Monday, August 07, 2006

This Isn't Your Father's Convention

The former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bobby Welch, was quoted in this month's Southern Baptist Life as saying his greatest surprise at the Southern Baptist Convention was "that several Southern Baptist pastors actually came to a microphone and publicly promoted the drinking of alcoholic beverages and wanted the SBC to do the same! Actually, I never thought I would see that take place, and it is not only a surprise but an outrage! My father was addicted to alcohol, which contributed to his early death. He advised me that if I would never take the first drink I would never end up like he did. I did not, and he was correct!"

Bobby must have been having a sidebar conversation with Parliamentarian Barry McCarty during the resolutions debate because I sat through all the microphone speeches by the pastors who were against the alcohol resolution and did not hear what Dr. Welch alleges was said. In addition, Bobby adds this . . .

"I understand one pastor's blog site indicates he believes his drinking assists him in soul-winning! What a pathetic joke! These blogging Baptist pastors just blew their collective cork!"

I can only assume Bobby is referring to my blog entry entitled Conversion to Christ Over a Glass of Wine. I can also only assume Dr. Welch has never read this post, because I find it hard to believe that he would have read it and intentionally misrepresented what was said.

The SBC LIFE article brings clearly into focus five things:

(1). Southern Baptists need to start talking to each other instead of at each other --- we would really move far along in our work and our ministry if we showed a better Christian spirit than what we seem to be willing to display.

(2). Southern Baptist leaders of the past need to realize that if the battle for the Bible was really as critical as they said it was, then everyone in the current SBC better get used to Southern Baptist pastors who actually believe and teach what the Bible says. In other words, you can't fight for the inerrancy of Scripture unless you are willing to hold to the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible is authoritative when it speaks to Christian faith and practice. Your traditions are fine, but if you can't support them from Scripture then you better not get angry with those in your convention who don't hold to your traditions --- you taught us to believe the Bible.

(3). The old fable "The Emperor's New Clothes" teaches the moral principle that the common man is afraid to say things contrary to established authority, and sometimes it takes someone, like a child, who is unimpressed with the power of the king in order to reveal the truth. There is a generation of men and women in the Southern Baptist Convention who are not necessarily children, but they are not impressed by denominational positions and authority. They are also not afraid to call a spade a spade. In the end our convention will be better when we realize that the blowing of horns, slogans and banners are no substitute for the Spirit, the Word and living life to its fullest in the power of Christ --- without pretense.

(4). The Southern Baptist Convention is changing. It is changing for the better. We are beginning to realize that the kingdom of God is much bigger than our denominational kingdom. Southern Baptists are becoming known for what we are for, more than what we are against. The Southern Baptist Convention is poised to become a true gospel denomination.

(5). We are going to have to learn to love each other when we possess different interpretations of the sacred text. I don't care if you agree with me on eschatology (premillenialism or amillenialism), ecclesiology (closed communion or open communion) or even soteriology (arminianism or calvinism), but when you tell me I must agree with you before I can serve with you then we are in big trouble as a convention. I think we are beginning to learn that lesson.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson


Jeff Richard Young said...

Dear Brother Wade,

Dr. Welch lied about me, and about the others who spoke against the resolution. I spoke not to promote the use of alcohol, but to defend the use of the Bible, and nothing in my comments that day could leave any doubt of that fact. Dr. Welch has lied, trying to damage his opponents' credibility. I appreciate his efforts in leading our convention to increased missions and evangelism, but a spade is a spade, and a lie is a lie.

Love in Christ,


K. Elijah Layfield said...

Good post, Wade.

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

Wow, I am in shock. What do you guys do with Habakkuk 2: 15? I know you will probably use "drunkenness" but lets be real - if you want to find an excuse to drink - you will. as an SBC Pastor and one who has studied the Bible for years being raised in a Godly home and church - this is shocking! Wade, to encourage someone to drink? And you are suppose to be leading! I have lost all respect for you and your actions. You should resign as a Trustee and do so quickly! This makes me sick!!!!!!

Bryan Riley said...

Because what was said at the convention and is being taught by those impetuous (grin) "blogging
Baptist pastors" cannot be argued with or attacked on any biblical or logical level it seems some are trying to recreate what you and others are trying to teach so that there are bases for attack. It's sad, but it demonstrates further the need to continue to preach God's word, consistently and without apology.

Bryan Riley said...

Is Tim's comment all in jest or did he read the same post I did?

Bob Cleveland said...


Couple things .. first one: right on!

Second: Tim, as respects your statement: " if you want to find an excuse to drink - you will." I hope that was a generalization and an impersonal "you". Otherwise it's a condemnation of someone for what you think they'd do. That's an outrage in itself.

Also: "Wade, to encourage someone to drink?" Simply untrue. A lie by implication.

If this is how the hierarchy conducts the "battle for the bible", they're on the wrong side.

A winsome smile and awesome skill at leading a meeting do not make right such statements as Dr. Welch has made.

irreverend fox said...


I agree with your point so long as it is in dealing with less than primary issues such as open or closed communion, end times theology or views on election.

My concern is that there needs to be balance, our arms should not be open to everybody when it comes to membership in our churches or in service in our denomination, seminaries or missions agencies. JW's and Mormons believe they just have a different interpretation of the sacred do Roman Catholics. I wouldn't let one who believed Roman Catholic doctrine be a member at Southside.

So there must be a "regula fide" that we confess (I knows "confessions" and "creeds" do not jive with our tradition). We can't just say, "Our creed is Christ" or "our creed is the Bible" because the JW's that I've been meeting with every Saturday would say, "amen" also.

There is a very pragmatic (and good) reason why the Church has always leaned on the wisdom of creeds.

It could be as simple as the Apostles Creed or as detailed as the BF&M 2000, I'd be fine with either, actually. We just need a standard, something that excludes cults and liberal theology yet will unit Bible Christians on the essenials and give freedom on non-essensials.

What is the balance between freedom and exclusion? There, it seems to me at least, needs to be a reality for both and if that is the case then there needs to be a way, a standard, that can be referenced. That would keep it cut and dry, it seems.

FX Turk said...

Dr. Burleson,

I just want to thank you for standing for the truth of Scripture in the face of slogans.

Some day the SBC will learn to live by its commitment to Scripture -- all of Scripture, and only Scripture. I hope we both live long enough to see it.

Marty Duren said...

Sorry to be confused, but was your comment straightforward or in jest?

Nice work.

Todd said...

After scratching my head, reading the piece to my wife who was at SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro and re-reading Welch's statements I have concluded there were concurrent meetings going on and I was in the wrong one. What Welch described was not part of the meeting I was in seated in section 105 for each occasion discussion was held. I am glad you posted here. For a moment I thought I had attended the wrong Convention.


Tim A said...

In a world that promotes pleasure, comfort, and all forms of sinfulness it should be Christian Baptists who stand on the Scriptures of the 23rd chapter of Proverbs, the 31st chapter of Proverbs, and the quotation of Habakkuk. It is a sin to put wine to your neighbor's lips.
We are standing on Scripture to abstain.
God even commends one whole family because they made a commitment to refrain from alcoholic drink. If you doubt me look at Jeremiah 35.
Do not accuse us of not being Biblical.
The best policy and practice is "DO NOT TAKE A DRINK..." If you never take that first drink the temptation to get drunk will be almost non existent.
I was not at the Convention when this resolution was passed, but I would have voted for it. I see nothing wrong with calling the leaders of our convention to a higher standard, and it is a Biblical standard.
They are leaders, rulers, and the admonition of Proverbs 31 is, "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of all of the afflicted."

volfan007 said...

i was at the convention, and i would have to agree with bobby welch. for you all to call this Godly man a liar is unthinkable. you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. as i said, the people who came to the microphones to defend drinking alcohol seemed to be saying that it was ok to drink. that's the way it sounded to me too.
i would have to agree again that a blogging pastor sounded like it was a good thing that he drank wine at a womans's house....that drinking wine led her to the Lord. that's an absurd statement. i guess we ought to smoke weed with the homies to lead them to salvation??????

what's amazing is that so many of you go along with this view on alcohol. that drinking is ok. again, i have to agree with bobby welch....i never thought i would see the day that we would have people speaking for drinking alcohol at a sbc.

may we never change in the sbc so much that we have women pastors, and drinking alcohol as ok, and five pointers leading us to go off the deep end with them, and all the other stuff that would really hurt our sbc. may God help us to not leave sound teaching and Godly living. may the Lord keep us from going off the deep end.


Kaylor said...

Great post and advice! We need to spend much more time actually listening to each other.

What bugs me most about his remarks is his calling the circumstances surrounding someone's conversion "a pathetic joke." I guess I missed the punchline.

Someone being saved is not a joke, but is a great event that should be celebrated by all. Someone being saved is not pathetic, but it a wonderful event resulting in a party in Heaven.

It is sad that after spending so much time focusing on the importance of "soul winning" and baptisms that now Bobby Welch seems more concerned about alcohol consumption. Let's keep the main thing the main thing.

Jim Shaver said...

I was stunned upon reading Welch's letter. His words were not what one would expect from a senior SBC statesman.

As long as leaders like him use "sound bite" slogans, and "Amen fetching" phrases to impress their followers, we will have division in the SBC. said...


My dear friend.

We are a convention of Arminians more Arminian than Jacob Arminius himself.

I am afraid I am sincere when I say I will serve on the mission field with those who distort the gospel by exalting the will of man, but frankly, that is where we are and I am in no mood to exclude 90% of our convention.

Further, on every Southern Baptist death bed, you will not hear one person exalt his choice, his decision or his commitment to Christ. Even Arminians, at death, exalt Christ; for whose will, whose character and whose commitment has been genuine enough to meet the standard of a holy God?

Christ is our righteousness.

So, Bro. Ben, I jest not. said...

Tim Guthrie,

I look forward to the day when you and I can meet and visit about the Scriptures we both love.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

In His Grace,

Wade said...

Irreverend fox,

You ask a good question. It is the heart of where our struggle is as a convention.

I propose that we fellowship around the Person and work of Christ, love for the authoritative Word of God, and a desire to take the gospel to the nations. said...

Jim Shaver,

A hearty "Amen."


Mark Spence said...


"i guess we ought to smoke weed with the homies to lead them to salvation??????"

Jesus never smoked weed. Jesus did drink wine. If drinking wine is a sin, than Jesus sinned and substitutionary atonement is for nothing.

When something is not a sin, but is added to our denominational sins than we are no better than the Pharisees. The heart of the issue is scriptural sufficiency. If we believe that scripture is sufficient than we should not add anything to it!

Alycelee said...

I read this blog daily and enjoy both your post and the comments. "This isn't your Father's convention" was exceptional.
While reading the comments section, I got the feeling the many hadn't got past the issue of "should you/or should you not" drink, while I didn't think this was what this post, or your original post was about at all.
To me the most important comment you made, and the one I wholehearted agree with is this . . .

"blowing of horns, slogans and banners are no substitute for the Spirit, the Word and living life to its fullest in the power of Christ --- without pretense."

