as He wills, those things that need to be taught, [the lesser things] once the claims of the gospel have been responded to in one's life. But that will be wherever that person choses to affiliate with other believers locally in a church.

Were someone to join in worship with any one of the fifteen local fellowships represented in that group, they would hear the clear articulation of the variously held views on such things. But this little group of fifteen is not trying to be a local church, a denomination, a religious institution of any kind.

They just want to be a part of a few people who want to love Jesus together, give money so that Jesus may become known, and love on one another as different as we all happen to be, and believe me those fifteen are different.

Further, hypothetically, suppose that little group of fifteen is open to ANYONE joining them in the desire to enjoy Jesus and each other and get the gospel out in some new and fresh ways. [Knowing the exclusivity of the gospel message they hold to.] Would you NOT want to be a part of that small group? If not...don't. If yes...do.

Now, you may ask "why don't you just come out and say that's how you view that group?"

Okay, I will. Just change the fifteen to thirty-five, and you have my view of what I experienced in Arlington. It won't replace my local church fellowship at all. It won't even replace my denomination. But it wasn't half bad. In fact, it was plumb good. [In Oklahoma you can't get better than 'plumb.'] :)

Paul B.

Bryan Riley said...

Joe W.,

I understand that meaning of the Greek word, but it also is used in the NT, contrary to what you say, like we do, to refer to immersing into something other than water, such as baptized in the Holy Spirit, into Jesus, into a person's name, into Moses, etc. When we are immersed into anything, whether our study, our beliefs, whatever, we are simply as you note, overwhelmed in it, awash in it, clothed by it, etc. Moreover, my point is two-fold: (1) we aren't given any step by step as to the ordinance or sacrament of baptism and (2) if it is truly a symbol and has no regenerative qualities of itself, as is so ardently taught by baptists, then why can't it be symbolized in a myriad of ways??? Just a question I have...

Anonymous said...

Greg,

I took a moment before I responded as I had a very rough night, including a mother in the ER until 4:15 a.m. Therefore, this comment might come across as harsher than intended ... out of sheer exhaustion.

Please do not read agendas into my question. It was legitimiate. It was fair. It deserves an answer.

Please also no subtle slams of my character. You do not know me. I am simply being a Berean with a question.

Amy

ml said...

Bryan, call me simplistic but I think the Bible does teach immersion. The problem is in versions that took a Greek word and Anglo-sized it--or made it a transliterated word. Why? The 1693 version of KJ was commissioned by the Anglican church. The Anglican church practiced sprinkling not immersion. Rather than translate the word as immersed they simply rendered it baptized. It is interesting that the word in secular usage means sunk as in a ship that is baptized AND there is an ancient recipe for pickles that uses the word baptizo for the cucumber. I don’t know if you have ever made pickles or not BUT it would be really hard to follow the recipe by sprinkling the cucumber with the vinegar solution. Hence the issue is in the word itself rather than the full explanation of the word by the original. There was no need to split hairs over sprinkling vs. dunking in the first century. When they had their eyes closed and they heard the word baptize, I believe the original hearers, based on the common usage, saw the picture of a sunken ship or a pickle immersed in vinegar and connected that to a person under water.

Tim Guthrie said...

Wade,
Must be real busy! Still curious about the lack of defining Baptism in the statement? Will the Network partner with churches that sprinkle, perform infant baptism or... ? As chris already noted, some "networks" already have this covered. What about Antioch?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Burleson, I am in total agreement and I support the Antioch Network without hesitation. I have communicated this to Wade.

I believe in the present, active work of the Holy Spirit and all its gifts.

My thoughts to Rev and some others are actually a defence of the freedom to come to Christ without atackes from those who differ with us.

I must get better at conveying what I think with the written words on these blogs.

I own a 501 business of "helps" and have been involved in helping in 34 countries. I understand what it takes to work with those of other denominations.

In His Service
WTreat
wtreat1919@yahoo.com

Bryan Riley said...

This (baptism by immersion) really is a side issue to the post and the excellent statement of faith, but I don't disagree with immersion or people who practice it, as I have (both being immersed and immersing others). All I am saying is that I don't think it matters. I also think that there is good evidence of that when you consider baptisms in places of shallow water or little water, which may be where some of the other traditions began, with the practitioners understanding that form was much less important than faith and the proclamation of the same.

It is interesting for me with the issue termed "apostasy" is that when I really go at the theological beliefs and underpinnings with someone who believes that salvation can be lost I have come to the conclusion that many of the differences between "once-saved-always-saved" believers and those who disagree are more semantic than real and likely stem more from the fact that we currently see darkly, not clearly, and just don't quite understand the mind of God.

Anonymous said...

"All I am saying is that I don't think it matters."

Funny... All I am saying is that it does.

Baptism is the "first step" so to speak in following the Lord after salvation. It is a sign of submission and obedience. A sign that is only properly portrayed in immersion.

Joe W.

Bryan Riley said...

Joe W., what you did there was take one sentence a bit out of context. But that is ok. I am not always the best at communicating.

