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

Baptist Identity Movement Is "Neo-Landmarkist"

I received an insightful, concise email from a respected Southern Baptist Convention leader regarding the new Baptist Identity Movement in the SBC. With permission, and on the condition of anonymity, I share the email with you below.

___________________________


Dear Wade,

Technically, those identifying themselves as part of the “Baptist Identity” Movement (BIM) are what might better be defined as “Neo-Landmarkists.” This ideology (BIM) tends to distance themselves from the old style J.R. Graves Landmarkists who believed you could directly trace Baptists back to the Apostolic Church through a succession of supposed like-minded churches and movements. Modern day BIM personnel eschew this type of ideology in favor of a more watered down version of traditional Landmarkism.

Nevertheless, the BIM seems strangely out of step with the needs of Southern Baptists in the early 21st century. At a time when Southern Baptists face a world and an America that is demographically different from its core constituency of white Southerners, the BIM has chosen to look inward at the Baptist community itself for its work and mission. The movement’s quest for a purer more disciplined Baptist orthodoxy and orthopraxy has consumed most of their energies at a time when evangelicals face very real dangers from radical Western secularism and emergent Islam (both the missionary and jihadist varieties).

Baptists are called to witness to a lost and spiritually-dying world. When Baptists should be thinking about finding a broader consensus to face these spiritual threats, instead, many have chosen to wage cultural warfare with our own. Baptists have always forged their own identity through consensus of the entire community rather than allowing a fringe element to determine that identity for the entire community. This was true of the pro-Missionary Baptists of the early 1800s who overcame the anti-missionary impulses of some Baptists, the Southern Baptists of the late 1800s who turned back the forces of Old Landmarkism, and the Conservatives of the 1970s and 1980s who wrestled the Convention away from the moderates. Wade, in our own states both you and I thought that this latter battle for identity was important.

Fortunately, the Baptist Identity Movement does not speak for all Southern Baptists and soteriology and eschatology prevent even those that might agree in ecclesiology from mounting a truly unified movement. Baptist Identity people in various state conventions, for instance, remain split on these issues, and strangely enough, many of them who look to Southern Seminary for inspiration took a dim view of the John 3:16 conference and hold pre-millennial dispensationalism in disdain.

I remain hopeful that eventually Southern Baptists will view the Great Commission as more important than trying to police Baptist orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Blessings,


____________ (anonymous by request)

212 comments:

1 – 200 of 212   Newer›   Newest»
irreverend fox said...

Wade,

The ironic thing is that this BIM/Neo-Landmarkism is NOT practicing Baptist orthodoxy. The Baptist movement was a free church movement! We've not had Cardinals or Metropolitans nor Creeds as Baptists and it sure seems like this BIM movement would like us to think so!

Anonymous said...

Glad to know I'm not the only important person blogging anonymously at this site!

Anonymous said...

Only deal is, the "moderates" were as theologically conservative as the unnamed writer's great-grandmomma . . . But we've been over that here a number of times before. It's an important matter EVERYBODY needs to get!

Anonymous said...

Glad to know I'm also not the only important person blogging anonymously at this site!

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

I must admit, I'm somewhat ashamed that I have allowed something to draw me back out over here. But I plan not to stay for long, and I find that for once you leave me genuinely curious as to what you think about something.

So, I pose this simple question to you: Now that we have the concession that the unnamed people who are the target of this little bit of correspondence are not Landmarkers (one of the labels that you, who have challenged us all to avoid labels, love to throw around recklessly), and now that we have concocted a "watered-down" Landmarkism that has been termed "Neo-Landmarkism," could you spell out for me in specific and careful terms what you perceive to be the differences between Neo-Landmarkism and the theologies of John Smythe, Thomas Helwys, William Kiffin, William Carey, Andrew Fuller, Adoniram Judson, Roger Williams, or John Clarke in the period of their lives in which they were Baptists?

Anonymous said...

But your love is still so obvious, Bart.

Tim G said...

I would also add to Barts very gracious comment and question as to why it is seems so OK with labeling a group or supposed group, while asking that labels not be attached to you or your group. Is it not in he best interest of the SBC be consistent?

OU may have their hands full in Jan?

r. grannemann said...

It might be helpful to identify what is exactly "Landmark" about the BIM.

Landmarkism was known for drawing a line in the sand concerning what a "true" church was. "Where" the line was drawn is what defined Landmarkism. Although Landmarkism was articulated a bit differently by its different proponents, roughly it considered true churches to be those with a historical church lineage to the apostles that held a number of Baptist distinctives (like believers baptism by immersion by church authority).

Everyone (to my knowledge) in the BIM movement has dropped the history lineage requirement for a "true church," but at least some BIM people seem to continue to require other Baptist distinctives for a church to be considered "true", e.g. believers baptism by immersion. And they might argue that such a position is not Landmark but something all Baptists should believe.

Early Baptists struggled much with what a "true" church was, in my opinion a confusion they inherited from Roman Catholicism. For Roman Catholics, only their baptism is the true baptism and only a church with their historical pedigree is true. Baptists had to work through their own ecclesiology in light of all this murky thinking thrown in their face. Hence the historical Baptist confusion about what exactly a true church is.

In my opinion, Baptist should adopt a "pure" congregationalism in which a true church is: "truly born again believers assembled in Christ's name" - period.

Of course, Christ's churches should baptize and keep the Lord's supper etc. etc. etc. (and they usually do according to their best understanding). But to start adding other specific requirements (beyond entrance into to the Kingdom of God by the new birth) in order to recognize an assemble as one of Christ's own is is a kind of legalism of works and what I would now consider neo-Landmarkism (or perhaps another name for it would be better).

I do not mean to imply Baptists should not have "Baptist distinctives" that separate us from others. I am saying we should have a correct definition of what a true church of Christ is.

If I have misrepresented what the BIM thinks, please correct me.

If the BIM will clearly state they believe a "true" church is an assembly of born again believers assembled in His name without other conditions, I think the present tensions can be worked out.

Tim G said...

r. granneman,
Did anyone post or comment that a true church was anything but born again believers? If so could you please point to this post. I have not seen it from anyone in the "BI Group" but have heard it implied by others.

Wade,
One other question: Will you due to your consistent attacks on secret things and conversations reveal the source? Your wonderful church member consistantly calls into question anyone else who uses a ANNON email.

Fair is fair! :)

One Salient Oversight said...

It seems that people have a problem working out the difference between secrecy and privacy.

Individuals have a right of privacy. Organisations, however, need openness in their dealings.

When organisations deal with important matters of individuals, obviously some form of privacy is required. Outside of this, however, the organisation needs to be open (especially if it is a non-profit religious organisation).

peter lumpkins said...

Wade,

The Don't-Dare-Label-Me-But-I-Can-And-Will-Label-You buck stops in Enid, Wade. Good job :^)

For all we know, old buddy Ben Cole wrote this. Whoever wrote it, it stands about as influential to Southern Baptists as the Pseudepigrapha. Perhaps we'll title it--

"The Assumption of Ben Cole"

What a double Georgia hoot. With that, I am...

Peter

NativeVermonter said...

First, I'm afraid credibility has been lost in asking folks to not make anonymous comments.

Second, since I made the vow to not read anonymous comments (Ecc 5:5), I cannot add anything substantial. (Which could also be said when I make a comment about a post that I actually read.)

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Let me offer my thanks to you for keeping your ANTI calvinistic rhetoric away the last few posts. Your absence allowed everyone else to participate in fruitful discussions with respectful questions and answers pertaining to the Doctrines of Grace from both Calvinists and NON Calvinists.

I sincerely appreciate it.

Since you don't reply to anonymous comments, I gain satisfaction knowing you at least hear my sincere thanks.

I am left wondering though why you respond to anonymous posts?

With that, you are...

Inconsistent (as usual)

Signed,

Commenter who is typically not anonymous, but anonymous on this comment so I can have fun with Petey. :)

CB Scott said...

Well, if we are going to draw new identity lines in the sand, thus causing each of us to have to decide on which side of the line we are to unite theologically, Wade; It must be pointed out that you are now defining yourself as a Neo-Liberal.

Therefore, let it be known that on December 8, 2008, one day after Pearl Harbor Day, Wade W. Burleson declared himself as a Neo-Liberal.

cb

CB Scott said...

Peter,

Ben Cole had nothing to do with this post. I can assure you.

cb

chadwick said...

I agree with the writer's general assessment about the rising threats of Landmarkism in the SBC.

However, the 'respected SBC Denominational leader's' anonymity castrates the usefulness of his assessment.

In a day when men such as Danny Akin and Ed Stetzer (respected denominational servants)are putting their titles on the line, they are not ashamed to sign their names or show their faces!

For example, how useful would Akin have been at the 'Building Bridges' conference with a paper bag over his head with an electronic voice disguiser?

There is no place for anonymous assessors when it comes to dealing with issues that threaten the Great Commission.

The message I receive from the contributor is: he fears men rather than God! . . . he values his job greater than the Great Commission.

If the SBC is truly going to be a Great Commission denomination, there is no room for anonymous leaders.

chadwick

Ben Stratton said...

I wish the author of this e-mail had the courage to allow his name to be signed. I am sure he is a good man and doing a good work as a Southern Baptist Convention leader. He is however, NOT a good historian. Consider the following:

1. The author wrote: "the Southern Baptists of the late 1800s who turned back the forces of Old Landmarkism." Here is the problem with this statement. The Ben Bogard and Samuel Hayden landmark controversies that the author is referring to were over one issue: Gospel Missions. Bogard and the landmarkers who left the convention in 1905 believed in gospel missions as opposed to mission boards. The Bogard division was not over alien baptism or closed communion! Therefore the only "forces of Old Landmarkism" that the Southern Baptist Convention ever "turned back" was gospel missions. This is an historical fact.

2. It is noteworthy that the author of this e-mail calls those in Baptist Identity movement "Neo-Landmarkists.” Here is the problem. The controversy with the Baptist Identity movement in recent months and days has been in regard to two issues: Alien Immersion and Closed Communion. Yet it can easily be demonstrated historically that 100% of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention believed in a restricted Lord's Supper and the vast majority of these men also rejected alien immersions. Were Broadus, Boyce, Manly Jr., Dagg, and Mell neo-Landmarkist??? The Baptist Identity folks are simply believing and standing for what Baptists in America have always believed.

Anonymous said...

The Great commission can only be carried out by those who adhere to the Word of God, and the doctrines of Grace, contained therein.

When a movement divorces itself from its past history, it destroys its identity, such is the case with the SBC, Which in the early 1900's departed from the Doctrines of Grace.
Dr. Paul W. Foltz

Anonymous said...

I think we should graciously tell each other, "Mind your own theological business," and all of us get about doing evangelistic ministry in the time remaining before Christ's return.

The labeling/name-calling which has taken place for 30 years in the SBC probably indicates something of the degree to which believers among us--including posters here (and me)--are out of focus in terms of most important spiritual matters.

Baptist Theologue said...

There's an amazing BI document that some of you might want to examine. Here are a couple of excerpts:

1. Regarding the fact that only groups of immersed believers are recognized as New Testament churches:

"A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers. . . . Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water."

2. Regarding the fact that only immersed believers can partake of the Lord's Supper:

"Being a church ordinance, it [immersion] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."

Best wishes in the holiday season,

Mike Morris (aka BT)

r. grannemann said...

Baptist Theologue,

Mike, you have not helped me.

What exactly do you mean by "New Testament churches?" Do you mean churches that do not baptize properly, though composed of born again believers, do not have the New Testament form? Or do you mean they are not churches of Christ at all, that they are merely societies of men, like the Landmarkers did?

Your imprecision on this is why the BI people keep being accused of being Landmarkers.

peter lumpkins said...

CB,

My brother, dog-gone you; You went and burnt my beans. Shame! Shame! Shame!
(of course, I do not think it's Cole; but that's beside the point!)

Let's see...I know! This letter was written by Debbie! She believes strongly in anonymous postings. Why, she's said so a dozen times, has she not?

With that, I am...

Peter

p.s. Sorry Debbie. Just funnin'...

Anonymous said...

CB,

I know you write in jest, but I write seriously. Having read what Wade writes for over two years, listened to him preach on several occasions, and visited with him personally on a couple of occasions, I find him as conservative, biblical and gracious of a man as I have ever met. But, I agree with you that a neo-fascist would find him neo-liberal.

George Anderson

Baptist Theologue said...