To me it's not about rules and regulations, it is about walking in the Spirit.
I have liberty to drink a little wine. I have liberty according to the scripture, I chose not to take that liberty, simply because I don't want to in any way compromise my witness. However, I make no rules about my liberty, or the choices I make or thoses others make and I remain aware of the consequences of sin and problem of living in moderation in all areas of life. I am not, nor has God made any other earthly man "the deputy"

However, when we no longer walk in the spirit the natural progression is to gravitate back to rules and regulations. And there has never been a substitute for life with the Lord in the Spirit. Religion is the result, but it is lacking and the world knows it. Religion is why the world looks this way and questions where the reality is.

Thanks for your insights and bringing to light things that need to be buried.
And thanks to God for His wonderful mercies.


Anonymous said...

"He advised me that if I would never take the first drink I would never end up like he did. I did not, and he was correct!"

Reminds me of a scene from the Simpson's:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Bob Cleveland said...

Wade (and BSC):

Everyone can. And we're it.

What all does that apply to? Apparently not some things, as witnessed by all this mess and the attacks it provokes.

Interesting. If Orwell were alive today, he'd turn over in his grave.

Mark said...

Thanks for this post, Wade. I wasn't too happy when I read the Welch article this morning before leaving for work.

I think you hit the nail on the head with "In other words, you can't fight for the inerrancy of Scripture unless you are willing to hold to the sufficiency of Scripture." The sufficiency of Scripture is certainly lacking.

In this area I will again suggest "The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life" by Johannes G. Vos found here

I was raised in Joseph Smith's RLDS cult where I was taught that the mumble of a cuss word and a sip of beer would send you to hell. This is just as good a reason to promote moderate drinking when comparing this to Bobby Welch's statement about his father's struggle with alcohol. However, this not the biblical model of sola scriptura that we as protestants subsribe too.


volfan007 said...


Jesus never smoked weed...true. nowhere in the bible does it say to not smoke weed. does it? so, in your opinion, and in the other alcohol drinkers in here's opinion, would smoking weed be ok for yall to do as well? if it were legal, would you fire up a doobie?

alcohol and weed are both drugs. and, while it's not sin to drink grape juice which has been diluted with three parts they did back in Jesus' is foolish to drink the strong drink(fermented and undiluted) according to proverbs. it's foolish to drink fermented, undiluted grape juice, or oinos. foolish. i dont beleive Jesus was you?

still telling granpappy to hold off making anymore moonshine,


Wayne Smith said...

I think Dr. Bobby Welch had to much Welch Grape Juice before the interview. To tell a different story from was said. We need to PRAY for Dr, Welch to have eyes to see and ears to hear.

A Brother in CHRIST

Paul said...


I encourage you to repent and change the name of your blog to "Grapes and Truth to You." Sunday's sermon will be "The Woman at the Welch's."

Kevin said...

Hey Volsfan007!

Do you think a person should be turned down for membership in a Baptist Church, if he reveals that he drinks wine? Just curious.

BTW, Is your name "jake"?

Mark Spence said...


You made a major jump. I do not drink alcohol.

My point was to agree whole heartedly with WB that adding to scripture is dangerous. No where in scripture is drinking alcohol a sin. Therefore, adding it to a list of sins is adding to scripture.

According to your logic, drinking alcohol would be permissible if I diluted it.

I am advocating humility. I desire a convention that states, we may not agree on alcohol, ecclesiology, soteriology, but we agree on the major issues of doctrine. Therefore, we will work together to see the nations worship the Lord God.

Kevin Bussey said...


What happened to Matthew 18? If he thought someone was in error shouldn't he have gone to them 1st. 2nd I'm more appalled that we had a Pro-abortion person speaking from the SBC platform than I am someone who drinks a glass of wine.

volfan007 said...


i am glad that you are not

i am not, that's not my name.

i would not kick anyone out of church for drinking wine. i would not keep a person from joining my church if they drank.

that's really between them and the Lord. i would encourage them to not drink though.

also, let me add here....i would not want any of my staff nor my deacons to drink alcohol. nor would i be for having a ss teacher who drank wine.


where's the major jump? there's no major jump between smoking weed and drinking alcohol. they both do the same thing. i used to use both as a lost heathen. thank God for saving me and giving me real life.

the point is....there are some things that are very foolish that are not sin. proverbs says that it's foolish to drink alcohol..fooish. and, according to ephesians...the Lord wants us to be high on the Holy Spirit for joy instead of alcohol. and, the joy of the Lord is our strength....not the joy of jack daniels or three sisters or mogan david. the joy of the Lord.

i dont think it would be a sin for someone to drink because thier dr. told them could be used as a paul told timothy to do for his stomach troubles. but, to just drink for get that's foolishness. and, of course, to be drunk is sin.

i hope that clarify's my thoughts,


RKSOKC66 said...

I didn't know there was a web magazine called Southern Baptist Life. Wade, thanks for providing a link to it.

I didn't go to the convention. However, I did listen to most of it via steaming video on the internet. While I do recall the discussion about alcohol I don't recall the stuff the Pastor Welch says were going on with people giving a wholesale endorsement of drinking.

I think the steaming video from the convention is still up there on the SBC website. I am going to go back there and confirm/not confirm that Welch's depiction was correct.

I think the session in question was Tuesday evening. Is that correct? It might be difficult to find the specific section where the resolution was discussed since there is no "topical index" on the SBC site indicating which session (i.e. what day, AM/PM) any given topic came up. said...


I think the resolution debate was sometime Wednesday, but I'm not sure.

Stephen Pruett said...

Great post Wade. Avoiding alcohol may be the wisest course of action for a variety of reasons, but to claim that the Bible demands it is simply impossible to support. Wine may have been diluted, but it could still cause drunkeness, othwerwise why all the warnings about not becoming drunk or how could some get drunk while observing the Lord's supper. Jesus was accused of being a wine drinker by religious leaders, and He did not deny it. He served wine at the last meal with His disciples. He turned water into wine. It seems that many Southern Baptists are people who believe the Bible is inerrant but who simply choose which verses to believe and which ones to not believe. I would favor a biblically supportable statement on alcohol, indicating that abstinence is wise, drunkeness is forbidden, and the impact of anyone's drinking on weaker brothers and sisters must be taken into account. However, to delcare it a sin or to forbid it outright is just plain not biblical. Well, that is not exactly correct, it does follow the example the Bible describes of the behavior of the Pharisees.

irreverend fox said...


"I propose that we fellowship around the Person and work of Christ, love for the authoritative Word of God, and a desire to take the gospel to the nations."

I totally agree, but, again, don't you think we need some "regula fide" to help us nail down what we mean by those three things?

I have been having a weekly Bible study with two JW's. (I wish more people would knock on my door and ask me if I'd like to have a Bible study!) Wade, I'm telling you they would say "amen" to those three objectives.

I just think we need to some how pass a resolution or SOMETHING that would state that no seminary or agency can discriminate any person due to a theological/ doctrinal position UNLESS that issue is dealt with SPECIFICALLY in the BF&M 2000.

I just think it is wild to have an agency discriminate on doctrinal issues that are not dealt with by our confession. What those agencies are essentially saying by their extra rules is that they are speaking for Southern Baptist (whom they represent).

This issue about alcohol is a prime example of my concern. The new IMB rules on prayer languages is another.

What can be done?

Stephen Pruett said...

One more point. Volfan007, you can call oinos grape juice if you want to, but Ephesians 5:18 warns not to be drunk with oinos. If the general meaning of oinos was diluted grape juice this warning would be nonsensical.

davidinflorida said...

Pastor Wade, One thing for sure, is that everyone will not agree about subjects of eschatology, ecclesiology, or soteriology. I have read many debates on these subjects from very Godly people, and they all strongly feel that they are totally correct...... The problem comes, when some do not allow for different interpretations of scripture on subjects that are secondary to the Cross...Those in leadership want to make rules (legalism) and/or call the interpretations that they do not agree with as false teaching....You may ask yourself ,does it really matter Titus 3:9...Does the Blood Of Jesus Christ differ if you are on one side or the other of the soteriology debate?...Lets not forget 1 Cor 13 ...without love I am nothing said...


Very valid point you make.


I'm not sure what can be done, but the fact we are discussing it is a start.

foxofbama said...

I am sitting now in a library about 500 yards from the waters where Bobby Welch was baptized by Dan Ireland at FBC Ft Payne Alabama. Praise God FBC now has a staffer that is a grad of the CBF school Mcafee where my 1st cousins daughter is on track to become an ordained Baptist minister.
My sister is a deacon.
About Soul winning. Some of the finest Christians I am getting to know better everyday are Episcopalians, even some Catholics. They have been drinking since day one. Ft. Payne City limits just wentwet this last year.
I do not delight inthat, but evangelicals have ruled this region of Alabama for 100 years and it leads the state in divorce. You cannot of course blame all that to Salvation on Sand Mtn, the book about snake handlers about 15 miles from there. Whatever you say of those folks they host one of the best FaSoLa singings every July 4th weekend. I know, I was there for the first time two months ago. Had a bass section there that day 60 voices strong like a human pipe organ, a haunting blessing.
I've been drunk twice in my life and I am not proud of it, about 20 years ago.
But lot of people talking about hebnain't goin there. Some of those folks who have problems with drink will be in hebn before the selfrighteous Pharisees that showed my Dad the door in four of the last five Baptist churches he pastored.
Bobby Welch has some things to ask forgiveness for before he starts doing the eye of the camel bit, particularly some of the demagogic things he said in the heyday of the takeover. Check Buddy Shurden's timeline history for the particulars.
Pray for Bobby Welch. Read Randall Balmer's chapter Where Have All the Baptists Gone in Thy Kingdom Come.
Stephen Fox
Saved for all time in 1959
Truett Memorial BC, Hayesville BC.
See Balmer on Truett and how he compares him to the counterfeit Richard Land.
Here is the question, Wade for your Next Blog. Is Bobby Welch a counterfeit Baptist as well said...


Thanks for your reminder.

I like Bobby Welch. He has been very kind to me as well. We have spoken on a few occasions this past year by phone and in person.

I have come to expect that leadership within the SBC will often make public statements about things they don't understand rather than deal with anyone privately.

I am not hurt by that at all. In fact, comments by Bobby allow for a discussion like this. Had it been private it would have remained private, but the leaders of the SBC are bringing about change, albeit unknowingly, by revealing more than they realize about our collective understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture.

So, there is absolutely no personal offense with Bobby, and no need for him to apologize.

He is helping us change the convention for the better.

RKSOKC66 said...


The convention discussion regarding alcohol use was Resolution #5 which was discussed on Wednesday morning.

I have just watched the streaming video of the discussion of Resolution #5.

Three people spoke against the resolution were:

1. Benjamin Cole from Texas

2. Wes Pastor from Williston Vermont

3. Jeff Young from Ravenna Texas

Pastor Cole spoke about the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse in his own father's life.

Personally, if I was in the hall I would have voted along with the majority of the messengers and affirmed resolution #5.

However, whether you agree with the view of the three speakers against the resolution or not, there is absolutely no way that the principled dissent by the three speakers could be construed as "promoting drinking of alcohol".