Let me say it this way, hoping to communicate better. Could it be that the sign or symbol of baptism by immersion, as you apparently agree it is a sign or symbol, is cultural? What I mean is that when you go from culture to culture they all have certain signs. One may use a handshake as a greeting, for example, but another culture may not. They both greet one another, but they have different ways of symbolizing it.

In the context of believers, one church may sing raising their hands and another may not, but both are singing in praise and honor of the Lord.

What if one church baptizes by pouring or sprinkling and another by immersion, but both explain that it is symbolic of one's faith in jesus Christ and one's baptism into his death and into his resurrection (which get back into the fact that the word is used for more than just water)? (not getting into the infant debate here).

Jim Paslay said...

bryan riley,

Baptists have said that baptism is a symbol but an important symbol and the first step of obedience in the life of a believer. I think we need to be careful in not minimizing the importance of believer's baptism.

Also, I don't think Jesus was "sprinkled" in death, I'm pretty sure he was "buried" in death. Thus the beautiful picture that baptism portrays to us all of Christ's death, burial and resurrection!

greg.w.h said...

Amy,

I sympathize regarding trips to the ER. Our daughter went for one Saturday evening about 9pm and she and my wife weren't home until 4am. Though I was at home with the other kids, suffice it to say that sleep isn't easily appropriated until you have a sense of certainty in the situation.

My wife told me of a baby that came in with a 104.5 F temp and showed signs of complete listlessness. She acknowledged that even though my daughter was in deep pain from her own condition, that the baby's needs exceeded ours and was not upset when the baby was prioritized ahead of her even though it was already 1:30 am. I could tell, though, that she was being worn out by the wait.

Just as the nurses and doctors that perform triage at the Emergency Room have the final say in who gets treated in what order, I personally think the urgency of Wade answering your question is proportional to your commitment to making the Antioch Network a success through participation. My reference to your character is that you've used the phrase "Berean" to not only insist that Wade answer you, but to suggest that HIS character and the character of the Antioch Network is determined by the quickness of that answer.

I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but that doesn't seem right to me.

Greg Harvey

P.S. Tim Guthrie apparently suffers from the same impatience. So you're hardly alone. I'm not speaking for Wade or for Dwight or for the rest of those in the Antich Network, but as one who reads Wade's blog regularly, if you two don't mind returning to the waiting room, I'm sure that the doctor will get to you when he is done with his current patient patients.

Anonymous said...

Greg,

Clever analogy. Fails on a couple of premises however. First, involvement in the Antioch network should not be a contingency to an answer to a question. Second, the question itself could possibly be a factor in many people either involving themselves in the network or not. It would probably behoove the powers that be to answer the question instead of letting it fester in the waiting room.

Amy

Lin said...

"Must be real busy! Still curious about the lack of defining Baptism in the statement? Will the Network partner with churches that sprinkle, perform infant baptism or... ?"

Tim, Would you have a problem if Ligon Duncan got involved with AN?

Wade Burleson said...

"How will the uniqueness and perseverance of salvation (as opposed to apostasy taught in more Pentecostal and AG churches) be responded to when a church and/or pastor who believes in apostasy wants to affiliate?"

Amy, I have been traveling and attending meetings. I'm sorry I missed your question.

I have had great fellowship with pastors who believe you can lose your salvation. I believe them to be wrong in their views, but they are brothers in Christ. The NETWORK is NOT a denomination or convention. If a church agrees to the confession and chooses to be a part of the NETWORK they will be.

Blessings,

Wade

greg.w.h said...

Amy,

I actually liken the proposed Network to a combination of what we're asked to do as professionals in the current company and is not entirely dissimilar to what occurs in organizations like the Lion's Club, Kiwanis, and Rotary Club, except in an explicitly faith-related environment. Getting to know other people and helping them with their own mission projects seems to be two of the immediate goals.

I would offer that my mother experienced absolutely no eternal consequences--including festering wounds--when she assisted in Vacation Bible Schools led by the Church of Christ(I think it was) and the Methodist Church in Lawn, Texas in the late 60s. It was an intentionally missional activity--though we didn't use that word then--and all three of the pastors' wives in the town supported the sponsoring pastor's wife. Not only was it a friendly interaction, but it helped them overcome the bogeymen that sometimes got raised about inadequate Christ-likeness due to faulty doctrine in the other congregations.

It's worth noting that Church of Christ AND Methodist soteriology is more similar to AoG than SB.

Greg Harvey

P.S. We thoroughly enjoyed joining Pond Springs Baptist Church, on Old Joleyville Road in Austin in their shared VBS with the nearby Church of Christ just a few years ago, if you prefer a more modern example.

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

Presbyterian churches, Methodist Churches, Assembly Churches, Baptist Churches, etc . . . may all choose to be a part of the NETWORK - it is a NETWORK OF CHURCHES.

Not a denomination.

If they wish to belong to the SBC then they would have to affirm believer's baptism.

I don't know why that is difficult for you to comprehend.

Bryan Riley said...

Immersion is a beautiful picture, Jim, and I embrace it, but I don't think beautiful pictures are things we should divide over. I am not minimizing baptism at all. It is a demonstration of our faith. I am simply asking questions about it.