R. Grannemann, I take the words at face value. The churches described in the New Testament and the New Testament churches in existence today were/are autonomous local congregations of immersed believers. Churches that practise sprinkling may be referred to as "churches," but they are not "New Testament churches" according to the BI document previously referenced.

Anonymous said...

My, my, my.

Some of the comments remind me what W.A. Criswell said when he quipped "When you actually hit the old dog in the ribs he yelps really loud."

Sounds like a lot of yelping this morning from the Landmarkers.

Good post.

Greg Alford said...

Dr. Allen calls Dr. James White a “HYPER-Calvinist” and Bart Barber, Tim G., Peter Lumpkins, CB Scott, etc., applauded his labeling of James White.

Wade post an email that correctly labels the BIM as Neo-Landmark and Bart Barber, Tim G., Peter Lumpkins, CB Scott, etc., come on wades Blog and cry “how Dare you label me!”

Gentleman, you have already proven that you have no “real” problem with labels so you can drop the false outrage about someone putting a label on you. Might I recommend that you clearly and carefully define what you believe, and how what you believe separates you from what Landmakist believe.

Clearly the current row over Landmark ideology in the SBC is directly tied to the new IMB policies that are perceived (correctly, or incorrectly) by many in the SBC as Landmark. Until, these unwise policies are removed, again, many in the SBC feel that they have been disenfranchised by the very missions agency that they have supported all their lives. Who was behind the new policies at the IMB? The much maligned Calvinist of the SBC? Nope! It was Card carrying BIM members…

Labels are like a new pair of jeans, the more you ware them the more comfortable they get… I am very comfortable with my 5-point Calvinist Label.

Grace Always,

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

I will gladly answer your question when you help me understand a couple of things that will relate to me answer:

(1). Why are you "ashamed" to be pulled back into this blog?
(2). Do you know the position that these Baptists of the 18th and 19th centuries that you name in your comment, men that I too respect, took on slavery?

When you help me understand your understanding of the above two questions, I will be happy to answer your question based on a love for Scripture, Christian unity and historic Baptist beliefs.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

P.S. If find it curious that you left out Bunyan, Gill, Spurgeon and others - men just as "Baptist" as those you name, but I think I know why. (grin)

Wade Burleson said...

Everyone:

See Greg Alford's comment above.

Blessings,

Wade

r. grannemann said...

Baptist Theologue,

I take you to mean that "New Testament church" means one practicing the New Testament mode of baptism (and perhaps other unspecified things you consider to be NT church practice), but that churches which baptize infants could indeed be churches of Christ if composed of born again believers.

Bro. Robin said...

Here it is again. Wade is challenged on his inaccurate view of Baptist history and heritage. Instead of correcting his faulty view of Baptist History and what the Baptist Identity movement is, he decides to throw the race card out and turn the issue to slavery.

Way to divert attention away from the facts!

Wade Burleson said...

Robin,

Please.

People without prejudice will see my point.

Baptists have been wrong on issues before, and on this Baptist Identity issue of the "true" church, there were Baptists in the day who disagreed with the Baptists that Bart Barber mentioned.

Robin, I'm not sure you and I have ever had a Baptist history discussion, so I shall refrain from making a judgment on whether or not you are faulty in your understanding and appreciate the same grace from you.

CB Scott said...

Greg Alford,Here again you have illustrated your inability to record events with accuracy.

I never applauded anyone for anything about James White.

I would never say such a sissy thing as "how dare you" to any living soul.

In response to Wade's identifying BI folk as Neo-Landmarkers, I called him a Neo-Liberal.

Now, I guess I will have to call you a "Neo-unable to understand Englisher" for how-daring me when I did not dare anything.

cb

Baptist Theologue said...

R. Grannemann,

In Dr. Mohler's useful triage system, New Testament churches and churches practicing sprinkling would agree on the first-order doctrines "such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture." New Testament churches and churches practicing sprinkling would disagree on "the meaning and mode of baptism," which he classifies as a second-order issue. Dr. Mohler says that differences on second-order issues are important: "The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident. . . . Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians, but recognize that disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination."

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-05-20

Bro. Robin said...

Wade

I appreciate your grace, but my comment still stands.

Robin

Bro. Robin said...

Wade

With all grace, we just posted a historical article concerning Baptist history at SBCToday.com. You may come over and comment on its accuracy.

WatchingHISstory said...

Where is a Church that would let me join? I am a bold Spirit Filled (non cesessionist) evangelistic (witnessing to everyone, but not a soul winner, that's the Holy Spirit's job) Calvinist (without the Fullerite compromises) I was baptized at age ten in a Trinitarian Wesleyan-Pentecostal youth camp swimming pool. I refuse to let a man tell me I have to be rebaptized. I proudly 'ware' my Calvinism and am impatient with Arminianism. I can potentially turn a town, maybe a nation, upside down in my zeal for Christ. I believe that queen Elizabeth wants us unified, courteous and nice but not the Christ of the Bible. I believe that the Bible demands we make up our mind where we stand and then act accordingly.

I don't believe that the SBC will ever do that! Two more BF&M revisions and there will be a "come to Jesus" unitarianism.

Please come soon, Lord Jesus!

Wade Burleson said...

Bro. Robin,

No need to comment.

My next post will be, "What Do the Current Baptist Proponents of Closed Communion and the Former Baptist Proponents of Slavery and Racism Have in Common?"

The post will simply be an examination of the attempts to "justify" a position on "What the Bible teaches.", However, in time, when everyone else, even all those in the Christian world, come to see the position (i.e. "slavery" or "closed communion") as ridiculous, the proponents come back and say, "we are sorry for letting culture dictate our convictions - now we believe what the Bible teaches."

The irony is that there WERE BAPTISTS who opposed slavery, and THERE ARE BAPTISTS who oppose the subtle teaching of closed communion that the only true, obedient, spirit-filled Christians are those who are baptized in a baptist church.

Neo-landmarkism lives, and by God's grace, Southern Baptists will not be silent to allow the Christian world to think it represents the views of all Southern Baptists.

Blessings,

Wade

Greg Alford said...

CB,

”I never applauded anyone for anything about James White.”

I’m sorry CB, I must have missed your Blog post, or comments somewhere on another BIM blog, where you were taking the John 3:16 guys to task for applying more labels at this conference than the automatic labeling machine over at the Welch’s plant… now where did you say that post was?

If you did not applaud for the James White comment, what did you applaud at this conference? Were you even there CB? I thought this was a “Required” event for all card carrying BIM members?

"Neo-unable to understand Englisher"

You’ve been talking to my members now haven’t you? :-)

Grace Always,

Paul said...

Isn't Ben Stratton, the author of the article at SBC Today, an avowed landmarker? I mean, he hasn't hidden that fact, right?

Bro. Robin said...

Paul Littleton

Yes, Ben Stratton is. But yet his article proves that closed communion does not necessarily equal Landmarkism. I guess he wants to keep his Landmark Theology "pure" from false understandings that are being propagated on blogs.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

Just got off the phone with Brother Bart. He is currently traveling across North Texas visiting Nursing Homes in order to contact members of FBC Farmersville. He asked me to relay to you his desire to respond, but alas duty calls.

Blessings,
Tim

Les Puryear said...

Wade,

Your anonymous emailer provides very astute observation into what is going on in the fringe BI movement.

It's easy to tell who they are as they protest your post so vigoruously. And when a staunch Landmarker defends the BI folks, it is even more telling.

Today, I have a post onmy blog about my understanding of Landmarkism as communicated by the eminent baptist historian, Dr. Leon McBeth. Folks can decide for themselves what is really going on.

Regards,

Les

P. S. I guess I'll be called a neo-Liberal now as well. :)

Anonymous said...

Hummm...

I recall in the late 90's at SEBTS (during Dr. Patterson's tenure) a two day lecture series delivered in Binkley Chapel by Jimmy Draper (then president of Lifeway) on Landmarkism in the Graves era of the SBC. From what I recall, the paper laid out the impediments the movement was putting in the way of cooperation in missions and evangelism.

It makes you wonder if some people saw this coming for a quite a while.

wesmith said...

Baptist Identity People (BIP's) whoever you are,

This is the True Church and can find this on David Roger’s Blog here

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2008/06/true-church.html

THE TRUE CHURCH

By Bishop J. C. Ryle
(1816-1900) Liverpool, England
I want you to belong to the one true Church: to the Church outside of which there is no salvation. I do not ask where you go on a Sunday; I only ask, "Do you belong to the one true Church?" Where is this one true Church? What is this one true Church like? What are the marks by which this one true Church may be known? You may well ask such questions. Give me your attention, and I will provide you with some answers.

1. The one true Church IS COMPOSED OF ALL BELIEVERS IN THE LORD JESUS. It is made up of all God's elect — of all converted men and women — of all true Christians. In whomsoever we can discern the election of God the Father, the sprinkling of the blood of God the Son, the sanctifying work of God the Spirit, in that person we see a member of Christ's true Church.

2. It is a Church OF WHICH ALL THE MEMBERS HAVE THE SAME MARKS. They are all born again of the Spirit; they all possess "repentance towards God, faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," and holiness of life and conversation. They all hate sin, and they all love Christ. (They worship differently, and after various fashions; some worship with a form of prayer, and some with none; some worship kneeling, and some standing; but they all worship with one heart.) They are all led by one Spirit; they all build upon one foundation; they all draw their religion from one single book — that is the Bible. They are all joined to one great center — that is Jesus Christ. They all even now can say with one heart, "Hallelujah;" and they can all respond with one heart and voice, Amen and Amen.

3. It is a Church WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON NO MINISTERS UPON EARTH, however much it values those who preach the gospel to its members. The life of its members does not hang upon Church-membership, or baptism, or the Lord's Supper — although they highly value these things when they are to be had. But it has only one Great Head — one Shepherd, one chief Bishop — and that is Jesus Christ. He alone, By His Spirit, admits the members of this Church, though ministers may show the door. Till He opens the door no man on earth can open it — neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor convocations, nor synods. Once let a man repent and believe the gospel, and that moment he becomes a member of this Church. Like the penitent thief, he may have no opportunity of being baptized; but he has that which is far better than any water-baptism — the baptism of the Spirit. He may not be able to receive the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper;but he eats Christ's body and drinks Christ's blood by faith every day he lives, and no minister on earth can prevent him. He may be ex-communicated by ordained men, and cut off from the outward ordinances of the professing Church; but all the ordained men in the world cannot shut him out of the true Church. It is a Church whose existence does not depend on forms, ceremonies, cathedrals, churches, chapels, pulpits, fonts, vestments, organs, endowments, money, kings, governments, magistrates or any act of favor whatsoever from the hand of man. It has often lived on and continued when all these things have been taken from it. It has often been driven into the wilderness, or into dens and caves of the earth, by those who ought to have been its friends. Its existence depends on nothing but the presence of Christ and His Spirit; and they being ever with it, the Church cannot die.

Read the Complete Message Here

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2008/06/true-church.html

THE TRUE CHURCH

Wayne

CB Scott said...

Wade,

You had a good post about Gray Harvey and another IMB cover-up. Now, you post this nut stuff.

It is for this reason reasonable and responsible BI people who know you are right about Harvey will not come along with support and all the wild geese who know nothing about Southern Baptists flock to your posts.

Greg,

I was not at the John 3:16 conference but I did attend every session of the Building Bridges conference.

Paul,

You are right. Why would SBC TODAY let Ben Stratton post is beyond reason. It is like putting a Cobra in the baby's bath water and thinking you can control it with a rubber duck decoy.

Robin, Wes, and Tim,

What were you thinking? You won't let me post what I want to and you let Stratton come in with nut stuff which is as bad as Wade's nut stuff.

Tim,

Tell Bart to get back over here and help me.

Les,

Leon McBeth? Then, yes you may add your name to the list of Neo-Liberals.

peter lumpkins said...

G. Alford,

I am really putting my reputation on the line here--agreeing with C.B.

Alas, but courage I manage to pull from within.

You write: "Dr. Allen calls Dr. James White a HYPER-Calvinist and Bart Barber, Tim G., Peter Lumpkins, CB Scott, etc., applauded his labeling of James White."

With CB, it would be nice to know--outside of myself (which I'll address in a minute)--where exactly has Bart Barber, Tim G., CB Scott, etc. "applauded" the labeling of J. White? It would surely be a bonus if you could be specific.

Now as for me: I have to ask what you mean by "applauded"? Do you mean I "applauded" as in "clapped my hands" during the conference presentation when White was said to be a Hyper-Calvinist?