Ray said...

I do not think that the SBC is full of Armenians. I know very few Baptists who believe that you can lose your salvation, but do subscribe to God giving humans free will. I also know very few people who would argue with total depravity. Most Baptists in practice subscribe to three of the five points of Calvinism. Does that make somebody Armenian?

Alan Cross said...

I didn't realize you had posted on this, Wade. I wrote a post about this today (I saw the article on John Stickley's site) about how I feel that Welch broke the 9th Commandment and engaged in bearing false witness against his neighbors to prove a point. Check it out here:

It takes things a bit farther than you do. A big part of the debate was a call for holiness. I think that a good place to start would begin with being honest about what others say.

Alan Cross said...

Sorry, that link wasn't right. Just go to

This was written before I read your post or comments, so it is not a reaction against anyone else here, but my own thoughts about what Dr. Welch said. said...


Thanks for the link!

On target.

wade said...


Thanks for your first hand information.

I appreciate your integrity in posting your comment, though you affirm the resolution.

That is the kind of intellectual honesty that is needed in the SBC. said...


Frankly, Arminus was ambivolent on eternal security.

He was adamant on universal redemption.

Universal redemption is the cardinal doctrine of Arminianism, not eternal security.

With that definition the SBC is 90% Arminian.

Wayne Smith said...


Thank you LORD for revealing all these Falsehoods and Traditions that have kept YOUR Children, out of YOUR CHURCH, because of all the HYPOCRISY. May GOD FORGIVE US!!!

A Brother in CHRIST

GeneMBridges said...

We are standing on Scripture to abstain.
God even commends one whole family because they made a commitment to refrain from alcoholic drink. If you doubt me look at Jeremiah 35.
Do not accuse us of not being Biblical.

If you were standing on Scripture, you'd see that this family is commended not merely for not drinking, but for being faithful to their vows and honoring their fathers. They thus are true to those portions of the Law of God. This family was part of a Nomadic family who were on good terms with Israel and had taken a vow like that of the Nazirites. They are not part of the covenant nation, yet here their faithfulness to their vows is contrasted with that of Israel. They are even taken into the temple itself, so we have here those who are aliens being more faithful to their vows than the Israelites are to theirs.

alcohol and weed are both drugs.

This is a level confusion within the same category of substances. Your analogy fails at the critical point of comparison.

proverbs says that it's foolish to drink alcohol..foolish.

Wine is a mocker, mead boisterous;
And no one who is overtaken thereby is wise.
The article stands with yayin. Ewald maintains that in 10-22:6the article occurs only here and at 21:31, and that it is here, as the LXX shows, not original. Both statements are incorrect. The article is found, e.g., at 19:6; 18:18, 17, and here the personification of \b “wine” requires it; but that it is wanting to shkr shows how little poetry delights in it; it stands once for twice. The effects of \b wine and mead (sheikar from shakar, to stop, obstruct, become stupid) are attributed to these liquors themselves as their property. \b Wine is a mocker, because he who is intoxicated with it readily scoffs at that which is holy; mead is boisterous (cf. homeeya, 7:11), because he who is inebriated in his dissolute madness breaks through the limits of morality and propriety. He is unwise who, through \b wine and the like, i.e., overpowered by it (cf. 2 Sam. 13:28), staggers, i.e., he gives himself up to \b wine to such a degree that he is no longer master of himself. At 5:19we read, bshagah , of the intoxication of love; here, as at Isa. 28:7, of the intoxication of \b wine, i.e., of the passionate slavish desire of \b wine or for \b wine. The word “Erpicht”~AVIDISSIMUS~],i.e., being indissolubly bound to a thing, corresponds at least in some degree to the idea. Fleischer compares the French: e{C}tre fou de quelque chose.Isa. 28:7, however, shows that one has to think on actual staggering, being overtaken in \b wine.

Proverbs also turns around and commends it for the poor to give them relief. Making theology from the Proverbs is not so easy. The language is poetic and it is covenantal, both of which wooden literalism overlooks routinely, so much that it amazes me that people quote from one half the book of Proverbs. Perhaps one day, you'll avail yourself of a standard commentary. Paul tells believers not to let anyone judge them about what they eat or drink (Col. 2:16). In other words, if a weaker brother tries to lord it over your conscience, don't let him to do it. Conversely, the weaker brethren do not get to lord it over the stronger.

i would not kick anyone out of church for drinking wine. i would not keep a person from joining my church if they drank.

that's really between them and the Lord. i would encourage them to not drink though.

also, let me add here....i would not want any of my staff nor my deacons to drink alcohol. nor would i be for having a ss teacher who drank wine.

This is a double standard. You set up a class system in the church between those who are spiritual and those who are holier. If you believe it is foolish to drink wine, and you allow those not in these positions to drink it, then you are complicit in their behavior. It's one thing to have your teachers and deacons hold to a particular confession of faith, but when it comes to practices, you cannot hold these and your members to two different standards.

If the resolution was truly about alcohol use for all God's people, it would not have included the caveat that is applies to the US. The resolution admits this is a cultural variable in its own text. To therefore conclude that abstinence is a universal absolute is to exceed the yardstick the resolution itself supplies. The title is: ON ALCOHOL USE IN AMERICA.

GeneMBridges said...

With respect to Arminianism, I believe Wade is, without spelling it out, y'all referring to classic Arminianism. This isn't, for the most part, the kind of Arminianism you find today. Classic Arminians affirm the bondage of the will. For them, prevenient grace underwrites saving faith. Prevenient grace is a product of the atonement. It enables persons to believe if they don't resist it. As such it functions a bit like baptism in Lutheranism. They affirm general atonement in classic Arminianism-penal substitution gives way to the moral government theory in some classic Arminians (Wesley had room for both). Grace is "resistible" in that if one did not resist prevenient grace, he could be saved. At times some of their theologians have agreed that after a time, prev. grace becomes irresisible (I think it was Wiley who taught that). At any rate, classicals have no opinion vs. eternal security one way or the other, though most do not affirm it.

Now, modern Arminianism is extremely varigated. Most of them today hold to the moral governement theory of atonement. However, they still hold to UPG (universal prevenient grace), and general atonement.

The problem here is that this is Bi-Nitarian. Because of UPG, salvation is effected by a chain of grace underwritten by UPG (the Spirit's work) and the Son's cross, but election is outside the chain, because God depends on man's decision in order to elect.

In Calvinism, each Person of the Godhead is active: the Father elects; the Son atones; the Spirit applies the benefits. So you have a more consistently Trinitarian view.

Now, what passes for "moderate Calvinism" in the SBC is, IMO, more Arminian than Arminius, and has the potential to be more problematic than classical Arminianism.

In the SBC, some of these men will say that men are able by way of design, not by way of UPG from the cross, to believe or disbelieve the gospel. They deny the bondage of the will. They use the classical Arminian scheme of election, atonement, and calling, and then try to hold on to eternal security.

For starters, that's illogical without a doctrine of UPG. Second, in denying the bondage of the will, they are closer to semi-Pelagian than they are to Arminian (that's why they are "more Arminian" than Arminians. They are true libertarians. Arminians are libertarians, but there are limits because they affirm and do not deny the bondage of the will. This view is also functionally Unitarian. Without UPG, you're left with election, calling, and regeneration all lying outside the chain of grace in salvation. Only the Son is active, so only One Person of the Godhead is in view. This is problematic and demonstrates the tendency that Baptists of the past have had toward Socinianism and Unitarianism when they embrace Arminianism. So, I agree with BSC, that this theology must not be coddled well. At the same time, however, hyper-Calvinists (and I mean TRUE hyper-Calvinists like Crisp in the 18th century) have had a tendency to blend the decrees of God the Father so much into the economy of the Trinity that they become Unitarian that way. So both Arminianism and Calvinism have their dangers in that respect.

This is why, however, you'll find that true Reformed Baptists are more apt to cooperate with classical Arminians than with the functional Unitarians in the SBC. Both classical Arminians and Reformed/Sov. Grace Baptists avoid sacramental prayers and such practices which they find suspect in among the third group. The problem as they (we) see it is that the third view is functionally Pelagian as well as functionally Unitarian. If you start down the road of sacramental prayers and whatnot, you violate the RPW (regulative principel of worship). In so doing, you move closer to Rome. In so doing you run the danger of dividing the faith of the people at some point. In RCC theology, faith is divided between the merit of Christ, the saints, and your own. In this implicitly sacramental theology, you wind up with a faith divided in Christ and your sacramental prayer. That's not Sola Fide or Sola Christus.

Robert Hutchinson said...

i think the congregational/democratic form of polity is the best way for a group of Christians to seek the Will of Christ and determine the Collective Conscience of the Group.

paul often speaks about freedom of conscience. and on certain issues he asks that the individuals who disagree in matters of conscience agree to disagree.

i do not think it is wrong for a group to determine what its Collective Conscience is on a particular issue such as the use of alcohol. of course with our polity the conscience of the collective has no authority, just influence, over the conscience of the individual.

seems to me that the Collective Conscience of Southern Baptist on the alcohol issue has shifted a great deal.

one brother posted that he would not refuse membership to someone who drank in moderation yet, would not allow that person a position of leadership. even the recent motion spoke only about trustees and brother welch's statement referred to leaders.

Consider the second paragraph of the Resolution on Alcohol from the 1896 SBC:

May 1896
Furthermore, we announce it as the sense of this body that no person should be retained in the fellowship of a Baptist church who engages in the manufacture or sale of alcoholic liquors, either at wholesale or retail, who invests his money in the manufacture or sale of alcoholic liquors, or who rents his property to be used for distilleries, wholesale liquor houses, or saloons. Nor do we believe that any church should retain in its fellowship any member who drinks intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or visits saloons or drinking places for the purpose of such indulgence.

our baptist brothers & sisters before us may have been too conservative for most of us (imagine that) but at least they were direct, honest, and consistent.

it wasn't just about was about membership too. no double-standards no hypocrisy.

i wonder if that Resolution would pass today?

would any of you vote for it?
...and if you would, would you apply it in your church?

i would not be able to.

btw: just because a resolution is a hundred and ten years old does that mean we should ignore it?


Bob Cleveland said...


For no particular reason, I feel the need to point out that 4/5 of the messengers in Greensboro voting for the resolution, isn't that much different from 10/12 of the hand-picked scouts voting not to go in and take the promised land.

And I don't see governance by popular vote in the bible, either. We put a lot of trust in the verse that says the congregation approved of the apostles' instructions on how to handle the Hellenic widows need to be fed.

The Baptist church is where I'm (gladly) called to serve. Personally, I like elders.

Bryan Riley said...

What is most fun about reading blogs is how people clearly see what they want to see so that it is consistent with their own beliefs or experiences. It is amazing how two people can hear the same message but come away with such different conclusions. Nonetheless, that is such a wonderful lesson for communicators to remember.