Many who have read me over the year or so I've been writing have seen me from time to time go into my baptism questions and they may think... there he goes again - or perhaps i am thinking too much that anyone reads me :) - but I guess I have a quixotic nature about me. At the end of the day, I truly hope for unity and reconciliation in Jesus Christ.

ml said...

Hey Wade this is an honest question. If an Agape Fellowship Church wanted to be a member of the fellowship would you allow that? They might accept all the conditions but they are an openly homosexual fellowship of churches? This goes to the previous question from yesterday about true cooperative spirit and network "membership".

Wade Burleson said...

ml,

I am not the spokesman for the Antioch Network. I would assume that churches, including mine, would be opposed to any church that openly embraces homosexuality beoming part of the Network - just as we would oppose a church that flaunts sexual adultery and have a pastor who blatantly and without repentance carries on a public affair with his secretary - because it violates the inspired, infallible Word of God in terms of faith and practice.

Homosexuality and adultery are moral matters. But I would imagine the church in open immorality would be dealt with in a gracious, loving, and personal manner by member churches of the Network.

Blessings,

Wade

Paul Burleson said...

WTreat,

My thoughts were written after reading the comment from someone else. But I have read MANY of your comments and don't think you need much improvement at all. I WOULD think that since I agree with most of what you say. :)

I'm sure the guy who prompted my words is a great guy too. I just haven't read that much from him. Besides that, you've reminded me I may need to write more to the group or to an issue rather than in answer to a single person. Thank you for being that reminder.

Wade Burleson said...

Your comment was great.

Bob Cleveland said...

Joe W.

I was at the meeting. We sang and rejoiced in the Lord. There was no problem there, but I can see how people who weren't there can imagine some.

Some people look for ways and reasons to cooperate. Some look for ways and reasons not to. I have no problem with people who wish not to cooperate, or with those who set strict boundaries for cooperation, until they tell me how wrong I am in how I choose my boundaries.

And I did not mention Pergamos.

Rev. said...

Bryan Riley:
Not sure exactly why you're jumping all over my case on the baptism issue, accusing me of fighting and clamoring and dividing the Body of Christ over the issue. Where in my comments have I been doing such things?

I do believe the Bible teaches immersion through the nature of the word itself and through the statements relating baptism to burial (e.g., Romans 6:4). Of course, there is no point of going "down into the water" and baptizing where "there was much water" as the Lord Jesus and the Apostles did unless there is immersion taking place. Having said that, I've never made baptism a point to divide over. Many of my closest friends are Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists. We haven't broken fellowship over the issue and aren't close to even doing so.

W.:
No worries.

Rev. said...

WTreat:
Are you the same as "W"?

If not, are you saying that I am "attacking" those who differ from me? If so, can you please tell me specifically how I've attacked anyone?

W. acknowledged completely mis-reading an earlier comment and wonder if you have done the same?

Rev. said...

Amy:
Please know I've prayed for the Lord's hand of mercy and healing to be upon your mother. I hope things are improving with her condition.

truth, not religion said...

Rev, and Mr. Burleson,

Rev, it was bad phrase-ology. I was saying "it was to Rev" (and should have said ) "and also to those who attack........."

Once again, I need to practice the clear, concise communication needed for blogging. I promise to get better.

Mr Burleson, One in the same guy. For some reason I cannot always get my account to sign in and have to use the anon. Sometimes from laziness I just us a W. (in honor of GWB) :-)

"Let you every word and deed be to the glory and honor of God"

Wtreat

truth, not religion said...

Boy oh Boy, this split shift and long days is getting old.

Mr. B, I misread Rev's post and responded to you.

on your post to me , thanks for the kind words.

BTW, I love your cd's from Emmanuel.

Rev, Yes, it is all connected to misreading your former post.

I'm just an old dog who gets up at 3 a.m. and is plum tuckered out.

grace
wtreat

Wade Burleson said...

K Michael Crowder,

You are free to comment. You are not free to misrepresent the truth or lie about others. Your comment is deleted.

Jason Epps said...

All,

I was at the meeting and it was AWESOME! I'm so excited to be a part of such a racially and theologically diverse group that has as its sole purpose - the glory of God and the advancement of His Kingdom! Blessings to all of you who were able to share in that wonderful time!

Jason Epps

Tim Guthrie said...

Wade,
The difficulty is on your part in not answering but with an attempt to belittle.

I simply asked a question. Why is that so difficult to understand?

So sorry the question was so hard to answer.

Anonymous said...

K Michael Crowder,

"You are free to comment. You are not free to misrepresent the truth or lie about others. Your comment is deleted."

If you want to do that KMC you have to post at the Outpost.

Joe W.

Anonymous said...

I would like to comment on the baptism/immersion issue. I also believe the fairly unambiguous biblical teaching is that baptism by definition means immersion. I also think it is important. But I have many friends who read it otherwise and we fellowship without letting this question divide us. I would probably draw the line at planting churches where the (in my view) erroneous mode of baptism was promoted instead of immersion, but I would still respect my Christian brethren who hold different views than I hold.