If this is what you mean, may I ask if you saw me doing such? Hear me? Were you sitting beside me? Or in a clear view of me? Did others say they saw me? Heard me? Got me on tape? No? Well, I guess you do not mean by "applauded" this, then, do you?

Perhaps you mean by "applauded" that I agreed with the labeling of White as a Hyper-Calvinist. Is this your intention, Greg Alford? I'd really like to know so I could offer a sober response. No use jeopardizing our relationship.

With that, I am...

Peter

Paul said...

Robin Foster,

Thanks for that clarification. Perhaps after Wade does his post on Southern Baptists and slavery you guys will want to have some modern-day advocate of slavery write an article for SBC Today just to make sure people understand the difference between a modern-day slavery advocate and the obvious bunk that Wade posts here.

CB Scott said...

Peter,

Thank you for the confirmation. See you after New Years day.

BTW, watch out over here. Some of these people who live here think you are the Antichrist.:-)

cb

CB Scott said...

See, Robin, Wes and Tim,

Paul just pointed out how the Cobra will bite the baby while the rubber duck just sits in the water and quacks.

cb

wesmith said...

ALL of you who would not let other Born Again Christians Participate in the Lords’ Supper in your Church, I have 4 questions for all of you.

1. Who Participated in the First Lord’s Supper?
2. Were all of them Baptized Believers?
3.Were all of them Worthy of Participation?
4. Was Anyone Excluded from Participation?


Institution of the Lord's Supper
Matt 26:26 v Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and w after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; x this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he y had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for x this is my z blood of the [3] covenant, which is poured out for a many b for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you c in my Father's kingdom.”

Wayne Smith

Joe White... said...

I thought I would add this post to help those trying to keep score at home. Apparently (according to Wade) the BIM (Baptist Identity Movement) is... "Cult-like", "part of a Fundamentalist Fury", "Sexist", "Racist", "Moral Legalist", "Semi-Arian", "Cocksure", and now "Neo-Landmarkist" (sorry if I missed a label).

Oh the irony from someone promoting the squelching of labeling in the SBC(i.e. the word Liberal or Hyper-Calivinist). I guess it is only helpful to label those with whom you disagree.

By the way; I strongly disagree that church order, church ordinances, and church discipline should be put on the back burner in order to find "a broader consensus to face these spiritual threats". The anonymous author acts as if a Church cannot function properly and still witness for Jesus. I believe the opposite is true. The more the Church functions as Christ instructs, the more a Church will witness. Or, as my pastor used to say... "To win the world to Jesus, we must not become more like the world. To win the world to Jesus, we must become more like Jesus."

Bro. Robin said...

Paul

To show you how ridiculus and inappropriate you last comment was, I give you this:

Maybe you can post your weak view of ecclesiology and also show how you would justify ordaining homosexuals.

peter lumpkins said...

CB,

Actually, it was Les who labeled me anti-christ and maybe a few of the defunct Outpost gang.

Here in this accepting, welcoming environment, I'm merely just an arrogant,condescending, hypocritical, moral-legalist, FUNDAMENTALIST, company man, anti-Calvinist, worthless prude; not to mention just a plain, old-fashioned literary idiot.

Oh, I almost forgot--I'm the poster-child (at you-know-who's-discretion) of BI.

So, with only that to worry about here, I feel relatively safe--even a bit cozy, if I am honest.

With that, I am...

Peter

Bro. Robin said...

Clarification:

My comment is obnoxious in as far as believing that those who practice closed communion will also justify slavery.

Wade Burleson said...

Bro. Robin,

I would suggest a brusher upper on Baptist history. :)

Your comment above shows ignorance of the fact that the Baptists mentioned by Bart Barber ADVOCATED slavery - not tolerated it, definitely not opposed it, but ADVOCATED it.

My point is NOT that MODERN closed communion Baptists advocate slavery, but to refer to Baptists of the 17th and 18th Century who advocated BOTH slavery and closed communion as the de facto basis that your view on closed communion is orthodox is silly.

The Bible ought to be our guide on who should be able to fellowship with us around the Lord's table, and as far as I can tell, those who name the name of Christ in Scripture are in communion with me.

They may not be able to vote in a business meeting at our church, but they darn sure can fellowship with us around the dinner table (which, by the way, is where we celebrate our Lord at the church I pastor. We call them Agape suppers, and all call themselves followers of Christ, regardless of their 'church' affiliation, are welcome to join

Bro. Robin said...

Wade

You said, "The Bible ought to be our guide ." For once, we agree.

BTW, I am not a closed communion nor open communion advocate, but I do believe that one must must be saved and baptized (by immersion) in order to receive the supper. For any other act that does not immerse a believer (sprinkling or pouring) is not baptism. On that I stand on firm Biblical teaching.

Bro. Robin said...

Wade

Sorry for the repeat. To believe that one who believes in closed communion is an automatic Landmarker is silly.

Paul said...

Robin,

Quack!

Paul

Paul said...

Wade,

Could you have John Dagg do a guest post here on slavery so that Bro. Robin can tell him how ridiculous and inappropriate he is?

Paul

Quack!

Bro. Robin said...

That's it Paul, join Wade in throwing the race card. Mislabel those who believe the BF&M is biblically sound. Or better yet, use animal sounds to express your disapproval.

Joe White... said...

Wade,

Wade,

Why is it that you are able to seperate the doctrines that John Calvin believed and taught concerning "infant baptism, church/state unity and church polity" from the "doctrines of grace"... Yet, you feel other Baptists cannot seperate what someone in the past taught about slavery and what they taught about communion?

Anonymous said...

Robin,

Lighten up, bro.

Wade Burleson said...

Joe,

You ask:

Why is it that you are able to seperate the doctrines that John Calvin believed and taught concerning "infant baptism, church/state unity and church polity" from the "doctrines of grace"... Yet, you feel other Baptists cannot seperate what someone in the past taught about slavery and what they taught about communion?

I would encourage you, Bart, Peter, Malcolm, Robin, Wes, C.B. and any other Baptist Identity advocate to read my response to your question very carefully.

I can get along with anyone. I have absolutely no problem, at all, with any Southern Baptist who believes in Landmarkism, closed communion, etc . . . and will cooperate fully and totally with such a Southern Baptist.

The nature, however, of those who are neo-Landmarkist and advocate strict closed communion is separatism. In other words, according to their idealogy, you are not an ORTHODOX Southern Baptist, and you should not be considered a Southern Baptist unless you practice communion and ecclesiology the way they do.

Now, IF, any of the other above men would say, "Wade, I realize your church partakes of the Lord's Supper and welcomes to the table any believer in Christ who has identified with Christ by a profession of faith and has exhibited a willingness to follow after Christ, and that's great. Our church EXCLUDES all non-Southern Baptists from the Table, but our Convention is built on COOPERATION, and my friend and brother in Christ, you are ONE of us!" I would be thrilled!

But what I hear men like Malcolm and others saying is, "If you don't practice communion like we do, then you are not an orthodox Baptist and we should be concerned about your ecclesiology by either convincing you of your error or taking steps to exclude you from fellowship. Don't you know that youa are not in line with the 2000 BFM which teaches closed communion!"

That kind of talk is dangerous to the fabric of our cooperation and should be called out.

In His Grace,

Wade

Bro. Robin said...

Wade

Please show how the BF&M teaches closed communion. It would also be helpful if you would tell us your definition of closed.

BTW, those who "has identified with Christ by a profession of faith and has exhibited a willingness to follow after Christ" are those who have willingly followed the teachings of Christ by being baptized by immersion.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

I have tried to resist and only agreed after speaking with Brother Bart to pass on a message, but for some reason I feel a need to engage. Thus, I will engage on a level that you desire.

You say; "
The Bible ought to be our guide on who should be able to fellowship with us around the Lord's table...
I presume you do not believe the Apostles were not baptized by John-the-Baptist. Would that be your position? Your argument is that those who call themselves followers of Christ are free to partake of the Lord's Table. However, you fail to remember that Judas called himself a follower of Christ and he did not partake of the initial Lord's Table.

Also, you argue that Baptism is not connected to the Lord's Table. However, I would disagree with you based on Scripture. Granted the argument I am about is one from silence, however, I believe you would agree that it is logical. The church in Corinth, where Paul gave the instructions on the Lord's Table, were they not Baptized believers? Did not Paul give specific instructions about how to examine yourself? The Body Paul was referencing was not the "universal" church but the "local" church.

Thus, please understand that we BIM guys are not Neo-Landmarkers just Bible believers that hold to the sufficiency of Scriptures.

Blessings,
Tim

Wade Burleson said...

Robin,

Those who have willingly followed after Christ have, of course, submitted to baptism. But, as you know, some Christians believe baptism is by pouring, others by sprinkling, etc . . .

For membership at our church our consitution requires believer's baptism by immersion. But to join us for our Agape Supper, let's say you are in town visiting relatives, you simply must be a professing Christian, and we will share communion and fellowship with you around the Lord's Table, regardless of the denomination or "local" church to which you belong.

As to your question of where the 2000 BFM teaches "closed" communion, I have long advocated that it does not - but your friend and mentor, Wes and Malcolm respectively, have sought to prove me wrong about the BFM

Blessings,

Wade

Paul said...

Robin,

I'm not "throwing the race card." Since when is a part of Baptist history off limits just because it makes us uncomfortable. It is an analogy, that's all. I'm more than happy with discussing the issue without getting all up in a dander about it.

BTW, I have not mislabeled you as I have not labeled you. Ask Peter. He's pretty good at reading the fine details.

And I quack simply because I'm a rubber ducky in the bathtub. You guys are the ones who put the cobra in there. If you don't think so then take up your argument with CB. Apparently he was able to see the same thing I did and I suspect you don't have quite the disdain for him that you do me.

Quack!

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

I was writing as you were posting so I missed your last response. Allow me a brief moment to visit your comment.

Wade, I realize your church partakes of the Lord's Supper and welcomes to the table any believer in Christ who has identified with Christ by a profession of faith and has exhibited a willingness to follow after Christ, and that's great. I believe the Bible teaches that one should include only those who are Baptized Believers, but our Convention is built on COOPERATION, and my friend and brother in Christ, you are ONE of us because you belong to a church that cooperates within our convention. We do not agree on every doctrine and that is quite evident. However, as part of our cooperative effort the SBC has defined what the majority of SB believe. While you do not have to agree with every nuance of the doctrines, one level of cooperation means that we continue forward instead of making an issue out of every doctrine one feels should be changed."

Blessings,
Tim

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

I am unsure what you mean "Judas called himself a follower of Jesus Christ and he did not partake of the initial Lord's Supper"?

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

Amen.

Blessings,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Tim
I may have missed something in the conversation but are you advocating that the disciples were baptized by John the Baptist?

Rick Garner

Anonymous said...

Uh, Rick, you didn't miss a thing.

Paul said...

BTW Robin, when did I imply that the BFM is biblically unsound? For the most part I think it is very weak. I much prefer the Philadelphia Confession because it is more precise. However, one of the geniuses of the BFM is that it is (perhaps intentionally?) rather vague, or at least imprecise, on some points which allows a broad range of Southern Baptists to find agreement with it. I mean, I'm really glad it isn't a dispensational document, but I'm also glad that it doesn't exclude you just because you are a dispensationalist. It seems to be sufficiently precise in all the right places and sufficiently imprecise in all the right places. That's what I like about it as it serves our vast denomination. It says that you are a Baptist and it also says that I am a Baptist, which seems to be what we each say about ourselves as well. Isn't that nice?

Anonymous said...

Wes Kidney, C.B. Snott, Peter Lump of Coal, Robin Fostergrants, and Tim Gut-thee all believe John the Baptist baptized the disciples.

Heck, that's why we be Baptists.

It wasn't John the Assembly that started that first local church.

It wasn't John the Presbyterian that started that first church.

It wasn't John the Episcopal, or John the Methodist, or John the Evangelical Free - it was John the BAPTIST.

Now, for heaven's sake, Rick Garner Make a Motion, don't you dare question our Baptist Identity Movement Advocates and their theology!

I'm gonna go for a BM I be back later.

Dorothy said...

Laughing out loud.

Would the anonymous person above please sign your name.

Genius must be recognized.

Dot

Anonymous said...

There's a party goin' on at Wade's place & all the BI people are invited!

This is a strange reunion of sorts. All of as are going to grow old following this stuff...and little will change.

Joe White... said...

Wade,

That was a good answer, just not to my question. :)

I did not ask you about cooperating with Landmarkers or anything else. My question was about why you continue to label and link. For example; why can't you address the communion issue without first labeling the other side "Neo-Landmarkist" and then linking them to slavery. You have no desire to be called Calvinist and linked to John Calvin's bad teachings on infant baptism. It is a sly tactic to label and link, while all along avoiding the main point.