One thing to keep remembering as we do a very poor job of trying to analyzing what the scriptures say or don't say about alcohol... Jesus prayed the following "for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Did you notice why Jesus prayed for our oneness in Him??? He prayed that SO THAT the world may believe that God sent Jesus to the world... Thus, it would seem that our primary goal, in all of our following of Jesus, is to demonstrate to the world that Jesus really was who He said He was. Can't we put aside all this hashing and rehashing and come together to fulfill the Great Commission??

LivingDust said...

Brother Wade,

I've read every comment with interest and have an observation. One of the requirements to become a Deacon at our congregation is that a man cannot drink alcoholic beverages, privately or publically. I comply with this instruction from my Pastor and I believe it is a good policy for a Christian man to follow.

I was not raised in a Christian home. My dad was a US Navy fighter pilot (Vietnam era) and he and his buddies shutdown the Officer's Club bar many a night. My Mom warned me that men in our family couldn't handle liquor (Mom was right, as usual) I didn't drink as a teenager until I went away to college. Drinking caused me plenty of trouble in college. One night during my sophomore year a mean hombre broke a beer bottle on my left cheekbone in a barroom brawl and I decided to refrain from further participation in alcoholic-related activities. Forty stitches in the side of your face has a way of getting your attention. That was 27 years ago and I have absolutely no desire for alcoholic beverages of any type. Thank you Jesus.

On the rare occassion when people offer me alcohol I jokingly tell them I would be happy to accept as long as they don't mind me getting in a fist fight with someone after the second or third drink. They usually smile and give me a bottled water.

Alcohol will not lead to anything good and will usually bring out a bad side of an individual at some point in time. It can damage a person's Christian witness and we all know that our witness, once damaged, can be difficult to restore.

Ellis said...

thank you! Emotionally, I left the SBC a long time ago. But if you are an indication of the future then there's still hope. said...


Great testimony.

Thanks for sharing it.

I agree. For you to drink would be sin.

However, you need to realize that the world does not revolve around your life experiences, perceptions, or inner demons.

Other testimonies could be share that are dissimilar to yours.

One should by no means minimize your testimony, but on the other hand, you should be careful not to impose your personal convictions on others. Right?

Bryan Riley said...

These are simply observations, limited and probably meaningless. What follows is not a substantive comment on the wisdom or folly of alcohol.

1. It seems that those who speak out against alcohol the most strongly are those who had a problem with alcohol prior to becoming a Christian.

2. It seems that many who claim that there is nothing about alcohol that can be good for a Christian have never been around cultures with Christians who drink alcohol (and by cultures I don't just mean outside of the U.S.).

Clearly, if people use alcohol as a means of escape or as a part of their own understanding as to how to live life, then it will be folly, just as any other coping mechanism would be. What I mean is that God teaches us to trust in Him with all our heart and lean not on our own understanding. When we find ourselves needing anything more (or should I say less) than Him to fill us, it is an idol and a problem. But, that makes all of this so much bigger than alcohol and demonstrates, in my opinion, that alcohol is a red herring, easy for those who don't care to partake of it to swallow. I'm not of the opinion that having a drink keeps us from being filled by the spirit. But I am of the opinion that putting anything first in our lives before God will quench the work of the spirit in our lives, whether what we put first before God is alcohol, a job, marriage, golf, drugs, lust, reading, whatever.

Here is what I struggle with. When will I focus on the issue that God calls me to die daily? When will I be more consumed with a desire to follow Him with all my heart and not live as though I am a god? When will I stop interpreting scripture to fit my picture of reality and ask God to search my heart and clean me of any offensive ways (and really mean it?!)?? When will I live by faith and not by sight? said...

Robert Hutchinson,

You ask a question at the end of your comment that sounds rhetorical . . .

"Just because a resolution is a hundred and ten years old does that mean we should ignore it?"

I assume you believe the answer is "no."

So, based upon you logic, I refer you to a decision made at the 1888 Southern Baptist Convention, eight years prior to your above reference, and the support of said ruling by the Southern Baptist theologian, scholar, pastor, and then current Southern Baptist Convention President, Dr. James Boyce, who said as presiding officer . . .

"A resolution against the consumption of alcohol is not germane to the work of the convention.” (1888 Annual of the SBC, pp. 33-34, President James Boyce).

Using the logic behind your rhetorical question, I assume you would say that we should not ignore an ancient ruling of our convention.

Thank you for your question.

Todd said...

If I recall correctly the 1925 BFM noted the Lord's Supper was taken with bread and wine,

"in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ."

So, were we to argue from history we would have to say the very first confessional statement of Southern Baptists referred to as the BF&M should be followed. But, of course, historical appeal is often selective.

LivingDust said...

Brother Wade,

I have found that "imposing personal convictions" on another person is usually fruitless. People must gather information from various sources, go through their own personal experiences and then make their own life choices.

I would share with any brother or sister in Christ that as a regenerated Child of God we are instructed, and thoroughly equipped, to be self-controlled and spiritually sober.

As for drinking wine, Jesus being a Jew from the countryside probably drank wine (when available and offered) at numerous weddings and feasts.

It would probably be good if the SBC and IMB avoided any dictates in the area of alcohol consumption, as well as speaking in tongues and private prayer languages, right?

Robert Hutchinson said...


thanks for the reference. i agree with boyce.

my question was sincere and rhetorical at the same time.

it was a sincere question that really had more to do with my "pet peeve", church & state relations; what the historical position has been based on Resolutions versus the current position. i like the historical.

at the same time i guess it was rhetorical for those who feel they should apply the Collective Opinion of the SBC Messengers in their church ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

if they actually said "yes" to all three of my questions, then, i guess a whole lot of baptist are going to be looking for a new church home.

or some pastor(s)are going to be looking for a new church home and when he can't find one i guess he'll be starting a new one...

...because...jim henry (who does promote abstinence) in his training video Deacons: Growing in Character & Commitment said(according to a poll that he did not name), "48% of Southern Baptist drink."

i would prefer it if folks did not drink but i'm not going to disassociate with brothers who do. it's a matter of conscience.



Robert Hutchinson said...


...if they actually said "yes" to my first two questions and "no" to the third, then I guess...

Kelly Reed said...


This is actually Vicky Reed. I first want to say how sorry I am that you are continually being slandered by people we have all been raised to respect. That’s just the problem isn’t it? We were raised to respect these wonderful men of faith and now toward the end of their service they seem almost intent on maligning those whom they have taught. They taught us to respect the Word of God and hold it up to a high standard and then when we do that they want to malign our character. They taught us to hold the Word of God higher than tradition. Did they really not think that at some point we would not examine our own traditions? Or did they just not expect to live to see it? Traditions are fine, but when they go against the Word or add onto the Word then they at least need to be recognized as a tradition and not the Word itself. To be honest about what is tradition and what is the Word is vital and they taught us that.

It reminds me of the fight Martin Luther had with the established church of his day. The church wanted to hold tradition equal with Scripture and Luther said no. He was labeled a heretic for holding Scripture as the highest standard. I have respected these men for many years, but to be honest my husband and I have been wondering for some time now what their generation would leave, that future generations would have to fix (correcting the pendulum swing). I am a true conservative and from what I have been observing over the last few years our leadership have been going more and more in the direction of legalism. Legalism is not conservative it is just as wrong as liberalism. As my husband says often, “Satan does not care if you are wrong to the right or to the left, nor how far wrong. He just wants you to be wrong.” I say these things with great fear and humility. I know that our generation will have to be just as careful as we are asking the current leadership to be.

This thought brings me to my knees as it should all of us. Our generation is finally engaging the convention (something the leadership has been asking us to do for years) and asking for our seat at the table and one day it will be the next generation who wants a seat. I hope and pray we will be diligent to bring in new leadership and to never stop examining our traditions (those our generation may hold dear) next to Scripture.

I also want to address the fact that the leadership has been asking younger ministers to engage the convention. I have been at those conventions where they have tried to figure out how to get younger generations interested. The truth is that few of the efforts they made ever really spoke to us.

It has finally come to the point when we felt elements in the Convention finally went too far. For the longest time, most of us didn’t have the medium to communicate with each other and share our concerns. Then we began reading about things on your blog. We finally found a way to network in a way that was truly effective for our generation and for some reason it hasn’t been well received. Is it more important that we get involved their way, or that we are involved? Isn’t getting involved at all more glorifying to God than staying on the sidelines? Why can’t those wonderful men of the faith be proud of the generation they have brought up in the faith and encourage us? I have been speaking in terms of us and them, but that breaks my heart, it should not be that way. We should all be working together to further the cause of Christ, not our own sense of survival. I do not know one younger minister that truly does not want the mentorship of these older men. But whether they offer it or not we will be steadfast in the faith and do our best, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to fight the good fight. My prayer for our predecessors is that they choose to love us and not treat us as if we are children or their enemies and that they would finish their race to the glory of God so that we may continue to follow in their footsteps as we have up till now.


Rex Ray said...

You know I’ve backed you on most things you stand for and in a way you’ve been my hero. But I’ll tell you what my father has told me more than once, “Rex, you’re always right, but when you’re wrong, you’re dead wrong.”

I remember my only taste of tobacco. My twin brother and I were in the first grade. This high school boy told us if we hung around with him we would end up smoking. We told him we would never do that. The day came when he furnished the tobacco and paper but we couldn’t make a cigarette. So he rolled them. We had the cigarettes in our mouths and he was about to strike a match. He yelled, “Here comes my brother” and yanked them from us.

So you see, Wade, I never had to quit smoking. Would that apply to drinking? I’ve never had to quit that either because I never took the first drink.

‘All things in moderation’ is the devil’s lie. Is moderation in murder ok? Christ said the world will hate us. Are you promoting drinking so it will like us?
How much difference is there in drinking with the world to win them to Christ and sleeping with them? Hey! If that caught on, there might be more witnessing?

Your second ‘Thing’ states: “You taught us to believe the Bible” with the indication that ‘not drinking’ is only a tradition and the Bible teaches it’s OK to drink. Wade, this is where you’re ‘dead wrong.’ So wrong, it’s pathetic.

Making the ‘OK’ sign with you fingers is fine in America, but in Japan it’s a sign for homosexuals. If you were in Japan, would you argue it was OK to make the sign?
What I’m saying is that things change. The word ‘gay’ was a good word when I was a boy.
Wine may have been a way of life in Bible times to sustain life. Wine and alcohol is not needed to sustain life today. In fact, alcohol has caused so much misery it is immeasurable. There were ten in my high school graduation class. The smartest boy didn’t live two months before he died in a car wreck going across the river to drink beer. My mother lived the last 20 years of her life in a wheelchair because a drunk driver lost control and killed himself.

Wade, you are a drinker if you drink one drink a week or stay drunk. Why not show the world which side you’re on?

This is none of my business but I was wondering since you are abiding by policy, have you gotten rid of your wine or are you saving it?

Rex Ray

irreverend fox said...


are you espousing "situational ethics?"

it sounds like it.

You're analogy with the "ok" sign falls apart when you understand that drinking alcohol does not have a negative stigma to it, very few in our culture think anything about it. Most (and I mean the vast majority) people feel that unless you’re an alcoholic, there is no reason why one could not have a beer while watching the game.

