Thursday, December 14, 2006


I estimate that I have received close to 10,000 written letters, emails or comments from fellow Southern Baptists in 2006. My life is richer through the relationships that I have developed with Southern Baptist men and women who have become as much a part of my extended Christian family as my own church. I never dreamed that a recommendation for my removal from the IMB Board of Trustees would ultimately lead to an admiration for, and friendship with, Pastor Dwight McKissic; hours of gut wrenching laughter with the soon to be "Dr." Ben Cole, delightful moments with wonderful missionaries who have told me that my blog has been a source of inspiration and a topic of conversation for them while on the field, and the growing realization that many people in the Southern Baptist Convention seem to know far more about me (or at least think they do) than I them.

All in all 2006 has been a memorable, rich and rewarding year for me. I would not wish what I have experienced on anyone else, but I am glad God has chosen this path for me. I am a better man for it. I am hopeful that 2007 can be as rich and rewarding.

I will not post again until Monday, but over the weekend I would like to leave you with a personal confession regarding this past year. It is something that I have told just a few, including my wife and my family. I don't know why I feel compelled to blog about it today, but it's one of those things that surfaced today in my thoughts. My confession may not be startling to you, but it is genuine and honest. Maybe it will help you understand why I remain just a tad confused, even to this day, over the imbroglio of this past year.

Here it is:

I remain puzzled why certain trustees made such a big deal over my dissent of the new IMB policies.

Whether it was my initial post regarding the new baptism policy, or my initial post about the new tongues policy, I simply voiced a difference of opinion.

I have always been respectful of my fellow trustees, and have repeatedly and emphatically stated that I do not advocate tongues, or as it is often called ,'a private prayer language.' I've never had one, don't want one, and am disinterested in obtaining one, but I am positively convinced, and equally adamant, that to exclude Southern Baptists who have been so gifted from leadership or cooperative ministry is a certain death nail in the coffin of future growth in Southern Baptist cooperation and missions.

Additionally, everybody knows that the debate on baptism has NEVER been over immersion, or the proper candidate for baptism. Frankly, any trustee who knowingly approved a Southern Baptist missionary for appointment who had not been baptized by immersion after having come to faith in Christ should be ashamed. The IMB policy, since IMB inception, has ALWAYS been firm regarding believer's baptism.

However, the new baptism policy (adopted in November 2005) added the qualifier that the administrator of baptism was as important as the candidate being baptized. Baptism, according to the new policy, identified the candidate with a 'doctrine' (eternal security) or a denomination (Southern Baptists), rather than, as the New Testament teaches, identifying the convert as a follower of Jesus Christ. My dissent over baptism has been in this area only, though some seem to obfuscate the issue.

I am of the opinion that if my written posts had simply been ignored no controversy would have erupted. I am an irenic person by nature. I state my views, accept everyone who disagrees, and move on. When the time is appropriate I will voice my dissent again, always pleasantly, accept everyone who disagrees, and move on.

I am not the guy who wears the rainbow wig in the stands waving the John 3:16 sign. I preach in the same pulpits everyone else preaches. I attend the same conferences everyone else attends. I dress the same. I talk the same. I look the same. I am a Southern Baptist.

Why use a sledgehammer to squash a gnat?

In the 161 year old history of the Southern Baptist Convention no trustee has ever been recommended for removal from a trustee board. Yet, simply because I voiced dissent this drastic action was taken. Why?

It may be a little late, but if a similar thing happens again on an agency or board I would suggest the following plan.

(1). Ignore dissent, or at least, just politely disagree, particularly if you are in the majority - when you seek to squelch it, you validate it. For heaven's sake, when you attempt to remove the dissenter you make a hero of him.
(2). Make sure you know what you are doing before you do it. The day of proposing an action and then saying -- "We must do this. Trust us, we'll explain later" -- have been buried forever. Thank God.
(3). Keep the main thing the main thing. Agencies should not delve into areas beyond their scope of responsibility. No agency that depends upon cooperative support of the entire Southern Baptist Convention has the right, nor the perogative, to establish an arbitrary doctrinal standard that exceeds the Baptist Faith and Message.