Once when I was a shepherd, I had a great friend who was a retired Presbyterian Pastor. He was then elderly, but almost always attended our Baptist services. He was a wonderful Christian gentleman and friend. I was some 50 years his younger at the time. He and I used to meet in my office early on Wednesday mornings to talk and pray. He taught me many things about being a pastor, father, husband, and especially a friend.

We agreed on many things but obviously disagreed about the proper mode of baptism. We would often jibe each other about immersion vs. sprinkling.

I remember once saying to him with a smile, "Bro. ________, your biggest problem is that you didn't get wet enough at your baptism."

He quickly responded by wittily saying to me with a gleam in his eye, "And your biggest problem is that they held you under so long when you were baptized that you're still wet behind the ears!"

I still laugh every time I remember that. I dearly loved that man and he is now in the presence of Jesus. I still disagree with him about the proper mode of baptism but I have no doubt that compared to him, I'm still "wet behind the ears."

EA IMB M

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

Please forgive me. I did not intend to belittle. Sometimes I read into your comments that you are offended at anything I do or participate in. My perception sometimes taint my responses to you. I will do my best to see a positive and encouraging spirit in your comments.

Tim Guthrie said...

Wade,
I will pray with you that you will read what is written and not what you think is written. In that we can agree.
:)

Rex Ray said...

Rev and Amy,
I agree it is NOT slander to ask if a denomination of another faith would be accepted. It is not slander to say, ‘That church teaches falsehood.’ It would be more polite to say, ‘In my opinion, that church teaches falsehood.’

But it is slander to say ‘That church teaches apostasy.’

'Apostasy’ does not mean ‘falsehood’ or Webster would have told us.
Webster said apostasy is a TOTAL DESERTION OF FAITH. Did this church desert its faith in Christ, God, or the Holy Spirit? NO…they just believe something incorrectly. Does their ‘incorrect thinking’ cause them to be ‘bad’ Christians?
(Baptists might act better if they believed falling from Grace.)

Here is an example of ‘apostasy’:

“How much worse punishment, do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he WAS SANCTIFIED, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29)

That my friends, is a “total desertion of faith.”

Rex Ray said...

Rev,
You said, “As for the account of the ruler’s daughter. While Matthew 9:23-25 does not mention death specifically…There isn’t even an apparent contradiction between these passages.”

Hey! Surely you know where the contradiction is in this chapter. But then again, it’s been said, “There is no one as blind as those who refuse to see.”

It is five verses sooner. Did you not read verse 18? “My daughter is even now dead.” (King James) “My daughter has just died.” (NLT & NASB) “My little daughter has just died.” (Living Bible) “My daughter is near death.” (Oops…what happened? Oh, that’s the Holman Bible that decided “ONE DAY” has arrived and shows the ‘illusion’ of the girl being dead in Matthew was really alive and should agree with Mark and Luke that she was only near death.)

Of course, truth does not matter because like James Denison said, “No evidence can dissuade an inerrantist from his conviction.”

Bryan Riley said...

Rev, I am sorry you read that as though I was accusing you of those things - I did put your name at the top simply because the thoughts came in response to yours and w treat's comments, but they were not directed at you. It was a comment in general about what we have done, including me. When we formed a denomination or a separation within the body based on method of baptism we have divided. And, many continue to, as is evidenced by the questions here, fight and clamor for this "denominational distinctive" even though nothing in teh bible supports the notion of denominations or distinctives or any of that. The bible teaches reconciliation and unity in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the King of all kings, the Word of God, our all in all.

Rev. said...

Rex:
You still don't get it. It is *not* slander to say, "That church teaches the doctrine of 'apostasy,' (known by some as 'falling from grace')."

Bryan:
Thanks for the clarification.

Rex Ray said...

Rev,
There are two other reasons why Matthew is in ERROR about telling Jesus, “My daughter is even now dead.”

“One of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at His feet and kept begging Him, ‘My little daughter is at death’s door. Come and lay your hands on her so she can get well and live…While He was still speaking, people came from the synagogue leader’s house and said, ‘Your daughter is dead. Why bother the Teacher any more?’” (Mark 5:22, 23, 35)

“Just then, a man named Jairus came. He was a leader of the synagogue. He fell down at Jesus’ feet and pleaded with Him to come to his house, because he had an only daughter about 12 years old, and she was at death’s door…While He was still speaking someone came from the synagogue leader’s house, saying, ‘Your daughter is dead. Don’t bother the Teacher anymore.” (Luke 8: 41, 49)

Reason 1.
If the ruler believed his daughter was already dead, someone would not have come from his house to tell him she had died.


“But when Jesus overheard what was said, He told the synagogue leader, ‘Don’t be afraid. Only believe.’” (Mark 5:36)
“When Jesus heard it, He answered him, ‘Don’t be afraid. Only believe, and she will be made well.’” (Luke 8: 50)

Reason 2.
In Matthew the ruler is the one with great faith in believing Jesus could raise the dead, but in Mark and Luke he is afraid and it is Jesus who has great faith.
If the ruler had that faith, Jesus would have said, “I have not found anyone in Israel with so great a faith!” (Matthew 8:10 Luke 7:9) as he did with the centurion.