What I am pointing out does not prove that it is ok, certainly there are many things our culture has no problem with (sleeping with co-workers, cheating on taxes...). My point is SIMPLY to demonstrate your analogy does not hold up. said...


Good word. Thanks.

Pastor Brad said...


As a young leader, I have been amazed at the arrogance I see in my fellow young leaders in the SBC and evangelicalism in general.
I understand the frustration of having your voice heard in the SBC. We have labored in NY for years under the name "Southern Baptist Convention" and been frustrated at those who would not change the name though it hurts efforts outside the South.
However, as I have tracked much of the uproar that has been left in your wake, I cannot help but think that you are a divisive force, not a uniting force. I am shocked at the tone of your post against Bobby Welch. I was at the convention and he is right on - to speak against a biblical understanding of abstinence is logically to advocate a biblical position of license. All of you who argue liberty - please go back and reread Paul - liberty with responsibility to the lost and weak! And please, oinos speaks of both grape juice and wine - fermentation is a natural process that cannot be avoided. To counteract the fermentation process, the wine was dilluted 3:1 at least according to scholarly sources. But I digress.
I am greatly troubled that we young leaders do not honor those who have come before us. You lack grace in your not-too-subtle attacks on godly men who have earned their voice. You bring deviciveness and not light. If we would get more passionate about carrying the gospel to the lost, we would not have time to cut down godly men.
Brother, you must consider your reputation. You have made a name for yourself by blogging criticism and attacks rather than having the integrity to work through the system - which is by the way the same system we see in Acts.
I do not know you, but I assume you are a well-intentioned man. However, you lack maturity, wisdom, and discernment in your methods and your views.
May God be glorified in each of us and in His bride, the church.

Pastor Brad said...

Pastor Brad,

Your ability to make statements about character with certitude, having never met the person of whom you write, is remarkable. Have you considered that you are doing the very thing which you write against?

Also, it is helpful in discussion, and your words would be received better if you allowed yourself to be identified fully.


wade said...


Upon reflection I felt that your question was fair since I am a trustee.

We don't have wine in our house. Never have. I have never even tasted beer.

So, there are no alcoholic beverages in our home, but there weren't any before I became a trustee either.



volfan007 said...


oinos can be intoxicating drink, or it can be grape juice. it depends on the context. in the day of Jesus, they would dilute the grape juice with three parts make sure that it was not, there was strong drink(undiluted and fermented) in the bible as well. proverbs says that a man is foolish to drink strong drink. and the bible teaches that it's sinful to get high(drunk) on alcohol. any way you cut the pie, we ought to stay away from alcohol. we should be high on Jesus and not on foreign, temporary, false substances. we have the real thing as christians...the Holy Spirit and the joy of the Lord.

also, the sbc is a free, autonomous organization. if we want to exclude people from leadership positions who drink alcohol...we can. just like we can exclude people who drink alcohol and/or smoke weed from leadership positions from church leadership positions. this is something we voted to do. we felt it was the wisest thing to do. it's done.


you are wrong. you missed the boat on most every point that you made. also, does the bible not give higher standards to deacons and pastors in timothy and titus? i believe it does.

pastor brad,

amen, bro. you are exactly right.

still have the still broken down and no fire is moonshine being made,



Pastor Brad said...

I was unaware that it was customary to identify ones' self fully in such a forum. This is my first blogging encounter.

I am certainly not trying to do the same thing I am writing against. I see the difference this way - you have brought the issue publicly and the rebuke was public. If it was said privately, the rebuke would be private.

I was not attempting to judge your character. If I have wronged you in that way, I genuinely apologize and seek your forgiveness. My purpose was not to criticize your character, but to rebuke your words and your method, as other godly men have - to no avail.

I was not speaking of your character, but of the results of your words and methods.

What would you like to know about me? I am a church planter in upstate NY. I am the son of a SBC pastor. I am a graduate of Southeastern. I have pastored for 3 years and served in staff positions for 3 years prior to that. I would be glad to include anything else.

Brother, in my view, I am honoring

1 Timothy 5:19-20 - 19 Don't accept an accusation against an elder unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. 20 Publicly rebuke those who sin, so that the rest will also be afraid.

It is not I who initiated this non-sense of accusations of lying - it is you. It is not I who have sewed dissention for the world to see - it is you. I ask you this, do you think your blogging have led people closer to the cross or further away? Do you think you have edified your brothers or have you created disharmony? Let's be honest, we're not talking about Martin Luther and the 95 Theses kind of issues here.

I would appreciate it if you would respond to some of what I said, rather than responding to the fact that I have rebuked you.

I do not seek to be ungracious. I love you with the love of Christ. My comments are out of that and not animosity.

May God bless you. said...


The resolution was public. It violated what President James
Boyce said was appropriate in 1888 (see above).

Dr. Welch's statements were public. I am responding to his statements.

As I have said on numerous occasions, I have no offense with anyone on this matter.

In His Grace,

Wade said...


If Southern Baptists were to concentrate on the gospel instead of passing resolutions that Dr. Boyce says are "not germane to the work of the convention" we would not be discussing this issue.

I think you question needs to be posed to those who brought this matter up, not me.

RKSOKC66 said...

C.T. Lillies:

Good point!

Bobby Welch's comments do not seem to me to jibe with what actually happened at the convention. As I said in an earlier post I went back to the streaming video of Wednesday morning's discussion of the Resolutions and I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that the three men who spoke against Resolution 5 were "promoting drinking of alcolohic beverages".

However, setting that aside, you point about the statement of the new SBC president Dr. Page is right on. Dr. Page is calling for Baptists to ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER and not get hung up on a million sideshows.

As I said before I probably would have voted for Resoution #5. However, whether 5 passes or not is a sideshow. Whether Armenianism or Calvinism is the "true theology" is probably a sideshow --as the friendly Patterson/Mohler debate modelled.

Proclaiming the Gospel is not a sideshow.

I think there quite a bit of "wasted" energy around here on this alcohol issue. I think this thing is growing legs and being used as launching pad to villify anyone who comes down on the "opposite" side.

BTW, If you guys come to my place you see two (count 'em two) bottles of Chablis. However, we don't drink it -- we use it for making Chicken Caccatorie.

SigPres said...

I'm just wondering, if there is this much disagreement over the interpretation of what was said that is clearly on the record at a Southern Baptist Convention, it might explain why we have so much trouble agreeing on interpretations of scripture.

Not supporting a resolution at a convention meeting does not necessarily translate into someone being in favor of what the resolution is against. Since individual Baptists speak for themselves, and Baptist congregations are autonomous and independent, the only resolutions that should be coming out of the convention are expressions of appreciation to those who worked behind the scenes to make the convention happen and to the host city. I don't think that the resolution process is intended to be a backhanded way to make doctrinal statements that, even though they are not binding on the churches, will still be a reflection on them.

Pastor Brad said...


My concern is not first and foremost with the issue of alcohol. I am not a blind follower who believes discussion is not acceptable. You are not really dealing with what I have written. My primary concern is not even what past Baptist leaders have said, but what scripture has said.

Why did Bobby Welch reference your post which clearly argued that your not being legalistic helped you in witnessing to this woman over the dinner table? Did he misrepresent your comments? Not as far as I can see. He responded in public for the same reason that I have responded in a public manner - because you spoke in a public manner. If I understand your purpose in this most recent post was to say that he misrepresented both you and the nature of the discussion over the resolution at the convention. I don't see how anyone can say he misrepresented either.

To say that you are simply responding in kind is preposterous. Did he name you? It is obvious to us that he was most likely talking about you, but to the vast majority of people, they have no idea who he is speaking of. Were your original comments about the internal meetings of the IMB Trustees made public because the meetings were public? No. Of course the resolution was public. I have no problem with you discussing the resolution, though I obviously disagree with your conclusion. However, your attitude that you are somehow more tied to the Word of God than those who disagree is wrong.

I am glad you have no animosity toward them. However, a gracious response would have been to call Dr. Welch personally if you felt you were indirectly misrepresented.

Your comments remind me of some church members who are always the victim and never the culprit.

I would still appreciate it if you would answer any of my questions. I thought your point was to dialogue, not to talk at one another.

If you want to insinuate that certain SBC leaders have sinned through misrepresenting you or through trying to limit discussion or through being legalists instead of biblicists, then you should be open to the possibility that you have sinned by making personal attacks against IMB trustees and SBC leaders.

What possible benefit is coming from any of this? The SBC has looked more like the Corinthian church lately than ever and the lost world is watching. I ask you what Paul said, for the sake of the gospel, "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" said...


I do not have the slightest idea what you are attempting to say.

I'm not offended with anyone. I have refrained from making any personal attacks. I believe great benefit comes from discussing what the Bible teaches.



Pastor Brad said...

My statements are perfectly clear. I think you must not have read them because I can't believe you would misrepresent them.

I can see why blogging is such a positive use of time now. Thank you for the lesson.

RKSOKC66 said...

Pastor Brad:

Evidently you agree with Dr. Welch that the three men who spoke against resolution #5 at the Wednesday morning session at the convention were -- an exact quote from Dr. Welch -- "promoting drinking of alcoholic beverages"?

I guess Lee is right. Even though we have a firsthand account (via internet streaming video that is still available on the SBC website) of the exact things that happened at the convention there is still have a wide divergence in perception of what happened.

Paul said...


License is defined by Webster's as: 1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action. License is the word that you used.

Promote is defined by Webster's as: 2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : FURTHER. Promote is the word that Bobby Welch used.

There is a definitional difference between permission to do something and promoting the growth of that thing. When I was a kit I wanted a pair of ice skates (yes, as odd as it sounds, this kid from OKC wanted ice skates). I had the money to buy them. My father gave me permission to buy them, but advocated against it. He said something like: "It's your money and you can do with it what you wish, but if it were me I wouldn't spend that kind of money on ice skates." I didn't buy the ice skates, though I had permission to do so.

Thus, arguing for a biblical position that "advocates license" (taking license to comply with the above definition), is very different from promoting the growth or advancement of that thing. None of those who spoke against the alcohol resolution promoted the growth of alcohol consumption among anyone. Bobby Welch is simply wrong.

RKSOKC66 said...

In this BLOG we have been reacting to the statement of Dr. Welch in his recent article in Southern Baptist Life.

We also noted the article by Dr. Page calling for cooperaton.

Now check this out! This is an exact quote I extracted by "cut and paste" from the same issue of Southern Baptist Life:

Those of us who led the Conservative Resurgence have two choices. We can lead Southern Baptists in continuing to build the greatest missions enterprise ever known to mankind. And we can embrace a widening circle of Southern Baptist brothers, young and old, with whom we share a strong heartbeat for advancing the Kingdom of God. The Baptist Faith and Message was written as a confession to pull us together not as a creed to pull us apart. It is time to cease narrowing the parameters of our collective convictions and widen the parameters of our vision for world missions.

The above paragraph is lifted from the article by Dr. Morris Chapman.
Wade, I think you better get "royalities" from Dr. Chapman as he is "stealing your thunder".

LOL said...


I find it not too difficult to be taken seriously.

I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

In His Grace,

Wade said...