There are those who say, "This fussing and fighting make me wish I weren't a Baptist."

Don't say that.

The truth is, we may seem to 'fuss and fight' but all we are really doing is establishing the fact that we are by nature Baptists --- nobody dictates, demands, or dominates our beliefs. The Word of God is our guide, and no human instrument will bind our conscience. The presence of free debate and dissent is a sign of a 'healthy Baptist denomination.'

Cults don't fight. They swallow the kool-aid and die.

Catholics don't fight the bishop. They leave the faith.

Congregations made up of Southern Baptists will often fight --- but it is in the friendly fight that the friction sparks and shapes the steel that forms the future backbone of our Baptist denomination.

I may be puzzled by it . . .

But I don't begrudge it.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson


Jack Maddox said...


Based upon your keen anylisis...are we a healthy denomination and our fussing is proof of it? Or are we a body who has had the 'death nail' applied to future growth?

Jack said...

Healthy, Jack, and getting healthier.

Do you know why?

The big guns are now saying what this little squirt gun (me) has been shooting off about for a year.

So, Jack, I am an eternal optimist, and I believe the tide is turning ---

We are back to debate, dissent, and ultimate cooperation ---

Rejecting conformity, exclusion, and bitter separation.

We'll see.

Will said...

In regard to our tendancy to squabble - Dr. Bill Sherman would tell you that Baptists are at their best when they are at their worst.

We are indeed an odd lot. Thank God!

Anonymous said...

Your comment that Catholics don't fight the Bishop is inaccurate and quite honestly not very nice.

Pastor Brad said...


Thank you for this post. It gives me a greater understanding of who you are and how you view your actions.
Though we disagree slightly over the tongues policy (you assume that PPL is legitimate though you do not have it) and the baptism policy (we are very close in this), I appreciate the truth behind what you say about the discussion being evidence of how wonderful it is to be baptists.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.

CB Scott said...

You are right, Wade.
"The TIDE is turning"

The Independence Bowl will be a turn for the better for the Tide as the defeat Oklahoma State:-)

That is what you meant, right?:-)


Anonymous said...


As one who has the advantage of having 15 years as an active presbyterian and methodist, my sentence is slightly different from yours.

"All this fussing and fighting makes me think I am a Southern Baptist".

Actually, we are family, and families have an assortment of characters, and sometimes all sorts of squabbles going on, too. As long as we stay family, that's ok with me.

Rex Ray said...

A clinched nail is one that extends through the wood and that end has been bent and hammered into the wood.

Once I heard a boy yell, “Help! Help! Somebody save David!”
That person had fallen into a creek and had already grabbed and strangled all swimmers. (Four other boys) He was out of the water from his waist up because he was standing on David, a man who could not swim.

You wrote, “To exclude Southern Baptist who have been so gifted from leadership or cooperative ministry is a certain death nail in the coffin of future growth in Southern Baptist…”

It’s amazing how you can make such a keen and correct observation over 5 or 10 rejected missionary applicants when you ignore the coffin nail being clinched blow by blow by the thousands of Southern Baptists excluded from leadership and cooperation because they’ve been named ‘moderates.’

You scream “Save the SBC” when you’re standing on David.

Bob Cleveland has said two things on other topics that I believe applies:
1. Why argue over the recipe [how the Bible is believed] when they produce the same cake?
2. [Complaining over current issues] is like “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”
Rex Ray said...


No, no, no, no.

The Cowboys shall lasso the . . .

What in the world is a 'Tide?'

I will say this about Bama though, we have a ton of great assistants at THE University of Oklahoma that would propel UofA to football elitism.

Sorry CB, the Cowboys roll in this one.

42 to 14.


Nathan Finn said...


You have made a big mistake my friend. You know that when someone crosses Wade on college football, he turns green, the buttons pop off his dress shirts, and he get's angry. And you wouldn't like him when he's angry ...

NAF said...


I may be a tad bit more hopeful and optimistic than you about the current SBC, but thanks for your comments anyway. said...