Joe White... said...

By the way; I welcome your cooperation for missions and evangelism in the SBC. Please don't mistake those of us who are "Non-Calvinist" as "Anti-Calvinist". Just another label.

However, we are Southern Baptist not Southern Presbyterians. If I have to be labeled a "Neo-Landmarkist" to be Baptist and believe the Bible in 2008, so be it.

Wade Burleson said...

Joe White,

I am addressing the communion issue.

Every believer in Christ, according to Scripture, is in communion with every other believer in Jesus Christ.

That is the way our church practices communion. We follow Scripture - and logic.

We refuse to exclude from our supper table and the Lord's Supper any believer that Jesus Himself will not exclude in heaven.

Now, the problem does not come from me, but those who see this practice and wish to make an issue of it.

I am hopeful, Joe, that you do not. If you don't, then my friend, there is no problem. But, ask some of your BI friends what they think of the way we practice communion. Then you will know why I post what I post.

wesmith said...

Rick Garner says
,
Tim
I may have missed something in the conversation but are you advocating that the disciples were baptized by John the Baptist?

Rick Garner

Rick, you forgot the the BIP's ARE People of the Book.
I also have a hard time finding what the BIP's say is in The Book.
All were not Israel who were called Israel, and all are not members of Christ's Body who profess themselves Christian. TAKE NOTICE; you may be a staunch Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Independent, or Baptist, or Wesleyan, or Plymouth Brother — and yet not belong to the true Church. And if you do not, it will be better at last if you had never been born.

Says J.C. Ryle


Wayne

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

A day of ministry intervened, but I am now back in Farmersville and able to answer your questions. I am all the more enthusiastic about doing so knowing that you have promised to answer mine once I have done so.

1. I am ashamed to be back over here because, having found that my respect and appreciation for your ministry deepens the longer I stay away from your blog, I have disciplined myself not to interact with you online. Our brief personal interactions have been very pleasant, and I have become convinced that, should I avoid your blog entirely, I could interact with you much more pleasantly.

2. Your second question will necessarily fall into several parts:

John Smythe: To my knowledge has left no record of his sentiments regarding the slave trade. Although slavery was very much alive in the New World after the lifetime and labors of Francis Drake, we know that Smythe never lived in the New World and whatever Smythe may have said about slavery, I don't know it. Several of his works are not in English, and I do not claim such expertise of his works to argue the negative. But I am reasonably confident that Smythe has no pro-slavery legacy.

Thomas Helwys: Precisely the same a John Smythe.

William Kiffin: Likewise.

William Carey: In his most famous work, the Enquiry, Carey declared the slave trade "iniquitous" and encouraged English Baptists to boycott products associated with slavery. By the way, Carey also labored hard to end the Indian practice of compelling widows to be burned to death on their deceased husbands' funeral pyres.

Andrew Fuller: Some of our brethren specializing in Fuller might speak more completely, but I know of no pro-slavery sentiments articulated by Fuller.

Adoniram Judson: He and his wife Ann regularly raised money to buy Burmese girls out of slavery. They deplored slavery.

Roger Williams: Was such a proponent of the freedom and equality of all people that he attacked the Massachusetts establishment in his opposition to Indian slavery, for not properly paying the American Indians for their land, and for not respecting the American Indians as peer human beings.

John Clarke: I know of no pro-slavery sentiments articulated by John Clarke.

So, there you go. Of the folks I listed, not a single one, to my knowledge, is tainted in the slightest bit by association with the slave trade. You will not be able to dishonor their names in that way. I await your next unresearched straw man, or your answer to my simple question, either one.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother's Wayne Smith & Rick Garner,

This is exactly what everyone is trying to tell you. You take a question I asked to find out what was the belief of someone else and you place your own spin on it to draw out something I have never said.

You write; "are you advocating that the disciples were baptized by John the Baptist?"

How does one advocate something just by asking a question? This is the very reason people do not engage in debate with you. It seems your desire is to make false assumptions about things others have not even stated. Of course, I should not be surprised as I should expect nothing less on a blog that implies people like Smythe, Williams, Carey, and Fuller were slave owners.

Blessings,
Tim

Darby Livingston said...

"However, you fail to remember that Judas called himself a follower of Christ and he did not partake of the initial Lord's Table."

This statement, as far as I'm concerned, shows the sophomoric nature of the whole debate. What does the above statement prove? I would presume that Judas was also immersed. What in the world did that prove? Paul was glad he didn't baptize any more than he did, and if you look at the context, his reasoning contradicts some of the arguments that "hyper-baptists" want to force on everyone else.

WWB said...

Bart,

Thank you for your kind response. I should have your post closer. I confess to reading the comments of my Baptist Identity friends like I listen to our annual sixth grade band concert at Emmanuel Christian School. I have heard every song played at least sixteen times, and I have a tendency to tune out what is actually being played.

I confess to not actually reading the names of the Baptists you mentioned. I assumed, wrongly, that you were choosing American Baptists of the south, as is the usual custom of my Baptist Identity friends when they defend Landmarkism, ala "SBC Today" and the names used in the first pararagraph of their pro-Landmark post this morning (i.e. " J.L. Dagg, R.B.C. Howell, and J.B. Jeter" etc . . ).

You, surprisingly, have used English Baptists, and except in the case of a couple of the men, like Roger Williams and Judson, there was no American connection. I, frankly, have much in common with our English brethren's ecclesiology, with my favorites being Carey and two you do not mention - Gill and Bunyan.

I will be happy to fulfill delineate the differences between Landmarkism and the views of the church held by English Baptists of the 18th Century, but frankly, you have placed me in a moral dilemma.

Wanting you to have a high view of me and my ministry, and having now heard your confession that reading my blog causes you to think poorly of me and my ministry, I am inclined to not inflame your negative passion toward me.

However, I shall answer your question in a post of its own which shall be published in 24 hours.

Darby Livingston said...

Please forgive the double comment, but I must ask forgiveness of brother Tim. Upon further review, I think you might think I was calling you sophomoric. I promise I was not. I just think your comment shows how good folks can go back and forth all day long and at the end of the day, must agree to disagree or break fellowship with one another - which would be tragic.

Bro. Robin said...

Paul

I never implied that you said the BF&M was biblically unsound.

Wade

Since Bart has answered your question showing those men mention did not advocate slavery, you might want to brush up on your Baptist history.:)

BTW, they have excellent profs at SWBTS that would help clear up things for you. I had a great prof for Baptist history when I worked on my MDiv. Who was your prof in your MDiv work?

Tim G said...

Greg,
Could you please point me to where I have applauded anything about labeling you?

Has not occured!


As for me being a Landmarkist or Neo or ... - ain't NO way! Never have and never will be. I have never even come close! Some on here just assume and do not really know what they are talking about!

Wade Burleson said...

Robin,

Well, shoot, Robin, you got me there. I give up.

Grin.

Wade

Bro. Robin said...

Wade

I have a sneaky suspicion that the day you give up will be the day our Lord Jesus returns.

Grin.

Robin

Gary said...

Rev. Foster,

It is only the really small, insecure man who feels the need to pump himself up. From henceforth I shall refer to you as Tiny Tim.

Anonymous said...

Bro. Robin,

Are you just acting like a jerk or is that you're real "Identity"?

Dogeared

Anonymous said...

correction: "your"

Dogeared

Bro. Robin said...

Ahhh! Here it comes, the argument is lost and now we must revert to name calling in the lowest sphere.

Well, call me what you will, but I will not descend into the lower recesses of hades to show hate to others.

Gary said...

Robin, you don't need to descend. You are already there. I read your comment to Rev. Burleson and his response and wish you had an ounce of his character. I know little about you, but going doing a quick little research, I see you pastor a church about a hundredth the size of Rev. Burleson' church, and a comparison of his writings with yours makes me wish more men were trained like him rather than you.

Greg Alford said...

Peter Lumpkins,

The comment was a generalization, which any “reasonable” reader of this Blog would understand. CB has stated that he did not “actually” applaud the labeling of Dr. James White as a Hyper-Calvinist and that he was at this conference. I have askd CB to please point out the Blog post where he takes exception to what was said at the John 3:16 conference, yet alas CB has not responded.

Now your reply to me is that I surely do not have any physical evidence that you “actually” applauded these comments while attending this Conference. That is absolutely true… Yet, I noticed in your comment that you did not actually deny physically “applauding” the comment made at the John 3:16 Conference that Dr. James White is a Hyper-Calvinist. So, my brother in Christ, I call you to witness to the truth, Did you physically “applaud” this detestable comment?

Regardless, Peter this is all “much to do about nothing”; the real issue here is the dangerous influence of Landmark Ideology and it’s “Narrowing the Parameters of Cooperation” in the SBC. Now if all my card caring BIM friends would just sign the Time to Change petition then I am sure we could put this cooperation killing Landmark Ideology issue to rest in the SBC for another generation or two.

Well, it would probably take a little more than just signing a petition to end the danger of Landmark ideology in the SBC, but at least it would be a step in the right direction and a sure way for the BIM guys to distance themselves from Landmark ideology.

So Peter, you will let me know when you have signed, right?

Grace Always,

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous and Gary,

I agree with Robin. It is inappropriate to write what the two of you have written.

I have no offense and ask you not to assume any on my behalf.

By the way, to answer Robin's question, my comprehension of Baptist history was learned from the teaching and writings of one of the finest men I've ever known in terms of being able to teach Christian history - Dr. Tom Nettles, currently a professor at SBTS.

Greg Alford said...

"Correction"

My above post shoud read "CB has said that he was NOT at this conference..."

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CB Scott said...

Robin,That last "shot" to Wade was a little over the line.cb

NativeVermonter said...

"BTW, they have excellent profs at SWBTS that would help clear up things for you. I had a great prof for Baptist history when I worked on my MDiv. Who was your prof in your MDiv work?"

Below the belt.

CB Scott said...

Wade,

Surely you are not serious in saying:

"My next post will be, "What Do the Current Baptist Proponents of Closed Communion and the Former Baptist Proponents of Slavery and Racism Have in Common?"

Why would you again use race to argue your position?

You did this before with the "Cornbread" post.

Certainly Baptists and others from various denominations used the Scripture to advocate and permit slavery among the well known and the unknown.

Frankly, there are probably still ignorant Baptists and those of other denominations who would do so.

You should be above using race in such a manner.

In Southern Baptist life there are both Black and White believers who are making an effort to properly deal with the terrible issue of race that has divided us and hindered the work of the Kingdom for far too long.

Yet, you fall to the same methods the gay activists use when they trot out the race card to make their wrongful arguments for total acceptance and tolerance of their life-style.

Intelligent Believers should not be so low as to do such.

You do an injustice to any effort made by reasonable people of any race or ethnic background to get beyond this shame in our history by posting such a thing if you actually intend to carry out what you have promised.

It is wrong, Wade.

Of course there will be your loyal followers who will make great usage of the post to call those who disagree with you racists as they did when you posted that ridiculous post before.

Your ego and vanity carries you too far Wade. Rethink this. Use another argument to make your case. The end result of your intentions will only be hurtful to people who have been hurt enough.

cb

Bro. Robin said...

Gary

I don't know who you are. You have failed to leave full disclosure of your identity. So be it. At least my name and face identify who I am.

I have never question Bro. Wade's ministry at Emmanuel. Yes, Emmanuel is a great church and their pastor has lead them in marvelous ways. I admire Wade's ministry in Enid. He has given a lot of himself to Oklahoma Baptists, the lost, and the Lord.

I am sort of like Bart. One on one, I have found Wade a pleasant man, I pray he has seen this in me also. I have also stated in the past that he is one of the sharpest minds I have met.

Yet, his recent blog I have had to disagree. I have frequented this blog less than I have in the past. But in this post I whole heartily believes he has misrepresented me and my Baptist Identity brethren as "Neo-Landmarkist." Therefore I had to speak.

Gary, I may only pastor a hundredth of a church that Wade pastors, but like Wade, I am willing to put my name, reputation, and ministry on the line for what I believe. Are you and the several anonymous commentators willing to do the same?

My church may only be a fraction of what Wade's is, but as a single staff person, I am in the hospitals at midnight, knocking on the doors of my community, involved in personal relationships with people in my community, working hard to build leaders within Immanuel, holding the hands of the broken hearted, rejoice with those who are being blessed, being the best father and husband I can be, and sharing the gospel with others. But yet, it is not me, but the grace of God that does it.