Dr. C. told me the check is in the mail :).


P.S. Just kidding for all you conspiracy minded denominational theorists.

Rex Ray said...

Glade you don’t have alcohol in your home. When you told the lost lady that a good meal like she had prepared for you should have some wine, I figured you had wine when your wife made you a good meal also. (Wonder if the lady thought the same?)

You might drink like I play golf—only to be sociable a couple times a year. When I was about 60, a pro told me I did good on my first game with 56 for 9 holes. That first year, I made a hole in one two different times. A non-church person told me I should quit working on churches and get serious about golf. I told him, “You don’t understand, I’m not that good—the Lord just rewarded me for working on churches.” But I got the fever—it was like hunting. It can be addictive. But eventual the fever died as my score is usually over 100. I believe the Lord is more interested me in hitting a nail than a golf ball. I’ve heard some preachers practice their golf swing more than they do their sermons.

I believe there are better subjects in the Bible than on drinking. I think it says somewhere, “A man is well off in the things he can leave alone” or something like that.
Rex Ray

Wayne Smith said...


You say you are new to Bogging. I believe in TRUTH and if you will take the time to know your way around Blog's Ville it will open your eye's.

Please visit the Blog below and you will see some TRUTH, in the matter of what took place.

Read what the comments Wade posted and visit the other Blog's

Beings you evidently were not at the SCB Convention and did not hear what happened, you can visit another Blog and see for yourself.
Any other questions, you can e-mail me.

A Brother in CHRIST for TRUTH

Copy and paste this==

Pastor Brad said...


So many of you have adamantly stated that Bobby Welch was incorrect in his statement that I began questioning if I had dreamed what I had heard. So I went back and listened to the resolutions again. I took meticulous notes.

First, might I say that we should all re-listen to Dr. Welch's introductory statements, myself included.

Second, I would like to publicly repent for my sarcastic final comments earlier. There is no place for sarcasm among brothers.

Third, the speakers against the resolution and their condensed points were as follows (if I have misspelled any names I am sorry):

1) Ben Cole – the issue is not consumption, the issue is over-consumption

2) Tom Aschol – if consumption is a matter of liberty it cannot be a matter of righteousness

3)Wes Pastor – they used wine in the scripture, therefore it is an unwise position to speak against it. Also stated he will drink occasionally at a wedding

4) Jeff Young – it is extrabiblical to make such a resolution against consumption.

I will withold my responses to their arguments. However, each of them clearly feels that the consumption of alcohol is within the realm of Christian liberty. This is promoting the use of alcohol because it is telling others it is okay from a biblical point of view to drink alcohol. I strongly disagree, but many of you in this forum obviously strongly agree. However, no matter your position, how can anyone say that by stating it is okay scripturally to drink alcohol, one is not promoting alcohol?

I ask this question honestly looking for feedback and dialogue. Please someone give a clear answer.

It seems to me that many of you need to seek Dr. Welch's forgiveness for maligning his honesty. His comments were a very reasonable and straight-forward assessment of the comments made, as I believe I have demonstrated. said...

Pastor Brad,

Answer this question and you will answer your own question.

"Did Jesus and the apostles and the Old Testament fathers drink alcoholic beverages (according to Scripture), and if they did do you see them as promoting the use of alcoholic beverages?"

Wayne Smith said...

Pastor Brad,

Did you visit the Blog and read the comments on the Blog I posted for you.
a Brother for TRUTH

Pastor Brad said...


Thank you for your response. Did Jesus turn water to oinos? Yes. Is it possible that some of the oinos, and possibly much of the oinos, they drank had some fermentation? Yes. Did Paul warn that while we have liberty to drink and eat, we should not do so if it causes another to stumble? Also yes.

The frustration I feel over this issue is that many of you fail to see the difference between a drink that was drunk by necessity in Jesus day, when all efforts were taken to remove the possibility of drunkeness through dillution and drinking alcoholic beverages today when it is far from necessary - when there are so many other choices and so many are clearly stumbling over this product.

Paul urged Timothy to drink a little oinos for the stomach. This is medicinal usage. 1) it is far from certain that he is speaking of fermented oinos, and 2) I am not about to throw out all my Nyquil.

At what point does our cry for liberty become an irresponsible attitude of license that fails to consider so many lives ruined by the product and industry that produces it?

Would you not agree that to say that it is biblically okay to drink in our culture today is to promote drinking?

I agree with Dr. MacArthur, Adrian Rogers, and so many other great men of our past who believed, "Can I drink? Yes. Should I drink? No. Paul said, "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable." This is a grey area, but in our our is not profitable and is not necessary. I am not arguing situational ethics as some might say, but liberty governed by responsibility as Paul did.

Brother Wade, I also ask your forgiveness for my sarcastic comment. While it is not an excuse, I feel that you often fail to answer the questions of those who challenge you, instead making flat statements, like "I say what I mean and mean what I say." I realize it must be difficult to be the lightning rod you have become, but if we are to have dialogue, that does not seem conducive, if I may say so graciously.

Pastor Brad said...

In His Name,

I did read the comments. I found them no more helpful in an honest sense of the argument of Brother Welch's statement than much of what I have heard here. Frankly, they struck me as rather vitriolic.

I made an honest summary of the brothers comments in opposition to the resolution as you and others suggested. I believe on the page you led me to, the brother said if someone did that, he would publicly repent.

I ask you - how was Dr. Welch incorrect or at least not justifiable in his assessment?

Mark said...

Pastor Brad and any other late comers to the blogging world. Someone set-up a blog just to address the issues of Scripture, alcohol and the SBC resolution. It is the most thorough exegesis I've seen on the subject within these recent debates.

The site is


Campbell Dunson said...

We need to remember Welch's history on this one: "My father was addicted to alcohol, which contributed to his early death."
He brings some serious baggage to the table on this one and he's not likely to be able to think and behave rationally on this issue.
Just a thought from a development psych person. . . said...

Pastor Brad,

I am very comfortable with where I am in life, and I don't find my involvement in the SBC difficult, but thanks for your thoughtfulness and apology anyway.

I don't know that you answered my question, or maybe I'm overlooking something?

Pastor Brad said...


Did Jesus, the apostles, and early church fathers drink oinos and through that encourage others to drink oinos? I thought I answered it clearly with full explanation of what I meant so I would not be mischaracterized. However, let me be succinct. Yes, Jesus, the apostles and OT fathers drank oinos. Did that promote the drinking of oinos to others? Possibly, but that is hardly the point.

All the circumstances are different so your question posits a false syllogism. It fails to take into account anything other than the fact that oinos is generally translated wine and wine is a modern alcoholic beverage.

I have answered your question as directly as I know how. Now I would very much appreciate it if you would answer any one of the questions I have posed to you today.

Jeff Richard Young said...

Dear Pastor Brad,

You correctly summarized my statement at the convention. I was against the resolution, on the grounds that there is no biblical command to abstain totally from alcohol. But for you to say that this position necessarily promotes the use of alcohol is a jump in logic that I do not understand.

I was just sitting there in my hard plastic seat, not promoting the use of anything. A resolution was offered, calling for total abstinence from alcohol and the exclusion from leadership of anyone who drinks any alcohol. I rose and spoke against the motion, not to promote alcohol, but to promote sound exegesis and good application of the Scriptures.

I hope we can come to some understanding on this, because you seem a very decent Christian brother.

Love in Christ,


davidinflorida said...

Pastor Wade, While I was reading a sunday school lesson for this week, it included Col 2:20-22... Do you believe that this covers alot about this discussion?

RKSOKC66 said...

Pastor Brad:

I now understand the essence of your point which is "It mute to consider whether Jesus and the apostles had alcoholic beverages or not since you contend that cultural context is so different today that it is not relevant to discuss NT examples."

Even with the acknowledgement that the potential for drukenness has been constant from NT times until today you still feel that today things are different enough that it is appropriate to see things today through a different lens.

I am a 100% tea-totaller myself. I think this is due to the fact that my father in law was an alcoholic.

I've only been drunk once in my entire life and that is when a lady in the church recommended that I take brandy for a severely stopped up head cold. Out of ignorance, my wife gave me half a glass of the stuff rather than just a few tablespoonfulls. I was absolutely drunk and literally couldn't walk straight.

My wife and I we were in London on our 25th anniversary. We stayed in the Foriegn Mission Club in London. My wife decided to attend the local church there in London (Anglican). They had real wine at the communion. She was a little surprized but she drank it! [Evidently they have what we as Baptists call "open communion"]

I went to graduate school at the University of Santa Clara. It is a Jesuit School. When they celebrate mass at the Santa Clara Mission they have real wine. There are a number of problems I have with Catholic theology but I guess the least of them is that they have real wine at their service.

I have not had a drink of any kind of alcohol for at least ten years. However, I think we Baptists must have something better to do than become "alcohol police".

We all stipulate that drukenness is wrong -- regardless of the culture. This is a plain OT and NT teaching.

I think we also agree that drinking in moderation is based upon cultural norms. You agree that drinking in moderation was OK in NT times.

You say that the correct cultural template for today in the USA is that drinking of any alcohol as a beverage is wrong.

I don't think it is fruitful to continue this discussion since cultural norms are so firmly fixed that they are not subject to adjustment. That's why missionaries generally adopt to local customs on non-essentials to be able to develop rapport with them.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Can we do this?

Pastor Brad said...


Thank you for your kind comments. Believe it or not, I do see how from one logical train of thought the opposition to the resolution is not neccessarily the same as to promote consumption. I am certain you would not intentionally lead someone into a potential evil.

However, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that if A (Biblically speaking the drinking of alcohol is not black and white) then B (It is okay for me to go out and drink). In the past I was a youth minister - Imagine with me a teen or college student reading of the resolution and the rejection of it by the convention (had your argument won the day) who wants to go out and drink with his buddies, but had been unsure if it was acceptable. Had the convention failed to support an ammendment like this, that rejection would speak volumes.

My purpose today has not even been to argue the alcohol issue. It is to challenge those who are calling a godly man a liar, when his understanding of your and others comments are an entirely reasonable conclusion to reach, even if you never intended that outcome.

Our liberty must always be checked by our responsibility to the weak and the lost.

Tim Sweatman said...

Pastor Brad,

As has been pointed out numerous times, the Bible NEVER requires total abstinence for believers. If we claim to believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, can we require something on doctrinal grounds that the Bible itself does not require? I think not. There may be a number of reasons for us to encourage abstinence (which I personally do), but NOT because abstinence is THE biblical approach. Since the Bible permits the use of alcoholic beverages, each individual believer should decide for himself or herself whether to partake or to abstain.

To claim that "in our our is not profitable and is not necessary" is a statement of opinion rather than of fact. Now it may be the most correct opinion, but as an opinion it is not something we should attempt to force upon another person. In his earlier post that has been referred to already, Wade provided an example where having a drink of wine perhaps WAS profitable in influencing someone to give the gospel a fair hearing. Do you think that woman would have given any consideration to anything Wade might have said if she perceived him to be judgmental of her? His understanding of the situation helped to break down a potential barrier to the gospel. Do you think that the witness of our missionaries in Europe is enhanced when they enter a home and have to insult their host by refusing a glass of wine in accordance with IMB rules?