That's funny Nathan.

:) said...

Pastor Brad,

Thanks for the comment. I'm glad the post has helped with some understanding of my perspective.

E. Goodman said...

Thanks for this post. I agree that it is healthy to ask questions and voice our differences of opinion. What I find frustrating, though, is that questioning always seems to be received as "insubordination," "undermining," or "not trusting" leadership.

What happened to the good ol' days, when you could say whatever you wanted as long as you started the sentence with, "I support the conservative resurgence..."? said...


A hearty, "Amen."

Well said.

Alycelee said...

Wade, you said "I am glad God has chosen this path for me. I am a better man for it."

That statement is far more than optimistic, it simply speaks of your unequivocal trust in God.

I would love to hear your wife speak about the events of 2006, however I'm pretty certain you two speak with one voice.

I too, am confidently looking forward to 2007 and can't wait for San Antonio. (Woooo Pig Soooie) said...


My wife, who just finished her next to last semester of Nursing School (BSN) has about three weeks off. I showed her your comment this morning and she has agreed (at my request) to write a guest post on this blog, before the end of the year, speaking to the events of 2006.

I appreciate you asking her, and frankly, I'm anxious to read it myself!

Jeff Rogers said...

Since it is bowl season and one has already got Wades hackles up over Oklahoma football, I will submit my hopes for this bowl season. Mind you, this is in no way a prediction...only a hope. I hope Florida beats Ohio State in the BCS championship, AND I hope Boise State beats Oklahoma University...(Heresey I know for this blog) But hear me out. I have a daughter attending OU and while I hate to see them lose, the scenario of an unbeaten Boise State (they would be 13-0 if the beat OU) and an Ohio State loss would throw the BCS on its head. Calls for a playoff system would be so loud they would be hard to ignore. And as well as Bob Stoops gets ready for big games, a playoff system would be just the thing for OU. Hard to swallow a loss to Boise State though. I know that this is a tough scenario but like I is not a prediction, only a hope.

But the only real game that matters...Kansas State over Rutgers 35 - 14 in the Texas bowl.

With grace and bullet proof armour...

Jeff said...


Of all the comments in the history of this blog, I am the most offended at yours.



P.S. I do like your logic though about a playoff!

CB Scott said...


To be honest, we would take man or beast from Oklahoma or even Arkansas (may I be forgiven) if said man or beast can bring us to our former glory as the "Land of Football Magic":-)



volfan007 said...


is imbroglio anything that i can buy at olive garden? sounds italian.

volfan007 said...


That's funny.

Imbroglio: "A confusing and embarrasing state of events" (Webster's).

CB Scott said...


May his buttons pop for if Bama looses the Independence Bowl to Oklahoma State such a sight in Oklahoma as would be a green faced, buttonless Wade might overshadow the sight of shame filled Alabama fans for people living in Oklahoma watching both the game and Wade on television.:-)


Anonymous said...


Yikes .. I've been quoted by Rex Ray. I didn't know anyone was reading, let alone remembering my comments.

To clarify my comments, if the SBC is like the Titanic, I think the changes that have been made, of which you have been vocal, may well be, or certainly be part of, the hole in the hull. Thus, discussing, arguing, fighting for your position is good, and perhaps even admirable.

Second, I think the quote was "If you like the cake, why complain about the recipe?" I can liken that to excluding, or forcing out, a missionary whose work is fruitful, and reflects compassion, fervency, and God's calling. And His blessing. said...

I know how you feel CB. We were there in 1998 at OU after four losing seasons in a row!!

I personally believe that when you are in that situation you should NOT go after the big name (Schnellenberger, as we did in 96), but the young assistant coach, either offensive or defensive coordinator, who leads the nation in statistical categories (i.e. offense, defense, etc . . .).

Stoops was defensive coordinator at Florida. He has been outstanding. High energy, motivated, etc . . .

Alabama needs a hire like that. said...

Jim Sadler,

Thanks for the comment. It meant a great deal. I hope everyone knows that when you comment it goes up immediately. There is no comment moderation. I deleted your's at your request.