Of course, this is more truth that you will probably throw in the waste basket.
Rev, the big problem is people will not accept that ‘God’s ways are not man’s ways’. If man had written the Bible, it would have been like a math book where everyone would have the same conclusion.

From the start, inerrantists conclude ‘God would not give us anything but perfection’, so their minds are made up about the Bible in telling God what He did before they learn from Him.

People tend to ‘worship’ perfection in about anything. Maybe in writing the Bible, God didn’t want us to worship the messenger.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray,

For the last time I will try to explain this concept. The use of "apostasy" in theological circles in a comparison to Calvinism is an accepted practice as apostasy in this sense has a different connotation than you perceive.

I will not explain myself again. Rev. has already done so as well. It is your refusal to engage this thought on a theological termniology level that has created confusion ... but only for yourself.

Amy

K. Michael Crowder said...

Wade,

I did not misrepresent the truth and I am offended at your accusation. I asked a series of questions which were very relevant. You deleted my post because you were not willing to answer them. Being honest and simply saying that would have been better than calling me a liar.

K

I am still waiting on the answers.

K. Michael Crowder said...

Joe W,

"If you want to do that KMC you have to post at the Outpost."

I am not allowed to post at the Outpost. Truth is not allowed there.

K

Wade Burleson said...

K Michael Crowder.

You lied. I'm sorry you are offended, but you lied in your comment. Period.

Get over it. Not the hurt feelings. The lying.

You stated that the ANTIOCH NETWORK would embrace churches that overtly practice homosexuality and advocated it as normal behavior after I clearly spelled out that any church or pastor that openly flaunted immoral behavior would be in violation of the clear commands of the infallible Scripture (including adultery and homosexuality).

Stay off this site if you intend to lie further.

Blessings,

wade

Only By His Grace said...

Rex Ray,

You need to read more carefully. Notice the time, place and people when these miracles happen and much will be solved.

Do not make the Matthew's account the same story or miracle as in Mark 5:22 and Luke 8:41.

Matt. ruler is "archon" and is used of civil rulers. Daughter is korasion and is used of an older girl who is usually in her teens. No servants are sent to Jesus since the civil ruler already told Jesus His daughter was dead.

In both Mark and Luke, the word for ruler is "archisunagogon". The ruler's name is Jairus, and the word for "damsel" (Mark 5:39) is "paidion" from which we have the "pediatrics"; usually paidion means a small child not having reached the teenage years. Luke uses "pais" which is the generic word for children from infancy to the teen years.

You are right the stories are very different because they are accounts of two different happenings.

It is for this reason I dislike harmonies of the Gospels immensely. They are four distinct portraits of the Lord and are not meant to be harmonized.

Phil in Norman.

Rev. said...

Rex:
To be quite honest with you, when I gave my first reply regarding the healing of the ruler's daughter, I gave only a cursory reading of the related texts. That is why I answered in the manner in which I did.

Upon looking at extended verses in the accounts, there is an apparent contradiction. I was not trying to ignore what was there, or anything like that. I simply gave the texts a cursory reading. It is that simple. Still, I do not believe the accounts given necessarily contradict each other.

On the one hand, if all of these texts are describing the exact same event, *when* does the ruler say to the Lord Jesus that his daughter is dead. Could it be *after* the servant has come? *After* he has already spoken to the Lord Jesus about healing his sick daughter? Certainly. That would very easily fit within the fact that there were multiple eye-witnesses to the account. On the other hand, if these are separate accounts (note the time, place and people), then these are similar accounts, not exact ones.

I know you disagree, and you certainly have the right to affirm your belief that the Bible is not infallible. I respect your right to believe what you wish, despite my disagreement with you. What I find troubling, however, is your spirit. You have written that I, because of my position, am "blind" and "refuse to see;" that I will throw "truth...in the waste basket;" you have implied that I do not accept that God's ways are above our ways; and that I am an idolater because I tend to "worship" perfection and a "messenger" (rather than God).

Is that what you intended? I find it ironic that a CBF-type such as yourself, who tends to speak about things such as compassion, acceptance and openness, would use such condescending language. Is your aim to help me be more like Christ, or is it simply to win an argument against a conservative? As for myself, I would prefer to be flawed in my thinking and yet humble and gracious in my heart so that others see Christ reflected in my life. Might I be so bold as to say that I wish that for you as well.

Rev. said...

Phil:

Thanks for your notes on the issue. Saw them after I posted my previous comment to Rex.

Blackhaw said...

"Doctrinal confessions, including this one, are only guides to interpreting the Bible, and have no authority over the conscience."

Not a bad statement. I mean that. But this has to go. This makes no sense. You are holding them to this statement of faith and problably to at leat the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian definition. Although I do not know if I saw the latter. But anyways your definition of the Trinity comes from a Tradition that believes in the Nicene Creed. The very definition coems from it.