CB Scott said...

Anony Dog,

There was a pastor once who was named Dog Ear.

You are not worthy to clean his boots. It is you who is the jerk here. And, of course, a coward for not using your name.

cb

wesmith said...

Tim Rogers,

I also may have missed something in the conversation as did Rick Garner. Tim are you advocating that the 12 Aposties were baptized by John the Baptist?

Tim would you please provide the Bible Verses that support you answer as to the Baptizing of the 12 Apostles and the fact that Judas did not participate in the First Lord’s Supper.

Wayne Smith

CB Scott said...

Greg Alford,

Glad you cleared that up. I thought I was going to have to dust off the old "Neo-unable to understand Englisher" for how-daring me when I did not dare anything" label and throw it at you again.

cb

Darby Livingston said...

"Gary, I may only pastor a hundredth of a church that Wade pastors, but like Wade, I am willing to put my name, reputation, and ministry on the line for what I believe. Are you and the several anonymous commentators willing to do the same?"

Well said. And God will make you stand, even if some of your ideas are a little off. :) Just kidding.

Greg Alford said...

Tim G.

I never said you labeled “me” anything.

Some on here just assume and do not really know what they are talking about!

My comment was a “generalization” about the way some of you guys come on here and show false indignation that Wade correctly “Labeled” the current BI movement in the SBC as Landmark. Where in all the Blogsphere is you indignation when others you agree with doctrinally label their opponents? Can you point out to us you consistency in this matter Tim?

However, Tim this is not the real issue here and is merely a distraction from the real danger to the SBC that Wade posted about: the Cooperation Killing influence of Landmark Ideology.

By the way see my above comment to Peter Lumpkins… Have you signed? Will you sign? Your answer will tell everyone here a whole lot about your heart for cooperation in the SBC.

As with Peter, please let us all know when you have signed.

Grace Always,

CB Scott said...

Greg Alford,

You said:

"I have askd CB to please point out the Blog post where he takes exception to what was said at the John 3:16 conference, yet alas CB has not responded."

Greg, I have said nothing for or against the John 3:16 conference. I was not there. I did attend the Building Bridges conference. It was a good conference.

Tell me of what you speak and I shall gladly respond.

cb

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

Before you labor too long at the forthcoming post, allow me to remind you that I did not ask for a contrast between Landmarkism and English Baptists. I asked you to identify what you perceive to be the differences between "Neo-Landmarkism" and the theologies of the specific men whom I identified.

Whatever else you might post will be, I'm sure, enlightening to whomever else, but the answer to my question lies only in those specifics.

Bro. Robin said...

Darby

I accept your comment with grace.

:)

CB Scott said...

Anony Gary,

Wade Burleson I know. Robin Foster I know, but who are you?

One thing we can know. Of the three (Wade, Robin and you) you are the less. Far, far less.

cb

Greg Alford said...

CB

We may disagree on a few (very few) things, from time to time.

But, I love you Brother… :-)

Grace Always,

Anonymous said...

Yet, you fall to the same methods the gay activists use when they trot out the race card to make their wrongful arguments for total acceptance and tolerance of their life-style.

Intelligent Believers should not be so low as to do such.

You do an injustice to any effort made by reasonable people of any race or ethnic background to get beyond this shame in our history by posting such a thing if you actually intend to carry out what you have promised.

It is wrong, Wade.

Of course there will be your loyal followers who will make great usage of the post to call those who disagree with you racists as they did when you posted that ridiculous post before.

Your ego and vanity carries you too far Wade. Rethink this. Use another argument to make your case. The end result of your intentions will only be hurtful to people who have been hurt enough.

cb

Mon Dec 08, 10:34:00 PM 2008

CB, The declaration has been made that closed communication has historical backing. For some reason, some think that proves it is biblical.

You are setting up a strawman that this 'method' is the same that gays use to promote their lifestyle. So what? The same could be said of suffragettes who wanted to be able the vote. Would that make the suffragettes wrong?

When someone uses the 'historical/tradition' argument to promote scripture intperpretation then it is perfectly justifiable to discuss it in totality.

This includes all sorts of things: Church/state traditions that some of our translations come from. Infant Baptism, transubstantiation and even women not voting or being accorded same civil rights as men. All of these things came from faulty interpretations of scripture and most of us agree with that now.

I think you have gone too far in this comment accusing Wade of ego and vanity when he has only given soft answers to insults hurled at him. If Wade wanted to stroke his ego, this is sure a strange way to do it because about all I have read here are below the belt and subtle insults...from those who should know better.

Why not just diagree with what he writes and discuss the content and leave motivations out of it?

Lydia

CB Scott said...

When was there an agreement among BI folks that all had to believe in closed communion?

Wade, this is a strawman accusation and one that cannot be confirmed.

What do you mean by closed communion as you use it to describe people of a confessional Baptist identity?

cb

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

I couldn't help but laugh when I read your comment.

I JUST FINISHED the post and it will be up in 24 hours.

And, by the way, it contrasts Landmarkism with English Baptist ecclesiology.

I'm posting it anyway.

Laughing again, nicely, because I knew you knew the differences and knew I would point them out.

Blessings,

wade

CB Scott said...

Wade,

Lydia has spoken.

She makes my point about your next intended post even before you will have posted it if you carry out your intention to do so.

cb

Wade Burleson said...

CB,

I am postpoing the post you mention for a later date at the request of the esteemed Dr. Barber.

But, yes, I will draw a comparison at some point in order to show that sometimes Christians, even Baptists, can hold to a particular conviction and claim it is "biblical" only to one day change and believe just the opposite, and justify the new belief as "biblical" - when all that has changed is culture.

Blessings,

Wade

CB Scott said...

Greg Alford,

Lunch is on me anytime you get down this way.

cb

CB Scott said...

Wade,

Thank you for the delay.

I will pray you change you mind. or, that your dog eats the post.:-)

cb

Anonymous said...

Been reading this blogsite for over 2 years. This thread is the most contentious I remember in quite a while, what with all the name-calling and etc. Not that anyone posting seems to care much, but I don't think there's a single coward typing comments here--whether they do or don't include their name; to suggest it is pretty stupid, actually. Hold all the theology you guys want--and finally decide how many angels actually CAN dance on the head of a pin; unless your theology gets somebody into heaven, you wasted your time and a lot of the Lord's precious resources.

And, with that I am . . .

Just Another Coward
According to Bro. CB

Greg Alford said...

CB,

I need to start hitting refresh so I can read the latest comments before I post.

You need not respond to my comment… as it is not important to this discussion.

I really would like everyone to focus on what would be the real impact of a resurgence of Landmark Ideology on Cooperation in the SBC. I think we have already gotten just a small sample of this with the new restrictive IMB policies that I am praying will soon, and quietly, go away.

Grace Always,

Thy Peace said...

"Lunch is on me anytime you get down this way."

CB, at this rate, you will go broke, buying lunches and coffee for lot of people. :-)

Anonymous said...

"She makes my point about your next intended post even before you will have posted it if you carry out your intention to do so."

CB, I am too dense to understand how I made your point for you. :o)

Lydia

CB Scott said...

Greg Alford,

Fair enough.

I would like to see some things change at the IMB myself. I will be glad to tell you who, er,I mean what over lunch someday.:-)

cb

Wade Burleson said...

Lydia,

Your comments are always precise, perceptive and prescient.

I think you proved just the opposite of what C.B. was saying, but, like you, I may have missed something.

Thanks for your comment.

Greg Alford said...

Thy Peace,

CB knows that the way to a Baptist’s heart is through their stomach :-)

Grace Always,

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

I caught the difference because my antennae were up for whatever way it was that you would refuse to answer my question. In present circumstances, not only will your forthcoming post not answer my question, but one hardly sees how your next post will be relevant at all.

If, as THIS post asserts, we face today not the evil scourge of Landmarkism, but the evil scourge of Neo-Landmarkism, then how will we all benefit from a comparative analysis of Landmarkism (which we do not face) instead of Neo-Landmarkism (which, presumably, we do)?

And it is the intent of my question to determine whether what we're really discussing here is not NEO-Landmarkism, but rather PROTO-Landmarkism. In other words, I'm wondering whether you can identify any aspect of the Neo-Landmarkism that you think you see today that is not an element of Baptist theology back to its very roots. What is it that is NEW (the meaning of the prefix "Neo") rather than OLD about "Neo-Landmarkism"?

I'm not really even trying to be that contentious. You have plenty of room, I think, to say, "We face today a set of stubborn and wrongheaded ideas that have plagued Baptists since their very inception as a people. It is time for us to rise above them." I disagree with that sentiment, but that, it seems to me, is your position. It is a tenable one. You need not necessarily retreat from it.

Thy Peace said...

Lydia,

Your comments are always precise, perceptive and prescient.


Lydia, I second that. :-)

CB Scott said...

Anony Just Another Coward,

Did the name calling you mention start with "Neo-Landmarker"

BTW, "theology will "get" no one into heaven. That was, is and always will be the work of Christ in the atonement.

And you must remember. I was you that said it this time, not me.

"Just Another Coward"

I do agree though.

cb

Anonymous said...

CB,

I know, it has double meaning. I chose it to jerk your chain. :-)

BTW, you are contradicting yourself. You can't correct me and turn around call the same man on the carpet yourself.

Wade,

I will recuse myself from further defense.

Dogeared

Anonymous said...

"I think you proved just the opposite of what C.B. was saying, but, like you, I may have missed something."

I know what is missing. CB never offers to buy me lunch if I am down his way! :o)

Lydia

CB Scott said...

Wade,

Like many, you don't miss much.

But you are very good at ignoring stuff.

cb

CB Scott said...

Lydia and Thy Peace,

If you guys will come down here and identify yourselves, not only will I buy your lunches. I will buy your supper also.:-)

cb

Paul said...

Uh...Robin wrote to me:

"That's it Paul, join Wade in throwing the race card. Mislabel those who believe the BF&M is biblically sound. Or better yet, use animal sounds to express your disapproval."

which implies that either I, a) believe the BFM is biblically unsound or, b) I believe the BFM is biblically sound and mislabeled myself in the process. Since b) is unreasonable then we are left with a), unless you can provide me with another reasonable option. Sorry, bro., but you are stuck with your own words.

Quack!

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

I believe that our English Baptist beginnings had the privilege of having leaders, both men and women, who lived by their biblical convictionalism, Christ-honoring individualism, and evangelical ecumicalism - a spirit that was subsequently lost among many American southern Baptists.

I hoping to go back beyond even that of the Founders and recapture the spirit of our English Baptist forefathers.

And my post will do exactly that.

Blessings,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Animal sounds?

Robin, I'd rather hear Paul's quack than your @#)! which is accompanied by its own sounds.

Sandy Everett said...

Wow, Wade.

Next time you do a post on neo-Landmarkism make sure the moon is not full.

The wolves are out tonight.

CB Scott said...

Wade,

evangelical ecumicalism?

I do hope youn really expound on the specifics of that part of your post.

That will be interesting.

Until then,

cb

Paul said...

While all this talk about Landmarkism and Neo-landmarkism is riveting in its own right, the author of the e-mail to Wade seems to focus more on the nature of "Baptist Identity." The second paragraph is particularly good at putting this discussion in a proper perspective. Please don't miss it. Here it is again:

"Nevertheless, the BIM seems strangely out of step with the needs of Southern Baptists in the early 21st century. At a time when Southern Baptists face a world and an America that is demographically different from its core constituency of white Southerners, the BIM has chosen to look inward at the Baptist community itself for its work and mission. The movement’s quest for a purer more disciplined Baptist orthodoxy and orthopraxy has consumed most of their energies at a time when evangelicals face very real dangers from radical Western secularism and emergent Islam (both the missionary and jihadist varieties)."

That's important stuff right there.

CB Scott said...

One last thing;

Paul,

I shall long remember the grand time we all had in San Antonio.

Few times do so many laugh so much as did we all in that place.

BTW,

Timmy Tebow ain't human. The Sooners are doomed.:-)

cb

Paul said...

CB,

That's ok, because neither is Sam Bradford.

BTW, I would have rather played Alabama (mostly because I think our chances would have been better). :D

Oh, and we shall all laugh like that together again some day.

Paul

Anonymous said...

CB:

Among other things, "theology" gets a professing believer moving--hopefully toward another person needing Christ as Savior, and not away from him. Your theology keeps you blogging responses in this thread and at this site. "Duh" to your reply about theology getting no one saved.