Alycelee said...

CB, beast you may take, just don't take our coach :)
(you are forgiven, after all you must be in a stooper)

CB Scott said...


All true about Bama football. Frankly, we should have kept Shula and given him a chance after we got off probation, but coaching and serving as pastor has about the same job security:-)

Seriously, thank you for leting the comment about Bryan Riley stand. I know it had nothing to do with the thread, but I confess, my comments usually do not as neither does this one.


cb said...

Okie dokie folks.

I'm off to do some honey do's, and then to Oklahoma City for our son's basketball game tonight. You may comment freely, but expect no response till late tonight or tomorrow.

By the way, our son is getting some major college looks. This article is about his last game. It was at this game (Tuesday night) that for the first time in his high school career (he's a senior), Kade started at his true position --- guard, and had 28 points.

Because he is one of the tallest boys his coaches have play him out of position at post the last two years. He's been All Conference the both years at post, but it drives his dad crazy!

This additional article is in this morning's paper about Kade. Tonight's game against 6A Westmoore is for the district lead in the toughest conference in the state of Oklahoma.

Have a great day!


WTJeff said...


As I would have said in my college ministry days, "Your post was freakin' awesome!". In a more common vernacular, "Outstanding post." I think much of what I commented on two post ago still applies. It's not so much a demand for conformity as a fear of what the SBC will become that drives those who judge you as moderate, liberal, a friend of tax collectors and CBFers, etc. (Not a statement against CBF just a weak attempt to be funny) I think there is a natural tension when one tries to live out the liberty we have in Jesus and yet still be accountable to our Christian family. What one considers a stumbling block, another sees no problem. Cultural norms and traditions grow long roots when not put in the light of the sufficiency of scripture. We tend toward a list of rules rather than a search of the scripture. All this to say, our fallable interpretations of the infallable word of God will continue to cause conflict as long as we don't possess humility. Your gracious demeanor sets an excellent example for how humility can shape how we handle our varying interpretations. Above all, we must all remember it's the love God has given us for Jesus that drives each one of us. That love can unite us and drive out fear.

Last of all, and this is a dangerous thing for a guy living in Texas to say, all ya'll that aren't OU fans -- God will forgive you for that.

Boomer Sooner,

Jeff Parsons

Unknown said...


I heard you called up Franchione to ask him back to the program ;). Gig 'Em

Kelly Reed said...


In case you hadn't heard, I have proof that there was supposed to be only 1 "King" that visited the baby Jesus, not 3.

He was sent by a Blue Ribbon Panel of Baptists whose stated goal was to answer the question:

"The greatest thing in the world you could give God to demonstrate your love is?"

The other 2 voted for something else.


Debbie Kaufman said...

I'll be anxious to read Rachelle's post too. She definitely gives meaning to the statement "Behind every man..." :) She's an incredible woman.

Anonymous said...

I thought that the reason we had trustee boards was so that a broad spectrum of Southern Baptists could be represented in the decision making processes at the agencies and institutions that we support with our missions giving.

If your dissent, along with Dwight McKissic's sermon at Southwestern, are the only examples of dissent expressed in trustee meetings across the board, then we really need to think about replacing the other 99% of the trustees, and keeping you two there, because none of the rest of the trustees are doing their job.

A praying and financially supporting member of a contributing Southern Baptist Church

Wes Kenney said...

A 6'5" kid from the Bahamas? Sounds like EHS has quite the recruiting program!


Anonymous said...

Wade, good post. It has certainly been an unusual, if not difficult to understand, ride.

By the way, Go Gators :-)

Psalm 67

Sarah said...

Thanks for this post. I had not considered the good points in our "fussing and fighting" and I have a new outlook on all of this. I also like what Bob said...we are family...and families fight. But healthy families also agree to disagree and love and accept each other, warts and all.


Jeff Richard Young said...

Dear Brother Wade,

Your dissent on these issues served as the falling pebble that started an avalanche of theological study and discussion in the SBC. I don't doubt that many Baptist pastors and laymen know their doctrine of baptism much better than they did before. Many other blessings have arisen out of this IMB controversy, but I believe this revival of theological study to be the best one.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Love in Christ,


Steve said...