But you can't make the statement above and then force people to hold to your confessional statement on how scripture is to be interpreted. See, like Nicea, the question is the interpretation of scripture. But also like Nicea you seem to be holding those who will be in your organization to certain ways of interpreting scripture. For instance and Arian or a Sabellian could not be a part of your group. Right? However with the statement above they can. The particular interpretation of scripture you are advocating has "no authority over the conscience." Okay but then just through out the confessional statement altogether then.

greg.w.h said...

And from the preamble to the BF&M 2000 we have this quote:

With the 1963 committee, we have been guided in our work by the 1925 "statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life . . . ." It is, therefore, quoted in full as a part of this report to the Convention:

(1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.

(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.


So what you're really saying, Carl, is that you don't agree with the BF&M 2000 committee about the nature of confessions?

Go ahead...dodge and weave. I'm ready for yah!! ;)

Greg Harvey

Rex Ray said...

Amy and Rev,
Thanks for explaining how “theological circles” can give false names to those that are not one of the accepted group. I’m sure ‘apostasy’ is not well received by those out of the group.

Maybe I’m uptight about this subject because some “theological circles” used “theological terminology level” to called clear thinking Christians ‘Anabaptist’ in 251 AD and named true conservatives ‘Moderates’.

Since more Scriptures teach ‘falling from Grace’ as there is to ‘stop speaking in Tongues’, does the Assembly of God call us ‘Apostasy Baptists’?

Besides me being confused on this “theological terminology level”, why doesn’t someone inform Webster because I think he’s confused also?

Sorry so long in replying…snow or something took our internet out for a while.

Blackhaw said...

Greg,

"Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience."

Yes you are right I disagree with that part of the BF&M. It does not make any sense. Why have a BF&M if this is the case? Can you tell me what it means and why anyone would make that kind of statement? At best it is just stating the obvious. At worst it becomes a liscence for heretics to be a part of the community.

But then again I think I have very good reason to disagree with it. I think the BF&M should be signed by professors and Pastors of SBC churches ( well maybe not signed by Pastors but agreed upon by them). However I think like many denominations one should be able to make statements on parts they do not agree with. For instance I know of a Prof. who got a job at RTS. They made him sign the Westminster Confession. And they also allowed him to make statements of parts he did not believe in but had to explain why. None of these parts were major areas but were instead like the area in which I disagree with the BF&M.

I do not have to squirm.

Blackhaw said...

"Maybe I’m uptight about this subject because some “theological circles” used “theological terminology level” to called clear thinking Christians ‘Anabaptist’ in 251 AD and named true conservatives ‘Moderates'."

Huh? Anabaptists in 251 AD? Are you talking about those that believe in the "trail of blood?" I can't think of their name right this second.

Rex Ray said...

Phil and Rev,
I’ll address both of you, since you say to note “time, place, and people”.
Phil says these are two different stories, and Rev switches the events around to prove there is no error in Matthew.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke record: (time, place, and people)
1. Leader pleaded with Jesus to help his daughter.
2. Jesus started to leader’s home.
3. On the way, a woman touched Him.

After the woman touched him, the accounts differ: Mathew says Jesus came to the leader’s house, while Mark and Luke say some people came from the leader’s house and told the leader his daughter had died, and then Jesus went to his house.

What’s interesting is while both of you tell me to note “time, place, and people” neither of you have used “time, place, and people” to prove your point.

Phil’s viewpoint is based upon definition of words (ruler and daughter), and there were no people from the leader’s house.

Rev’s viewpoint is based upon non-existing people from the leader’s house (in Matthew) of telling the leader his daughter was dead BEFORE he pleaded with Jesus.

Rev, I don’t understand your thanking Phil for his “notes on the issue” which disagrees with you. Maybe you now agree with him that these are two different stories? If so, will you two advise the Holman Bible to change the girl back to being dead?


Blackhaw,
Please, don’t get me started on the ‘Trail of Blood’. I’m working up the courage to apologize to Rev, and I don’t have the time to get distracted.

BTW, those that believe in the history of the Martyrs have a name that is described in my opinion as ‘being right.’

Rex Ray said...

Rev,
I’m sorry you have your feelings hurt. That’s not an apology is it? So I’ll try to do better. I’ve read what I said several times and the worst thing I said was:

“If the ruler had that faith, Jesus would have said, ‘I have not found anyone in Israel with so great a faith’ as he did with the centurion. Of course, this is more truth that you will probably throw in the waste basket.”

I should have said, ‘this is more FACTS that you will probably throw in the waste basket.’ I apologize for saying TRUTH, but I’m not on my knees.

You said, “What I find troubling, however, is your spirit”, and you quote in parts what I said to prove your point. I will write in full detail of what I said, and what you said I said. (I believe you might have used the old rule: ‘If you cannot refute what one says, attack his character. Hope I don’t have to apologize over that.)

You wrote: “There isn’t even an apparent contradiction between these passages.”
I wrote: “Hey! Surely you know where the contradiction is in this chapter. But then again, it’s been said, ‘There is no one as blind as those who refuse to see.”
You wrote: “You have written that I, because of MY POSITION, am blind and refuse to see.”