On the name-calling: I don't care where it started; it needs to end when one supposed brother in the Lord calls others he doesn't know "cowards" simply for not posting their names. If you wouldn't make the statement in those persons' living rooms, don't make it at this blogsite (made by you to me, with no more basis, in my living room would get you dropped outside on the sidewalk). You need to watch publicizing your mood swings.

The "Landmark" or "Neo-Landmark" part: it's all essentially the same--people with too much time on their hands.

John said...

Wade,
I'll have to admit that I would not have said, "Baptist Identity Movement is Neo-Landmarkist..." I would have said, "Baptist Identity Movement is Stupid."
We had an open communion yesterday and I read Jesus words in Matthew. It is interesting that Jesus said, "I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day, when I drink it new with you in my Father's house."
For those who want to suggest a closed communion, I wonder how you define the "you" in that passage. Is it only those of us who have been immersed? Is it only "us" Baptist? Or is it those who have been regeneratged by the Spirit of God?
Who are we to suggest that a brother or sister who has been regenerated cannot come to the Lord's Table? When did it become our Table?
I totally agree that immersion is a requirement for church membership in a Baptist church, but the last time I checked it is not a requirement for entry into the Kingdom of God and if we will sit down at the Table with them in eternity I think we can sit down with them here!
Thanks Wade for a great post.

CB Scott said...

Anony,

I kinda see guys like you as does Wade as he was speaking to another Anony just recently:

"Anonymous,

When Nathan pointed his finger at David, there was a face behind the finger.

Were you to have the courage of a true prophet, there might be the possibility that I, like David, might repent of sins pointed out to me.

Since you choose to remain anonymous, and since you point your electronic finger without the courage of conviction or any evidence of the Spirit of God, I shall respond like Luther rather than David:

"Here I stand. I can do no other."

Anony,

Being what you are obviously bothers you greatly. Otherwise you would not make threats for the security of hiding behind an anonymous rock.

The best thing you can do about your problem is to just stop being a coward. It is a much better way to live.

BTW, ask around. What I say to you here, I would say anywhere. Except, of course, in front of your family. I would never expose you in front of your family.

Otherwise, time, place and consequences would totally up to you if you were as you are here; cowardly.

cb

Bart Barber said...

Well then, I suppose that I am fated to play Adlai Stevenson to your Valerian Zorin.

peter lumpkins said...

Robin,

I like the logic Little Quack used. He wrote that your words implied two and only two possibilities, leaving him confidently quacking that you're stuck with your own words.

According to Little Quack, the only possibilities are:

a) Little Quack believes the BFM is biblically unsound or, b) Little Quack believes the BFM is biblically sound and mislabeled himself in the process.

How Little Quack quacks that these two represent the only possibilities I cannot imagine. Perhaps he just quacks too much.

Or maybe he cannot hear his own quacking because of other quacks. It even could be that when King Quack says "quack," Little Quack says "How many?"

Other possibles exist but I need only one to answer Little Quack's quacking:

c) Little Quack is neutral on BFM but joins King Quack in mislabeling those who believe the BF&M is biblically sound

Of course, Little Quack is incapable of quacking that you could have a neutral view of his quacking which is why he himself is stuck with his own words...ur, uh,...I mean quacking.

Most interesting is, the harmony between Little Quack and King Quack's quacking about the BF&M. Neither quack consistently about it.

Instead both quack in unison this way and then that...up and then down...for and then against do we hear Little Quack and King Quack quacking about the BF&M.

No long ago, King Quack quacked about the BF&M being a maximum statement of faith. Then, King Quack quacked about necessarily adhering to the Nicene Creed, quacking that heretics among us did not adhere to it.

And, even in this thread listen to Little Quack just quacking away:

"When did I [Little Quack] imply that the BFM is biblically unsound?

"For the most part I [Little Quack] think it [the BF&M] is very weak" (weak as in biblically unsound?)

"I much prefer the Philadelphia Confession because it is more precise."

"One of the geniuses of the BFM is that it is...rather...imprecise...(Little Quack prefers precision but thinks imprecision is genius.)

"It [the BF&M] seems to be sufficiently precise...and sufficiently imprecise..." (quack, quack)


Thus, my brother Robin, I can see why you could easily be c) above. Who could possibly know where Little Quack stands on the BF&M from his confused quacking?

With that, I am...

Peter

Bro. Robin said...

Peter

Quack!

Robin

Anonymous said...

CB:

Wade may toss both of us out of his virtual living rooom in a few minutes. Otherwise, suffice it to say that you appear not only arrogant but ignorant. If you aren't able to understand that only grown-ups are posting comments here and that ones who do so anonymously do it (for the most part) for their own very good reasons--and if you don't have the character necessary to deal adequately with that, then my assessment of you stands (and probably isn't mine alone among either readers here or those who know you personally). Feel free to skip all thread entries posted anonymously--but don't feel free to claim to be a growing Christian AND to call anyone here a coward without knowing who he is or why he does so (a prophet you are not); I might be a neighbor, a former employee, the last person you witnessed to, or even your own child.

In any case, bring a crash helmet if you ever stop by my place, brother; it sounds like you'd need it.

Jon L. Estes said...

Frankly, there are probably still ignorant Baptists

This statement ought to get some kind of award, a cardboard cookie or something significant. Really, this is the most accurate statement made, which can be absolutely proved.

peter lumpkins said...

Anonymous,

The words you wrote reveal precisely why C.B. is correct. You concede: "I might be a neighbor, a former employee, the last person you witnessed to, or even your own child."

Given such, nothing follows from what you factually assert because you could also be a known liar whose identity must remain anonymous else your appeal completely vanishes. After all, who trusts known liars?


With that, I am...

Peter

CB Scott said...

Anony,

If I am not greatly mistaken Wade allows anonymous comments for the sake of missionaries. It is true many missionaries post on his blog because of his close contact with them and his strong stand he made for them in the past. Also, he makes strong stands for them even in the present as his post on Gray Harvey will prove.

I understand Wade's position on this because I also know missionaries who place themselves in jeopardy when they are truthful about things at the IMB and in the field. This has been an on-going problem for many years now. And it should end. I pray it does one day.

You are not a missionary. You should own your words. You do not. That is cowardly. There is no other way to see it. Of course, there are some Anonys who are just passing through and are raggin' on someone which is easy to see and everyone just lets that pass. You are not of that nature. You try to make serious statements about people, yet without the proper integrity to own your words. That is just cowardly and without defense or excuse.

I do skip comments from Anonys except when addressed to me or if they are addressed to others by an Anony of rude behavior such as yourself.


Now, in regard to your saying:

"In any case, bring a crash helmet if you ever stop by my place, brother; it sounds like you'd need it."

If we ever do meet and you do identify yourself the consequences of that meeting and the revealing of your identity is totally up to you.

You will find me to be the same in person as you find me here.

Yet, I will probably leave you to yourself after stating my position as I have already done here.

The reason being that grown men do not say stuff to other grown men like:

""In any case, bring a crash helmet if you ever stop by my place, brother; it sounds like you'd need it."

That is the way little kids go back and forth with each other on the playground.

Now, I will not address you here anymore for it is a worthless venture, obviously.

Therefore, do well and think seriously about what you have allowed yourself to be. Consider this as you shave and look yourself in the mirror. Self examination is a good thing for a man.

And let me say this about Wade.

I have stood with Wade. I have fought with Wade. But, one thing is a fact, I always respect Wade no matter which side of an issue I find myself with him. The reason: He always owns his words no matter what anyone thinks of them, friend or foe. That, I greatly respect.

cb

CB Scott said...

Peter,

You are a "Quacker Jack"

Last word to Anony Crash Helmet; I promise.

See how Peter owns his own words? He does so even when he well knows he is going to inflame the folks who have labeled him as the Antichrist all over again. Peter is a man of true grit.

Or maybe he is just crazy. :-)

If Peter and Wade had been playing for Alabama this past Saturday we would have beaten the Gators and be playing the Sooners for an easy win.:-)

cb

CB Scott said...

Jon L. Estes,

You sly rascal.:-)

cb

Anonymous said...

Wade,

I think you should reconsider Robin's words here. He said, "I had a great prof for Baptist history when I worked on my MDiv. Who was your prof in your MDiv work?"

I think this points to the (his) problem. Sure he will say he was joking or whatever, but what does this reveal in his attitude? He was surely thinking this to have written it.

It's true that this is a very low blow intended to insult you. But here is the bigger point.

I don't have a seminary degree and I get the feeling that if Robin had me at his church to share about the work the Lord is doing, I would not be allowed to share a word of testimony because my education credentials just don't quite match up.

The bigger point? Well, I think this attitude is manifested in how he views communion as well. If you don't "measure up", you can't dwell at the Lord's table. Not on his watch anyway.

I think this comment reveals more about Robin than any of us realized. And I don't think he meant to do it.

In fact, I have a suspicion he regrets that comment now.

You don't have as much formal education as me, no interaction with me.

You don't agree with me about baptism, no communion with me and the Lord on my watch.

Some of these guys need to get their noses out of their books, stop staring at all their degrees on the wall and get out here on the mission field and help.

Their attitudes will be adjusted real quick by the words and actions of a new believer that has been transformed by God. Oh, and they probably didn't even finish high school!

Sadly, I don't think some of these people would get close enough to someone like that to even hear them tell how God has changed their life.

Lord, help us.

SL1M

p.s. Don't tell CB why I go by
SL1M instead of my real name. I couldn't care less if he thinks I'm a coward.

NativeVermonter said...

If you allow anonymous posts then how can you not allow anonymous comments?

Wade Burleson said...

SL1M,

I am a life-long learner, and by God's grace, will continue to be. When Lincoln was asked upon his entrance into Congress, "What is your formal educational background?" he responded with one word "Deficient." Lincoln attended just one year of "babble" school when he was a mere child, and it is there where he learned to read out loud. Yet, in the history of the American Presidency there has never been a more intellectually astute President than he. He was able to quote Shakespeare, the Bible and poetry as suited the occasion. He taught himself the principles of math, read the classics of history, and became a student of war and warfare tactics. The men on his cabinet, including Stanton, Hamlin, Seward and others all looked down on him in disdain because of his lack of formal education, but people remember Lincoln, not the others.

I'm not sure why Robin asked his question of me - only he can answer for his motive. Sometimes questions are asked, not because of a need or desire to know the answer - particuliarly when the questioner already knows the answer as did Robin - but because of a desire for others to know the answer, believing it will negate the effectiveness of the one being questioned.

When I am asked by people of my educational background, I never hesitate answering as Lincoln did, "Deficient." My college degree is in business, with a double major of Finance and Accounting. My real love is history. I lack only a few hours from having a formal M.Div., but have chosen not to complete it. I do not wish to have a theological degree bestowed upon me. That decision is probably not best for 99% of pastors, but it is for me. My real desire is to complete my Masters in History from Oklahoma University, specializing in Oklahoma history, and I will do so, but I am waiting until my wife finishes her Masters in Nursing at OU and my three current college kids graduate.

I would say to you SL1M, as I have said to others, there is no need to carry any offense on my behalf. I have grown accustomed to the fact that some who do not like what I write will resort to challenging my credentials.

I believe that, in the end, it is always best to allow one's words stand on their own. The lion of Truth needs no defense.

It simply needs uncaged.

Paul said...

Peter, thou self-proclaimed logician,

Apparently, Peter, you skipped class too often or perhaps it is simply your reading comprehension.

Firstly, Peter, your option "c)" does not resolve Robin's problem, for in your little scenario Robin is still claiming that I have mislabeled those who believe the BFM is biblically unsound and you have only confirmed with your "c)" that he has, in fact, said that I have mislabeled someone. My response to Robin was that I have not labeled anyone, therefore I could not have mislabeled anyone.

The second thing you apparently missed was this that I included in the comment you are critiquing: "we are left with a), unless you can provide me with another reasonable option."

You see, Peter, I left plenty of room for another reason, but sadly, Peter, your c) only convicts your friend further.

As to the rest of your utter nonsense, I'll simply leave you to it.

Robin,

Quack!

Peter,

Meow!

Tell Ben Stratton and your other Landmark friends I said hello (but not "Good Luck!").

Paul said...

By the way, Peter, was that you stalking my neighborhood on halloween? It looked like you, but I've never seen your face before.

Bro. Robin said...

Dear SL1M

I have read your comment and I agree with you in part, I do regret making that statement, but not for the reasons you stated.

First, I regret making that statement because it has allowed many of Wade's supporters miss the fact that he was WRONG about the men that Bart mentioned.