Regarding Paul's admonition to refrain from making another stumble, I agree that a person should not drink if there is reason to believe that doing so would cause another to stumble. But this is hardly the same thing as demanding that a believer abstain in a setting where having a drink would not cause anyone to stumble.

In closing, let me remind everyone of Paul's admonition that one who partakes should not look down on one who abstains, and the one who abstains should not look down on the one who partakes.

Pastor Brad said...

Dear Roger,

We can absolutely disagree over the issue of alcohol. It is not a standard of fellowship. Most of my friends, as you can imagine in NY, disagree with me, though not many of them can say why other than they don't want to give up their beer.

As I have said repeatedly, I did not even intend to debate alcohol, but to challenge the comments being made unfairly about Bobby Welch. While you and others may not see it his way, it is clearly a resonable understanding of what was said on his part. He is hardly a liar or misrepresenting either Wade's post or the logical end of those speaking against the resolution. Those who have indirectly or directly maligned him owe a public apology.

You are close to understanding my point of view. It is not moot to consider NT examples, but we must keep in mind a few key differences: 1) oinos always became fermented naturally over time - hence "old wine" and "new wine" or "good wine" and "less-than-good wine;" 2) every step was taken in NT times to counteract the fermentation process - it was always dilluted a minimum of 3:1 and sometimes as much as 20:1 - to drink wine straight was considered barbarian; and 3) there wasn't an awful lot else to drink. While some of these circumstances may be true elsewhere in the world today, I can't think of too many places.

If Jesus or the apostles or the OT fathers were in our current circumstances with alcohol undilluted and always fermented and with so many other alternatives, I do not believe they would have consumed it.

We agree that drunkeness is black and white. I contend that drinking in the current situation over much of the globe is charcoal grey. It is unneccessary and unprofitable and a stumbling block to many.

You are my brother and I love you with the love of Christ. I appreciate the honest dialogue. It is refreshing.

Pastor Brad said...


A resolution is powerless to force anyone to do anything.

I'm not going to rehash it all again.

But why won't anyone deal with the issue that brought us all here: DR WELCH DID NOT MISREPRESENT WADE OR WHAT WAS SAID IN GREENSBORO! It is a very accurate understanding of both.

I offended a great many people in NC by not allowing youth or youth teachers to smoke at church or church events. The Bible does not tell me they can't. Culture tells them it is fine. However, I don't think Jesus will call me a Pharisee because I told them it is a stupid, unwise, boneheaded, ignorant and unbefitting a child of the king. Would it have helped me ingratiate myself into some of the lost teens world had I lit up like Joe Camel? Maybe. But would they have seen me as salt and light or just like them. Believe me, I reach out to about as ungodly a culture as you can find in America everyday. They don't need me to be just like them, they need me to be salt and light - different. Not judgmental or legalistic, but different.

Rex Ray said...

To Pastor Brad,
I believe you have presented the clearest and most Christian comments I’ve heard in a long time. Not just because I agree with you, but your comments have been soft and to the point. I wish the response to them had been the same.

I relate to you telling Wade that he often fails to answer question that challenge him. For example on May 3, 2006 he stated on his post, “Today I am extremely grateful to be a follower of Jesus Christ who also happens to be a Southern Baptist.”
When I challenged his statement, over ten of his followers jumped on me. One went so far as to call me an idiot. Wade finally replied, “Rex, sometimes the written word miscommunicates one’s intentions.” He did not say I was right and he was wrong. In fact, I can’t recall him saying he was wrong about anything in any of his comments.

Brad, you asked him, “What possible benefit is coming from any of this? The SBC has looked more like the Corinthian church lately than ever and the lost world is watching. I ask you what Paul said, for the sake of the gospel, "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?"

Wade, your answer was, “I do not have the slightest idea what you are attempting to say. I'm not offended with anyone. I have refrained from making any personal attacks.”

Wade, you felt Welch had slandered you. Why didn’t you tell Brad that you didn’t feel like ‘turning the other cheek’ instead of saying what you did? You wrote one time that hard questions should be answered but you don’t practice what you preach.

Wade, you said, “I believe great benefit comes from discussing what the Bible teaches.”
I believe there is a great truth that I’ve never heard discussed in this question: “Why did Jesus not know the truth when he told his disciples that his Father would be with him on the Cross? (John 16:32) I believe I know the answer, but I’d like some of these minds to give their input besides ‘I’m on a slippery slope to hell.’
Rex Ray

RKSOKC66 said...

One last thing.

I have to call myself out for not being totally consistent.

I stated earlier that I would probably have voted in favor of resolution #5 had I been at the convention.

I would have done this as overkill even though as I stated later in this same thread (a few posts back) that I don't know if we should be "policing" this alcohol issue or not.

As to whether voting against resolution #5 is tantamount to "promoting drinking of alcoholic beverages" -- I still think that is a little over the top. However, upon reflection I will now acknowledge that some might honestly come to that conclusion.

Fortunately or unfortunately many of us come with a lot of baggage on this issue -- me included.

I guess part of being Christians is that we have to put up with others who, in our own judgment, are not being 100% logical in some small area while still agreeing to work together for the greater good in the 99.9% of the areas where we agree.

I don't deserve to work with others that are perfect since heaven only knows I am not perfect myself and propably suffer from myopia in multiple areas.

When Dr. Welch or anyone else starts walking on water let me know. That will probably be the time that I'll have to get out since I couldn't keep up. said...

I would encourage everyone who has commented more than twice on this post to be as interested in the post of Thursday, August 10th as you are this one.

In His Grace,


Pastor Brad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark said...

Upon re-reading Wade's original post I find some of the objections and calls for repentance towards Bobby Welch seems unfounded. Though I may be wrong.

Dr. Welch in his article implied that someone (Wade?) has some sort of alcohol fueled ministry we the words "his drinking assists him in soul-winning!" I believe the time in question was a one time event that "assisted" not "assists" Wade in soul winning. He was merely giving a contrarian real life example.

Wade replied,"I can also only assume Dr. Welch has never read this post, because I find it hard to believe that he would have read it and intentionally misrepresented what was said."

Wade didn't charge him with lying, but did actually give him the benefit of the doubt while setting the record straight so there'd be no confusion.

At what level does one get to be a "critic beyond critique" (CBC) where they can unquestionably say or do anything in the public eye? Why are these CBC's never called out for the way they (mis)represent others when trying to make their point? Isn't there a point and way of Christian charity that should be exercised by ALL in their words and such?

Sara Morse said...

Pastor Brad,
I just wanted to thank you for your attitude here; it has been an encouragement to me as I waded through all these comments. I respectfully disagree with you, but it is refreshing to see someone come in to a "tough crowd" and continue to show a gentle spirit in the face of opposition. It gives me hope that there can be dialogue.
Keep it up bro'

volfan007 said...

pastor brad,

God bless you, bro. you should preach at next years sbc. i like your style...and you sensible posts. thank you for jumping in this discussion.


SigPres said...

The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which is the statement of faith chosen as an expression of the Southern Baptist Convention, states that, in the church, each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. That statement is supported by scripture. My question is, why is the SBC making a statement about something that is scripturally a matter of one's own conscience?

And feeling that way doesn't mean I am endorsing the drinking of alcoholic beverages.

RKSOKC66 said...

Here's a radical idea. How about contacting Dr. Welch and asking him if he stands by his statement that anyone who voted against resolution #5 is "promoting the drinking of alcoholic beverages".

I don't know how to contact Dr. Welch. My guess is he would not change his bottom line that Christians in the USA should not drink. However, he might soften his view that just because a person voted against #5 that this is tantamount to "promoting drinking of alcoholic beverages". said...

By the way, using the logic of some on this post, all those who voted against the integrity in membership resolution, submitted by Tom Ascol, are promoting sin by asking churches to not use integrity in their reporting to the convention.

Pastor Brad said...

It has always facinated me in debate when someone has been challenged and don't have a quality response, they shift focus away from the topic at hand to another issue.

First, the resolution regarding integrity - I do not recall the reasoning that it was rejected. My sense is that the average messenger was simply tired of controversy and was desiring to have a little unity.

However, that said, I agree wholeheartedly with the extension of my logic. The SBC does need to do something about integrity in reporting and membership. It is outrageous that churches in the South have 1500 members and 150 in average attendance. Our church dismisses members who have not attended withing a six month period or are otherwise not fulfilling the church covenant.

Without remembering the committee's reason for not bringing that resolution, I myself would support such a resolution and do agree that it speaks volumes.

All I would like Wade and the rest of you who have maligned a godly man directly or indirectly to admit that his was a reasonable, even if you do not see it that way, understanding of the statements and post here.

Let us leave room for different perspectives without quickly calling one "liar" or a misrepresenter of truth or even irresponsibly commenting on that which they were not listening to. Each are serious and personal charges that are unwise and divisive. said...


Are you willing to say that anyone who is saying that there are Southern Baptist pastors who are PROMOTING the indiscriminate, licentious drinking of alcoholic beverages, including those pastors who spoke at the convention in Greensboro in opposition to the resolution, is misrepresenting the truth? If you can't, or for that matter, if you are the one saying such things, then you are lying --- and you should be held accountable.

Pastor Brad said...

Brother Wade,

I am not sure if I understand your question. Here is what is troubling me - when did it become about indiscriminate and licentious drinking of alcohol? I have never accused you or anyone else of that, to my knowledge. I have simply said that Dr. Welch was not flawed in his logic to say that they are promoting the use of alcohol. There is a big difference. My point has been that Dr. Welch and I disagree with you and them on what is a responsible amount of alcohol to drink in our culture. We think none. You think some.

I do not appreciate you now turning it into a personal issue of insinuating that I am a liar. If you are as interested in dialogue as you say you are, you could have dialogued with my actual statement long ago. If I have said such things, I do repent. I believe I have maintained a gracious attitude over this post to this point, which is more than I surmise from your responses. I was not the accuser, sir, you were. I have repented of my one indiscretion, sir. I have heard no such response from you, nor even an engaging of my calls for your repentance.

Sir, your tone, accusations, and fruit reveal a lot to anyone with a shred of discernment. said...


I accept your answer. Thank you for clarifying your position.

You are not saying anyone is promoting the indiscriminate and licentious use of alcohol which leads to drunkenness, a horrible and vile sin. From reading your earlier posts it seemed that you were implying this, and I do ask for your forgiveness for possibly misunderstanding what you were saying.

I think we are now in agreement.

Nobody is promoting sin.



Jack Maddox said...


long time no comment from me...hope you are doing well. As for this thread...dude...take a chill pill...remember

grace and truth
grace and truth
grace and truth

thats it...isnt that better


Stephen Pruett said...