I wrote: “Rev, the big problem is people will not accept that ‘God’s ways are not man’s ways’. If man had written the Bible, it would have been like a math book where everyone would have the same conclusion.
You wrote: “You have implied that I do not accept that God’s ways are above our ways.”

I wrote: “People tend to ‘worship’ perfection in about anything. Maybe in writing the Bible, God didn’t want us to worship the messenger.”
Your wrote: “You have implied that I am an idolater because I tend to worship perfection and a messenger (rather than God).”

You said, “I find it ironic that a CBF-type such as yourself…would use such condescending language…As for myself, I would prefer to be flawed in my thinking and yet humble and gracious in my heart so that others see Christ reflected in my life.”

Huh?

Only By His Grace said...

Rex Ray,

I just listed a few things about the differences in the stories. Put yourself in the event at that time. Everyone with any illness was attempting to get to the Lord Jesus for healing. These stories are similiar and not the same. It is not surprising that two females were raised from the dead with similar stories. It surprising there were not ten.

I begin with giving the Scripture the benefit of a doubt. Admittedly, I am coming from inerrant point of view, but you seem to have already made up your mind there is error.

I will post more differences in these two stories if you wish.

If one is an error or if both are, they should be relegated to fiction and not in a book which claims to the Written Word of God.

If we cut out one or both of these stories, what do we cut out next? Jonah? The Resurrection? I refuse go down that path.

Having said that, I do not make it (being two different events or a literal Jonah) a test of fellowship. I have said for forty years and still say, I had rather have someone who practices all he believes in the Bible while believing or having doubts about a plenary position than those I know who believe all of it and believes it correctly but practice very little of it. I have fought more with those who hold to strict fundamentals, much more, than I have fought with those I disagree with on issues of inspiration.

Only By His Grace,
Phil.

K. Michael Crowder said...

Wade,

I did not lie. You are bearing false witness by insisting that I have. You said clearly in your post:

"Homosexuality and adultery are moral matters. But I would imagine the church in open immorality would be dealt with in a gracious, loving, and personal manner by member churches of the Network."

I admit that I glazed over the first part of this post, and might have come to a slightly less ridged opinion had I not have done such, but your post includes a grey area that is unnecessary.

Your doctrinal confessionette does not explicitly prohibit this view.

Will your bylaws address this issue? Or, will your network simple all "all" who affirm the confession regardless of NOTHING else?

Is salvation a prerequisite?


K

K. Michael Crowder said...

Wade,

"in violation of the clear commands of the infallible Scripture "


SO you are saying that (according to your personal convictions) that those churches who are part of the Network who have women pastors are in violation of the clear commands of the infallible Scripture--but that on this issue you are will to forego the clear teachings of Scripture for the cause of unity and cooperation???

This is the crux of the debate. How much of Scripture can one ignore and still be in the Network?


And Blessings to YOU,

Kevin M. Crowder

Rev. said...

Rex:

I'm a big boy. Never said my feelings were hurt. The concern isn't for me, but for you. Sorry if I read too much into your statements. That can be easy to do in print, can't it?

We don't agree. I'm an inerrantist, you're not. You're a moderate, I'm not. No use kicking the proverbial dead horse any longer.

Rev. said...

BTW, you really, really, really have not understood the "apostasy" deal. It's a *doctrine*. You are so uptight on this deal that your eyes are scrunched too tight. ;)

251? 251? Which Anabaptists were around in 251? John the Anabaptist and his followers?

Rev. said...

Rex: "Huh?"

I meant that I am more concerned with exemplifying Christ than having my intellectual checklist in order - I would rather be gracious than "correct." Know what I mean?

Jim said...

K. Michael Crowder,

You consider working with Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. 'syncretism'?

But yet you publish your astrological sign and zodiac year in your blogger profile. Is not the support of astrology what the old testament terms 'sorcery'?

It seems to me that you have provided us with a fine example of hypocrisy.

K. Michael Crowder said...

"But yet you publish your astrological sign and zodiac year in your blogger profile. Is not the support of astrology what the old testament terms 'sorcery'? "

um...I have no clue what you are talking about, but I will look into it. I have never posted anything about astrology or my birthsign. You might stop being a schmuck and email me privately about where you have seen this so that I may find out how to remove it.


K

Rex Ray said...

Blackhaw,
You said, “Huh? Anabaptists in 251 AD? Are you talking about those that believe in the "trail of blood?" I can't think of their name right this second.”

I’m talking about ‘Trail of Blood’ by J.M. Carroll who died in 1931. J. W. Porter actual wrote the book from Carroll’s sermons. The 66th edition was 20,000, and is on the internet. His large library of history books was donated to SWBTS. His picture and a chart that showed events from the first century to the twenty century hung on the wall until fundamentalists (my opinion) removed them because they believed he wrote falsehood. The chart showed in 251 churches were called Anabaptist who declared non-fellowship with churches practicing infant baptism for salvation.