Second, I regret making that statement because it has taken the focus off of his arrogance as he told me to brush up on my Baptist history even when he was in error.

Third, I regret making that statement because it has made me look like an elitist. I am not. Some of the men I most respect in ministry don't have one hour of seminary education and I have made them my trusted confidants and advisors.

Fourth, I regret that statement because you apparently missed my kind comment about Wade and it has now been relegated into obscurity.

Fifth, I regret that comment because it has taken focus off the truth that my friends in the Baptist Identity movement are not Landmarkers, nor do they hold to closed communion as Wade has tried to claim.

Sixth, I regret that comment because my comment left open the opportunity to put forth false statements about what I would allow when you said, "I don't have a seminary degree and I get the feeling that if Robin had me at his church to share about the work the Lord is doing, I would not be allowed to share a word of testimony because my education credentials just don't quite match up."

Seventh, I regret that comment because it has clouded you from seeing my heart for missions and mission giving.

Now, to your claim, "Some of these guys need to get their noses out of their books, stop staring at all their degrees on the wall and get out here on the mission field and help."

First, I will keep my nose in my books so long as is necessary that I become an approved workman of God accurately handling the Word of Truth. Second, when God calls me to your place of missions, I will gladly submit and join you on the field God has planted you. Until then, I will work to expand the Kingdom in Perkins and Oklahoma where God has put me and I will also pray for your safety and strength as you share the love of Christ.

So yes, I do regret my comment, yet not for some of the reasons you may believe.

NativeVermonter said...

I guess you could have saved a whole lot of time and explaining if you simply didn't make it.

Just because the thought comes, it doesn't mean we have to follow it.

Bro. Robin said...

Native V

Where were you yesterday when I needed that advice. :-)

Wise words I wish I had followed

John Fariss said...

Although it has already been answered, at least partially, I must point out to Dr. Barber that the Baptists whose views (or lack thereof) on slavery he summarizes are (1) almost all English Baptists, while the English had the good sense to have very little chattel slavery in Great Britian, but only in their colonies, so that Englishmen who lived in England had relatively little first hand contact with the institution. Consequently it was less of a cultural ill for them to address, and (2) those you quote are all 17th, 18th, and early 19th Century figures, while the view that slavery was a "positive good" rather than just a "necessary evil" arose mostly in the United States and only during and after the second quarter of the 19th Century, when most or all those had gone on to their final reward.

In years past, during college and even seminary, I have read many of the writings of those ministers who advocated that slavery was not only Biblical but a positive good for the slave. And while I disagree with their presuppositions and conclusions alike, they were thoroughly Biblical in their approach. After America's most uncivil Civil War, they became mostly silent about slavery, but (again for the most part) became advocates for "the Lost Cause," which can be be understood as code for the "institutions of the Old south," i.e., a pro-slavery longing. Subsequent generations of Southern Baptists then became advocates and practioneers even of prejudice and institutional oppression, i.e., segregation, which has its roots in the entire slavery system and its justification. I know that you can find a few exceptions from time to time--I believe there was a resolution at the SBC back in the 1940s, and a few Southern Baptist leaders who voiced reason as well as Scripture. However, far to many Southern Baptists embraced the "Dixiecrat" movement in reaction to Harry Truman's policies and opposed Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement on what they believed was Biblical principles. There are vestages of it today in many (if not most) Southern Baptist churches in the Deep and Upper South, and if the highest ranking African-American at the Executive Committee Building is the head janitor, then it still exists institutionally within the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe Wade's point over the "similarities" between neo-landmarkism and pro-slavery is simply that both sides can justify their position "Biblically," but that doesn't make it right. And many of us are probably not far enough removed from pro-slavery views to see that.

ml said...

SL1M,

You say how can all that book study facilitate the understanding of Holy Scripture and contribute to the mission field? How can ignorance contribute to it?

Erasmus

Paul said...

Commenting on 1 Cor. 4:6-7 Dallas Willard writes:

"Our various groups become over time nearly 100-percent vessel. That is, what they seem to regard as essential and what they devote almost all their attention and effort to, has to do with human, historical contingencies that have attached themselves to individuals brought up in a certain way. They of course love those contingencies, and they love the dear ones who have shared life with them within the contingent forms. And because the contingencies are dear to us - often there is much good associated with their past - we mistake them for the treasure of the real presence of Christ in our midst, and we spend most of our time concerned with the historical accidents or contingencies of our group, even trying to urge them upon others as essential to salvation, or at least as what is best for us and for them. No wonder we are distracted from the path of spiritual formation in Christ."

Renovation Of The Heart, p. 237

Anonymous said...

Wade, thanks for the words. Understood and agreed. It should be noted that since working in the field, it has also become less and less important to me to actually finish seminary as well. Too much work to do that doesn't involve my gain.

Robin, I appreciate the lengthy fine tuning and we both regret that it was needed. Native offered words we could all heed. Don't get me wrong. It should be noted that I do appreciate formal education and those that have time to complete it.

ML, I have no idea what you mean here. But then again, I don't care much for Erasmus either...assuming you mean Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam?

Even just a cursory reading of Luther's work De servo arbitrio (On The Bondage of the Will) can have a devasting effect on one's view of anything Erasmus may have said or taught. Especially after Luther got through with him.

SL1M

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Little Quack,

How odd. You now quack:

"You see, Peter, I left plenty of room for another reason..."

But before, Little Quack, you flapped your wings, stuck out your chest, and confidently quacked:

"either...a) or, b)...Since b) is unreasonable [therefore] a)..."

My, my, my, Little Quack; you really need to watch what you quack. Are you not concerned your quacker just hasn't the quality quack it used to have? You're gonna confuse even King Quack!

As for the rest of my alleged "utter nonsense" about which you quacked, I'll simply leave you to quack on it a while.

With that, I am...

Peter

Anonymous said...

Robin,

You are a piece of work. Seriously. Why can't you admit you made a fool of yourself rather than continue to justify your stupidity.

Anonymous said...

..."devastating" effect even. Not sure what devasting means.

SL1M

Anonymous said...

RESPECTED ANONYMOUS SBC LEADER
wrote:

"Baptists are called to witness to a lost and spiritually-dying world."

Look to thine own house first.
The blind cannot lead the blind.
The ethically corrupt can not minister to a spiritually-dying world. Abuse of your own people screams so loud to the world that the world cannot hear your message.
Look to thine own house first.

Very Small Mouse With Loud Squeak

Jon L. Estes said...

Step up…

Is this what it has come to? Is this the way brothers and sisters in Christ are to treat each other? Disagreement and civil discourse are healthy but the childish belittling and infantile behavior is not becoming of men and women who belong to Jesus.

Is this the behavior we desire from our children? Not I!

Is this the behavior I find acceptable in church business meetings? Not I!

Maybe you know each other well and what you say is some kind of inside fraternity connection, I hope not! Regardless --- others are reading this and much of what is being said will do nothing to draw people to want the Jesus we represent.

As He is, so are we, in this world.

When I became a man I put away childish things...


If we refuse to get along on the public blogs how in the world do we treat those in the churches we serve who disagree with us?

Maybe some of what I am seeing here is reason that so many churches hurting, declining, fighting and not winning souls.

We, here in Kannapolis, are working hard to baptize 5-10 more precious new saints before January 1 (should have 4-5 on Sunday). I wish time would allow to tell how great God is and all He is doing in our midst. My fear is some of you could care less because I am not doctrinally in line with you.

An inerrantist, Southern Baptist Preachers Kid, now preacher who is more reform than not, mission minded, lost concerned, doctrinally sound and tired of all the time spent arguing while people are dying right outside our door and going to a real hell.

… Step down

Baptist Theologue said...

Ladies and Gentlemen, might I suggest that we concentrate on the theological issues rather than on the personality issues? We all have character flaws. Let's admit it and move on to the theological issues. If we dwell on the supposed character flaws of those with whom we disagree, it appears that we have stooped to an ad hominem level, and we accomplish very little.

I don't think that those of us who have been classified as BI people agree on every issue. Few of us are 100% Landmarkers. By the way, I don't mind having a label attached to my name if the label is accurate. I think that most of us who are classified as BI people agree completely with the 2000 BF&M. If you want to call me a neo-Landmarker or a semi-Landmarker, fine. I strongly disagree with the Landmarkers on some points, however. John Hammett of SEBTS made a great comment about the Landmarkers:

"The Landmark Baptists took the Reformation marks, measured the neighboring Methodists and Presbyterians, and found them wanting. They termed their assemblies religious societies but not gospel churches, because they did not practice the ordinances as Jesus had instructed. They would not practice pulpit exchange with the ministers of such groups, nor do anything that could be construed as a tacit acceptance of them as true churches. There are a number of problems with the claims of the Landmark Baptists, but the most serious is a failure to make a distinction between what is essential to the church's nature and what is important but not essential. In other words, they fail to distinguish between issues of being and well-being. . . . An improper administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper will hinder the church's health and weaken its ministry, but it does not necessarily invalidate the church, unless the impropriety compromises the message of the gospel."

Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 64-65.

Thus, Dr. Mohler's useful triage helps us in this regard. Presbyterian churches differ with us not on first-order issues; rather, they differ with us on second-order issues. As mentioned earlier, he stated, "Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians, but recognize that disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination."

Thus, I do not call Presbyterian churches "societies" as the full-fledged Landmarkers did; rather, I call them "churches." I do not, however, call them "New Testament churches." The 2000 BF&M defines New Testament churches as groups of immersed believers. Immersion is a second-order issue, as is eternal security/perseverance. Thus, I would not describe Baptist churches that deny eternal security as New Testament churches, but I would indeed define them as churches.

Anonymous said...

But please don't step down on a very small mouse. Very small.

Anonymous said...

If a Presbyterian church is not a 'new testament' church, what is it? Someone please DEFINE what a 'new testament' church is and what is its relationship to
Christ's Church (the Body of Christ).
Do 'new testament' churches base their teachings on the words and actions of Jesus in the Bible?
And what happened to the old testament? ?

Baptist Theologue said...

The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message answers your question:

"A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth."

Baptism is defined in the same document:

"Christian immersion is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead."

Thus, according to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, a Presbyterian church would not be considered to be a New Testament church.

Baptist Theologue said...

Oops, the definition for baptism should read "Christian baptism," not "Christian immersion" at the beginning of the definition.

G said...

All,

I wish to make it clear that I am NOT the anonymous poster referred to as Anony Gary by some in this thread. Since I began posting comments here, I have always used either Gary in Norman or my full name as my signature.

Secondly, CB's offer to buy lunch or coffee is in my experience one of the best ways to discuss sometimes contentious issues. There is nothing better than sitting down and talking openly and seriously over a meal or coffee. Email, blog comments, and other electronic communications can never have the furrowed brows, smiles, and open-mouthed-surprise which person-to-person conversation owns the exclusive rights to.

As long as one can disagree without being disagreeable, then you've got something.

Gary Skaggs
Norman, OK

Karen in OK said...

Many of you are pastors on this thread. Regardless of your views on open or closed communion, if I personally was as mad at a fellow church member as some of you seem to be with each other, would you think it was a good idea for me to participate in the Lord's Supper or would you urge me first to reconcile?
What difference if you are not in the same church?

Anonymous said...

Dear Baptist Theologue:

Thank you for answering a part of my questions.

I wonder is you or anyone else knows the answers to the rest of the questions:

'what is its (new testament church) relationship to
Christ's Church (the Body of Christ)?
Do 'new testament' churches base their teachings on the words and actions of Jesus in the Bible?
And what happened to the old testament (as far as its importance in a new testament church)?

CB Scott said...

Wade,

I realize this comment thread is now long and to ask you to find a comment and read it is much of a request for me to make. Especially since we both know we are going to cross swords about something either soon or in the future.

None the less, I ask you to read the comment of John Fariss.

He presents several of the reasons why I am asking you not to put up the post relating what you believe to be Neo-Landmarkism with slavery and the failures of Baptists in that regard.

John Fariss is a sensible person and far less of a choleric personality than am I. Therefore I ask you to take notice of his words before you post that particular post.

I make this request of what I hope are of the purer motives within me realizing that I am not always motivated by the purest of intentions.

cb

debbiekaufman said...

Anon: The Old Testament points to Christ.

debbiekaufman said...

I might add, the Old Testament shows us what we cannot do on our own and that is follow the law. It shows the need of a Savior. Christ ushered in the New Covenant, He fulfilled what we couldn't. That is what the church is under now.

Baptist Theologue said...