Pastor Brad, I think the problem with Dr. Welch's statement is that he used similar logic as you did to conclude that the statements of those who opposed the resolution would promote alcohol use. However, that is not what he said. At least I do not think it is. Didn't he say or imply that the speakers intended to promote alcohol use. This is an implication for which he had no evidence. He made unwarranted and incorrect assumptions about the motive and purpose of the people who opposed the resolution. None of them want to promote alcohol use. If the net result of their opposition is to promote alcohol use, then Dr. Welch should have explained that and assumed the best about his brothers (that they did not intend to promote alcohol use but that he believed the failure of the resolution would ulimately do so). It is right to challenge his statement, and I am glad Wade has done so. In addition, you still have to deal with the issue of whether the consumption of wine by Jesus was promoting alcohol use. Didn't Jesus know what American culture would be like? Couldn't he have taken a Nazirite vow if he wanted to? I can only conclude that his decision to drink was purposeful and serves to keep up from succumbing to the sin of the Pharisees (which can keep souls from salvation). One more thought. I would like to see one primary archaeological or historical study that has been peer reviewed and concludes that grape juice and/or diluted wine were common in Bible times. Do you know of any?

Rex Ray said...

My, my, my hero has blown his cool. What happened to your? “I'm not offended with anyone. I have refrained from making any personal attacks.”

This is your comment paraphrased. “Pastor Brad, would you agree the pastors who spoke opposing the drinking resolution did not PROMOTE drinking? If you don’t agree, you are lying.”

Rex Ray

Marty Duren said...

No wonder you guys were 5-6 last year.

Please don't make humans your heroes; you'll be disappointed every time. said...


My wife has been with me all day, as we are helping her grandmother move in today to a nursing home. Periodically I check the computer to see if there are any comments.

I believe she will attest to you that I have been quite happy, working with a smile on my face and she would be quite puzzled at the notion I have blown my cool.

I know I am capable of it, and if you think this is it I would hate for you to see the real thing.

In fact, she read my last two posts to Brad over my shoulder and had this comment:

"Thank goodness Wade you are putting a stop to these guys who are trying to paint you and others as promoters of alcohol use."

I also agree with Marty. Make the Lord your hero.

In His Grace,

Wade said...

Welcome back Jack.

It is always grace and truth here.


Sometimes the truth hurts, but it is always spoken with grace, even though it may be hard to percieve in the black and white letters of this blog.

Pastor Brad said...


My wife thinks I am handsome. Sometimes love gets in the way of our better judgment :) I'm not sure we can always stake a lot on their opinions when it comes to us.

I hope her grandmother's transition goes well. By the way, I really enjoyed the story about your grandfather. said...

Thanks Brad,

Things are going well so far. It's tough when someone has lived independant all her life, but moving her to assisted living is best for all involved. Her only living daughter (my wife's mom) is a missionary with the IMB overseas.

I appreciate your thoughts and prayers.

Rex Ray said...

OK, I’ll stop calling you my hero. You see, I saw that you had the brains to see the truth that some leaders of the SBC have been leading us into legalism by them making the circle of ‘accepted Baptists’ smaller and smaller. With you, it started with the latest ruling of the IMB, but I believe you are beginning to see that it’s been going on many years.

Marty is right that ‘human heroes’ let you down and you let me fall when you asked Pastor Brad (paraphrased) “Would you agree the pastors who spoke opposing the drinking resolution did not PROMOTE drinking? If you don’t agree, you are lying.”

Your reply to me was a typical politician by opposing me on something. Thank you for NOT saying, “Rex, you are just a moderate—who listens to you?’
I thought you might disagree with my paraphrase, but you chose that you had NOT blown your cool.
If you had told Brad he was mistaken instead of lying, that would have been OK. Instead, you took away his PRIESTHOOD by saying what he had to believe.
To lie, one has to believe something but tell it to mean something else. If a boy said he didn’t eat cookies when he did, he did not lie if he THOUGHT he was eating bread.
It’s is just like you telling us you would not comment for two days, but you did comment. The Pharisee would say you lied, but you were only mistaken about not having an opportunity.
The same with Christ being mistaken when he told his disciples his Father would not forsake him. (See, I worked that in and I’ll probably be ridiculed for it.)

If I vote for my county to be dry and other votes for it to be wet, I can believe he wants our county to have alcohol. Now I may be mistaken because he may be standing up for human rights or something, but I have the right and the PRIESTHOOD to believe what I choose without being told I am lying.
And I believe you wronged Brad. Someone may tell me I am mistaken but don’t tell me I’m lying for what I believe.

While I’m blowing my cool, I was appalled at one thing at the SBC this year. A lot of places have signs that say, “No food or drinks permitted.” Do Christian messengers have such a low reputation for obeying rules that we had to stand in line to be searched? I first thought they were looking for guns. (Oh, I think I just got it—they were looking for guns or bombs but said it was food or drink.) Does anyone know the truth on this matter?
Rex Ray said...


Some good thoughts.

Think through this with me though.

Some seem to be desiring to speak for me on this matter. In other words, they are telling me what I am saying. That does not make sense.

They can tell me what they FEEL I am saying, but they can't dogmatically tell me what it is I'm saying. If the spirit were such, "I feel you are saying this, I could be wrong, but this is what I am hearing" --- there would be no problem. But when it is dogmatically asserted what I am saying such and such, and it is nowhere close to the truth of what I have actually said, then there must be a challenge. By the way, that is the beauty of the blog --- people can read for themselves what I have said.

Again, thanks for the post. said...


Some good thoughts.

Think through this with me though.

Some seem to be desiring to speak for me on this matter. In other words, they are telling me what I am saying. That does not make sense.

They can tell me what they FEEL I am saying, but they can't dogmatically tell me what it is I'm saying. If the spirit were such, "I feel you are saying this, I could be wrong, but this is what I am hearing" --- there would be no problem. But when it is dogmatically asserted what I am saying such and such, and it is nowhere close to the truth of what I have actually said, then there must be a challenge. By the way, that is the beauty of the blog --- people can read for themselves what I have said.

Again, thanks for the post.

Mike said...

I am afraid I am sincere when I say I will serve on the mission field with those who distort the gospel by exalting the will of man, but frankly, that is where we are and I am in no mood to exclude 90% of our convention.
Can you support your assertion that 90% of the SBC is Arminian? I think you're way off. I don't disagree with your other viewpoints, necessarily, but there was a time when to be Baptist was, simply, to be a Calvinist. If 90% of the SBC is Arminian, then it is time to reclaim the SBC from a false Gospel and return to a Christ-Honoring Theology. I, too, would serve with an Arminian, in fact I'm certain that I have. However, in my experience the average member of an SBC church has no clue about either Calvinism or Arminianism, and though some may state that they are Arminian they don't fully understand what Arminianism is or they would never claim such. In addition, I have no problem with our Convention wanting to hold someone to a strict standard and expect them to be like-minded and Scriptural in their commitment to Christ and their theology. To just allow anyone to serve is asking for trouble. Truth should not be compromised for the sake of unity. As far as alcohol, Does the Bible expressly forbid the drinking of it? No. Does the Bible advise in the wisdom of abstaining? Yes. Is it a sin to social drink? No. Is it better to abstain all together? Probably so.


Rex Ray said...

Thanks for the nice reply. As my dad would say, “I believe all the potatoes are dug in that field.”
Now I can concentrate on your August 10 post of how the devil gets the best of me.

Wayne Smith said...

Wade, Rex and maybe Pastor Brad,

You should check my latest Post and ask for a new resolution next year, and leave a comment.

A Brother in CHRIST

Rex Ray said...

In His Name,
Your blog gives Matthew Henry Commentary and NLT Commentary about the Sabbath.
Your blog said, “Now I truly believe some of our Old Timers have become LEGALISTS by holding on to Traditions and not adhering to what GOD’S WORD SAYS.”

You don’t give any example of what “Traditions” conflict with God’s Word. You complain about baptizing people that have not been saved, and being proud of being Baptist that are the only ones working for the Lord, but surly those are NOT traditions.

The only “Tradition” you give for an example is promoting the King James Version, but now the SBC promotes the Holman Bible as the “nearest perfect Bible.” (Maybe that’s because it changed the dead girl in Matthew to being alive.)

Would you write out the resolution you want presented to the SBC about the Sabbath because I don’t know what you are talking about?

And what is the point of asking Wade, me, and “possibly Brad” to read your blog?
Rex Ray

Rex Ray said...

In His Name,
Didn't mean to be so negative. You are a good guy and I've enjoyed your many comments. I just didn't get this one.

foxofbama said...

Some of you brethren and sisters may be delighted to know this post has risen to analysis by my good Progressive friends at, operative number 7746
Mohler jumped in, best I read, to Wade's defense on this one.
Gonna be disruptive this discussion if in fact Kevin Phillips is correct and SBC not much more than a folk church.
In meantime I have been listening over at my blog to some great sermons, Bill Leonard's Jabbok's Ford, his last sermon at Southern Seminary before it fell to Mohler, and Bishop Tutu's gift to Bham 3 years ago with the aid of WMU's Delanna O'Brien's Husband Bill.
Paige Patterson and Mohler never spoke with as much substance as these two, one of which yall disenfranchised to the great loss of Baptist witness in America.
But we press on. Richard Ostling did a syndicated piece on Randall Balmer, the man who called Richard Land a counterfeit Baptist, and so he is.
Webb and Flick will be reading it soon; and Wade, hope you and the wife there in Enid will be soon as well.
Grace and Peace and TRUTH
Sfox in Bama

volfan007 said...


thank you for your good, clear, concise, common sense posts. it was very good and i appreciated it very much. God bless you, bro.
may your tribe increase.


Rex Ray said...

To Irreverend Fox,
Sorry to be so long in refuting your reply of my “OK” sign. You say, “Drinking alcohol does not have a negative stigma to it.”
That is the first time in my life I’ve heard that from anyone connected to Baptists. You must live outside the ‘Bible belt.’
I don’t know if the county I live in has ever been ‘wet’ but it has been ‘dry’ the 74 years I’ve lived in it. It is the home of Sam Rayburn.
President Bush when he was governor of Texas, gave a speech at the ‘Sam Rayburn Memorial Library. If he had drunk a beer during his speech, he might not have been elected as president.
So don’t tell me that people don’t think anything about drinking. I think you are listening to a lie of the devil.
Rex Ray

Rex Ray said...

To Servant 777,
Your comment was very good about foreigners NOT being insulted at refusing their alcohol.

In 1947, our family of six (I was 15) was in Germany. We asked for water (using the proper word) in a restaurant. The waiter kept bringing us different kinds of drinks. Finally my father found a water facet and pointed at it.
They were not insulted but the waiter laughed his head off.
Rex Ray

Tim Sweatman said...

Servant 777,

My comment was based on what some former and current IMB missionaries in Europe have told me. Obviously everyone's experience will not be the same, but what I mentioned has happened, and not infrequently.

Regarding your example about your not being offended if a guest in your home refuses to eat the beef you offer them, it is not an ingrained part of American culture for a host to be insulted if a guest declines something offered to him or her. However, in many other cultures, to refuse food or drink that is offered by your host is taken as a form of insult. Of course this will vary from place to place, but many people who have spent time overseas have said this.



Watch your comments about the Big Orange! Just wait until Bobby Bowden retires and Richt goes back to FSU (hopefully)!