I believe the Trail of Blood was ‘condemned’ because he wrote: “These great churches necessarily had many preachers or elders (Acts 20:17). Some of the bishops or pastors began to assume authority not given them in the New Testament. They began to claim authority over other and smaller churches. They, with their many elders, began to lord it over God's heritage (III John 9. Here was the beginning of an error which has grown and multiplied into many other seriously hurtful errors. Here was the beginning of different orders in the ministry running up finally to what is practiced now by others as well as Catholics.

GASP! Inerrantists would yell, ‘How dare Carroll say Third John verse 9 was an example of elders claiming authority over small churches!’

Maybe Carroll took Elder John at his word when he wrote verse 9, “I sent a brief letter to the church about this but Diotrephes, who loves to be the leader, does not acknowledge OUR AUTHORITY.” (NLT 1997)

Rex Ray said...

Phil,
I like what you said, “I had rather have someone who practices all he believes in the Bible while believing or having doubts about a plenary position than those I know who believe all of it and believes it correctly but practice very little of it.”

I see the Bible as all Scripture is perfect truth from God, and all untruth is lies of the devil and men, their ignorance, forgetfulness, and stupidity. As Job said, “Though He slay me, yet I will trust Him”; I will trust Scripture though there is untruth in the Bible.

As shaft is separated from grain by wind, untruth is separated from truth as Jesus said the Holy Spirit would teach us. It’s not for me to say how the Holy Spirit teaches…whether by study, being taught truth by mothers or whoever or whatever…maybe even blogging. smile

Rex Ray said...

Rev,
The hour is late, and you’re last on the list. Tomorrow will be a long day as we are going to see my wife’s very ill brother in the hospital in Dallas.

I’m glad you didn’t get your feelings hurt and saying we no longer need to kick a dead horse. I would normally say that’s a white flag, but I agree we’ve about said it all.

My “huh?” was a poor try at irony, and if you don’t get it…it’s just as well.

I like the smile on your face, but I bet you’d trade that beard for hair…I know I would. Once I got 24 hour amnesia…made a fool of myself when I found a wig on my head…people thought I was drunk. My wife kept waking me up that night saying, “Who am I?”

Rev. said...

Rex:
I wouldn't trade the beard for hair. One of the primary points of Galyonism is this, "Hair is for the weak." ;)

24-hr. amnesia and a wig....sounds like quite a tale!

Hope your brother-in-law recovers quickly and completely. Please keep us posted. Please know I prayed for him, to have God's hand of mercy and healing upon Him.

Jim said...

K. Michael Crowder,

There's no need to email you privately as I've already told you where it is. It's in your blogger profile. Click on the link to your name and you will see your blogger profile.

Why do you feel the need to call me names when I'm merely pointing out the obvious thing that you've done?

Rex Ray said...

Rev,
So, you wouldn’t trade your beard for hair? Sounds like positive thinking.

My brother-in-law has come out of a coma. At first they thought he had a brain tumor, but thought an operation would kill him. Whatever they see on his brain moves, and they said a tumor will not do that. They are giving him vitamins. Sometime he can talk. The doctors don’t know what’s wrong. He’s been in ICU for two weeks. Thanks for your prayers.

The ‘wig’ tale goes like this:
“I’ve been chasing you for the longest! You’re the fastest, out-of-control skier I’ve seen in my life!”
These words drowned out my “Thank you” as the ski patrol had picked up my skis fifty yards up the mountain...(I had thought “I’m going as fast on my back as I was skiing.”)
“When you lost control, why didn’t you fall down?”
“I was too scared.”
“Read these rules!”
I began to read to fall down…
“Out loud!”
“I’m running you off! If you’d hit a tree, you’d be dead! If you’d hit someone, you’d both be dead! Now get out of here!”
“Please, sir, my wife and I came with my brother and his family after driving a 100 miles, and we’ve only been here an hour.” (I didn’t tell him I hadn’t been skiing in 20 years and I’d never learned to turn or slow down.)
“Well OK, but fall as soon as you lose control!”

The green slope I’d been on closed, but my nephew said, “Oh, come on Uncle Rex, you can handle this blue slope.”
The last I remember was getting off the ski lift. The ski patrol brought me down on a snowmobile, and my nephew told my wife, “There’s something wrong with Uncle Rex.”
I knew people but was goofy. I had forgotten my children had married and the wig as I’d lost about eight years.
The next day, I was ok, but to this day I have a hard time finding my way out of ‘new’ buildings.
The wig is long gone, but it was warm in the winter, and kept my head from roasting in the sun. I took a three week vacation, grew a beard, and went back to work with a wig. They said, “My, Rex, most people look older with a beard, but you look younger.” (They didn’t notice the wig.)

Hey, I promised my wife I wouldn’t ski again for twenty years, but today’s my 76th birthday. I could try the slide that’s forty foot high I made for my ten grandkids. It’s attached to a star and a cross that’s 67 feet high with stairs to the top. The slide is like a roller-coaster, but instead of staying on the slide, the sled I made travels thirty-eight feet in the air…more like a ski jump. Anybody want to come by and make a home video?…might make some money on TV. Got to do some major remodeling.