Anonymous, you asked,

"what is its (new testament church) relationship to Christ's Church (the Body of Christ)? Do 'new testament' churches base their teachings on the words and actions of Jesus in the Bible?
And what happened to the old testament (as far as its importance in a new testament church)?"

1. The first question was discussed thoroughly by B.H. Carroll, the founder of Southwestern Baptist Seminary. Check out his two lectures on the Greek word "ekklesia" which is translated as "assembly" or "church" in both the Greek translation of the Old Testament and in the New Testament:

http://www.theologue.org/Ecclesia/Ecclesia-BHCarroll.html

2. New Testament churches do indeed base their teachings on the words and actions of Jesus and also on the content of rest of the New Testament, and there is no conflict between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul, for example.

3. The Old Testament is still very important to New Testament churches. I preach from it often.

Paul said...

Peter,

Really now, Peter, I'm not sure what your beef is. I can't imagine that Robin called you and said, "Peter, I'm all covered up right now and Paul has presented me with a pickle so I need your help." But whatever has led you to take up Robin's cause, I'd just encourage you to stop. If it is help you are trying to give him then he really doesn't need the kind of help you are trying to give him. His silence is far more beneficial to his cause than all of your words.

Peter, would you please go back to the comment that you quoted and give the full quote, including the "unless..." part? You see, all of the words mean something, not just the ones you choose to cherry pick. But, then, I'm quite confident that everyone here can see that so I'll leave you to look like pumpkin man bearing his hind quarters for the world to see. It is, after all, what you do best.

Meow!

Baptist Theologue said...

P.S. -- The www.theologue.org website is not mine, but I do think it has a catchy name.

Wayne Smith said...

Karen in OK,

You have hit the nail on the head or as CB Scott would say a 10 Ringer. I agree that If One Searches Their Heart before participating in Holy Communion and is at odds with A Brother or Sister, then they should abstain from Participating in Holy Communion. We should all be reconciled with Our Brothers and Sisters before the Sun goes Down each and every Day.
Wayne Smith

Anonymous said...

To BAPTIST THEOLOGUE,

Unfortunately, this happened:

"Your search - http://www.theologue.org/Ecclesia/Ecclesia-BHCarroll.html - did not match any documents."

Perhaps you could paraphrase what you know from having read that site before it was removed.

Thank you so much. :) Anon.

P.S. Is there a REASON that the BF&M removed the portion that stated the importance of the words and actins of Jesus in the Bible as determining factors within the workings of the SBC?

Would this mean that SBC churches may not be allowed to be called
'new testament' churches since that portion of the BF&M was removed?

Also, what is the relationship of Paul's teachings in the Bible to those of Jesus? If there is any ambiguity: does Jesus' words have the final weight? Or is there another contextual arrangement in the Baptist faith that gives more weight to the writings of Paul, in case of ambiguity?

I wondered why the writings of Paul were mentioned as I had thought that Paul pointed always to Jesus.
Only recently have I learned that some are giving Paul more importance in the Bible than they give to Jesus' teachings.
I do not understand any of this.
Anon.

volfan007 said...

Paul,

Quack...quack quack.


John,

You said,"For those who want to suggest a closed communion, I wonder how you define the "you" in that passage." John, do you not realize that all Believers in the time Jesus and the Apostles were immersed? There would be no people who had been sprinkled or poured on....all the Believers would be immersed.

David

Quack quack quack

Paul said...

David,

Baaaaah!

Paul

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Little Quack,

You write "I'd just encourage you to stop. If it is help you are trying to give him then he really doesn't need the kind of help you are trying to give him."

Why, Little Quack. I am not assisting our Brother Robin. He is beyond capable of handling himself against quacking in this pond, I assure.

Yet, you just keep quack-quack-quacking away, with even more confusing quack still. Just because you get caught with your quackers down, doesn't mean you will be spared a burning blush, Little Quack.

I suggest you take it and ponder it and learn from it so your quacking in the future will be improved quacking...competent, qualitative quacking.

I bid you farewell, my Little Quack. With that, I am...

Peter

Paul said...

Pumpkins,

I'm sorry if I have been confusing to you. I will try to use more one-syllable words in the future.

Quack!
Meow!
Baaah!

[Was that too confusing?]

Baptist Theologue said...

Anonymous,

Try this other link for the Carroll documents:

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/B.%20H.%20Carroll/Ecclesia/ecclesia.htm

Or you can use a search engine and type in “B. H. Carroll Ecclesia.” The lectures are worth a careful reading.

1. You also said,
“P.S. Is there a REASON that the BF&M removed the portion that stated the importance of the words and actins of Jesus in the Bible as determining factors within the workings of the SBC?”

I am assuming that you are referring to the following portion of the 1963 BF&M (in article 1) which does not appear in the 2000 BF&M: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Instead, the 2000 BF&M reads as follows at the end of article 1: “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” Ken Hemphill discussed this change in a Baptist Standard article by Mark Wingfield (Feb. 26, 2001):

"The 'criterion' language was being used by some unprincipled Baptist scholars to ignore difficult texts, which they did not believe to reflect the character of Jesus."

In a Founders article online by Tom Nettles (adapted from a chapter which originally appeared in The Unfettered Word, ed. R. James, Waco: Word Books, 1987), he alluded to the same possible problem:

“The last phrase of the article on Scripture reads, ‘The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.’ Historically, this would mean that Christ is the fulfillment of all Old Testament types and ceremonies. He is the complete revelation. Practically, some take this to mean that Christ in his word and work at times contradicts and corrects other portions of Holy Scripture. Is it possible for our perception of Christ's attitude to serve as an independent canon of criticism for the rest of Scripture? This author would say no, for we never find any words or actions of Jesus to justify it. Jesus set his interpretation and authority above that of the Pharisees and their traditions, but never in contradiction to his Scripture, our Old Testament.”

2. Next you asked,

“Would this mean that SBC churches may not be allowed to be called 'new testament' churches since that portion of the BF&M was removed?”

The removal of that portion of the BF&M does not change who we are as Southern Baptists. We still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. The change merely clarifies our belief that all of Scripture is inerrant. People cannot say that some Scripture is in error because they think Jesus might not agree with what Paul said, for example.

3. You also asked,

“Also, what is the relationship of Paul's teachings in the Bible to those of Jesus? If there is any ambiguity: does Jesus' words have the final weight? Or is there another contextual arrangement in the Baptist faith that gives more weight to the writings of Paul, in case of ambiguity?”

The teachings of Jesus are in perfect agreement with those of Paul. There is no conflict. All of Scripture is inerrant.

Thy Peace said...

Off Topic (Controversial):

Please listen and read about Frank Schaeffer's (son of Francis Schaeffer) interview with Fresh Air's Terry Gross from Philadelphia.

The Huffington Post: Frank! As A Former Pro-Life Leader How Dare You Support Pro-Choice Obama?

NPR : Fresh Air with Terry Gross: Pro-Life — And In Favor Of Keeping Abortion Legal
Fresh Air from WHYY, December 9, 2008 · Frank Schaeffer's parents, Francis and Edith, were best-selling authors who were instrumental in linking the evangelical community with the anti-abortion movement.

But after coming of age as an evangelist and helping to organize religious fundamentalists politically, Schaeffer had a crisis of faith: Though he is pro-life, he decided that abortion should remain legal.

Shortly after the presidential election, Schaeffer wrote an open letter on the Huffington Post explaining his views and urging President-elect Barack Obama to support programs that provide care for pregnant women and reduce the number of abortions. In the letter, Schaeffer disassociated himself from his former politics, writing, "The pro-life cause poisoned many of us who were part of it. Me included. It led to self-righteous hubris that extended to a general attitude of hate toward the 'other.'"

Schaeffer is the author of Crazy for God and Faith of Our Sons.


The above links were provided for informational purposes.

Anonymous said...

Wow:

What a row!

I enjoyed Grannemann's and Karen from OK's comments the most.

I believe in open communion, but am glad to read all of the opinions of other theologians on this blog. I am glad that different opinions abound and that they are argued forcefully here.

I hope that they are not imposed on the SBC at large.

The most uninformed comment on the blog was that the "moderates" were as theologically conservative as the unnamed writer's great-grandmother.

People in the SBC know that many moderates were not theologically conservative and many were. But that misses the point.

The issue was how much theological liberalism the moderates would allow to exist at SBC institutions. Their concept of the "Priesthood of the Believer" included the right of profs and other denominational employees to deny the inerrancy of scripture and important doctrines like the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement and the bodily resurrection.

Louis

Tom Kelley said...

Praise God for anonymous posters!

Those who judge anomymity as cowardice unwittingly speak more against their own character that that of those they criticize.

Thy Peace said...

Peter Lumpkins has a new post:

Timmy Brister on Calvinism & Cooperation

Some excerpts:

Today, Founders Calvinists' official public defender, Timmy Brister, linked to Finn's very good post and recommended it. In the process of his recommending, however, Brister decided to flesh out Finn's analysis with some meant of his own. So, instead of leaving well enough alone, Brister feels he must fill in the blanks for Dr. Finn's categories.

For me personally, what Brister has just done is squeeze me into a category I never wanted nor did I ever claim. And, while I still refuse the label anti-Calvinist, I will not from henceforth deny the label anti-Founders.

In addition, I intend to do my part in exposing Founders' unhealthy agenda to all Southern Baptists.


Please read the post. I only put some excerpts that might be sensational. I apologize for that.

Anonymous said...

Thy Peace,

Most here do not frequent Peter's blog because it is the antithesis of this blog.

Here you are welcome to express different thoughts and debate differences. I haven't visited there in a long while, but unless things have changed dramatically, Peter has the same 8 - 10 commenters all the time because he will only tolerate those who praise him and his words. They also must agree with Peter in that he never makes a mistake in anything he ever writes. He runs everyone off with his arrogance.

Most people get enough of arrogance at home with their own teenage children, so they have a tendency to avoid it when they can.

A few minutes with Peter also reveals a tremendous leaning towards inconsistency. He says he refutes ANTI calvinism but spews ANTI calvinistic comments. He doesn't respond to anony's comments, but will go to town on an anony post. He hates labels but he is the king label maker.

Of course, he denies all of this with twisted words, twisted logic, and sometimes with twisted Georgia slang that no one understands.

Sorry about this diversion Wade. You know this, I know this, and Petey knows this. I felt it only fair to let TP know.

SL1M

Only By His Grace said...

And to think that some think our disagreements are new? We can divide and divide and divide until we are a fraction and no longer a whole (Fundamental Baptist, Independent Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Landmark Baptist, American Baptist, North American Baptist, Southern Baptist, Free Will Baptist who are not Baptist because of their belief in non-security of the believer and the ministry of the Holy Spirit with the lost, Primitive Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Regular Baptist, Old Regular Baptist, General Association of Regular Baptist and ?). Where does it stop?

My favorite I found in 1969 among the 127 different Baptist denominations was One In the Spirit Two In the Seed Premillinarian Pretribulationist Baptist with twenty-seven churches in their illustrious denomination.

CB Scott said...

Thy Peace,

You do things to cause conflict among Baptists. You are not of us yet you post comments as if you are concerned. That seems to smack with hypocrisy don't you think?

Your comment about Frankie Schaeffer is actually old news to most of us. It had nothing to do with this thread.

Your motivation here is questionable to say the least.

Recently you ran like a dog after a bone burued in the woods seeking imformation about me relating to Ben Cole that is really non-existent. Your only motivation was to cause more dissension. You say you do not go to church. Yet you speak as one who has knowledge of spiritual things.

Do you simply not have a real life? What you present as informational is actually some kind of sick need you have to bring discord to a people you are not part of. Or, maybe you are just evil.

You should call yourself; Thy Busybody. it fits far better.

cb

Thy Peace said...

CB: Thanks for your comments.

Anonymous said...

Nice response, TP. This is precisely why I gave up ever trying to take part in the discussions on Wade's blog. If I posted using my name I was attacked for being "me." If I posted anonymously I was either ignored, deleted, or chided by Wade to "stay on topic." Yet Wade lets these guys attack people and go off on tangents all the time. Skimming through the comments in this thread is like listening to a gang of little boys on the playground. This is a Baptist Boys Club, TP, and we're not welcome. You saw what they did to "L's." You saw what Wade said to the people who tried to warn him about Charles Page. Wade is as hypocritical as the rest of the boys here. He's just "nicer" about it than most. Mark my words, TP. I doubt you'll hear a peep (or a quack) out of Wade to "cb" over his ugly words to you.

To the rest of you, grow up! For a bunch of "pastors" you certainly seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

Luke

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 212   Newer› Newest»