Haing been involved in proposing an action and then saying -- "We must do this. Trust us, we'll explain later" -- and then living to regret it, I am glad that those days have been buried forever. It never looked right then and it looks, and smells worse now, and I ain't even a preacher!

OBTW, y'all watch, we're gonna get some real coaches (2 sports) in Lexington KY one day, & then you'ns had jes' better look out!

Steve Austin
Hoptown KY

Writer said...


I enjoyed this post. Thanks for the insight into your year.

BTW, Wake Forest is THE best story in college football. :)


Rex Ray said...

Bob Cleveland,
Ah, vanity, vanity, all is vanity. I pointed your comment out to some saying, “Look, finally one person agrees with me.” Oh, happy day.

It reminds me of the first church counsel. How did two sides so far apart on how men were saved, reach an agreement?
Both sides thought they won. One side rejoiced they didn’t have to be circumcised, and the other rejoiced they got to make necessary rules.

So your comment, “…the changes that have been made, of which you have been vocal, may well be…the hole in the hull. Thus, discussing, arguing, fighting for your position is good, and perhaps even admirable.”

Also you said, “I can liken that to excluding, or forcing out, a missionary whose work is fruitfull, and reflects compassion, fervency, and God’s calling.”

You see, I thought you were referring to the IMB forcing over 100 missionaries from the field who wouldn’t sign the BFM.

I had drawn a cartoon of a ship (named SBC) sinking with a hole in the hull made by the BFM.

So your words all fit me except one.

Again the first church counsel’s words were great except one.
The great words were, “They don’t have to obey our Jewish laws.” The word that didn’t fit was “BUT”. “But” canceled out the great words.

Likewise, even though my name was in the first sentence, your comment was addressed to Wade.
I should have known by your word, “Yikes.” I guess I was too hungry. I still admire the many good things you say.
Rex Ray

volfan007 said...

this little boy was being abused by his dad. they took him away and brought him before the judge. the judge asked the little boy if he would like to live with his grandparents instead of with his violent father. the boy replied, oh no, my grandfather beats me more than my dad does. please sir, dont make me live with either one of them. to which the judge asked him, who would you like to live with then. the little boy replied, i'd like to live with the alabama crimson tide football team, sir....they cant beat anybody!


go vols!


Anonymous said...


Great post! You have given voice to many of us who have hoped for better days for the SBC. I am praying that people listen, but God has been glorified and His gospel has been magnified this year as being the only thing that we should rally around. I loved what David Dockery had to say in that article.

By the way, Geaux Tigers (of the LSU variety). I'm hoping for an incredible beat down of Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl. These are good days to be an LSU fan!

Rex Ray said...

With 43 comments made, 20 say something about sports.
Don’t want to ruin the good humor this brings out, but does it remind anyone of a preacher saying: “America is going to hell with a football under its arm”?
Rex Ray

Rex Ray said...

I clicked your post—“to exclude Southern Baptist” and read an interesting comment by Colin about the misuse of people saying “In Jesus name.” She said just because someone used his name did not necessarily make it true what they said.

This leads me to your reply to Stepchild who said, “What happened to the good old days, when you could say whatever you wanted as long as you started the sentence with, “I support the conservative resurgence…?”

You replied, “A hearty, Amen. Well said.”

Does ‘I believe in the Inerrant Word of God’ go hand in hand with Stepchild’s statement? This is brought out when you were called a liberal; you retaliated by saying, “I’m an inerrantist.”

All that to ask, are these two things kin to “In Jesus name” and required to be ‘one of us’?

If your answer is yes, then the SBC has been made into a club and “In Jesus name” will survive in a life boat from the Titanic.
Rex Ray

Jack Maddox said...

Rex Ray

Your point of view would be much more effrctive if you wouldnot ramble so much. I am sorry to sound so rude but is hard to even follow what you are trying to say...

you just come across as being bitter.

Jack said...

You know Jack,

I think there are people like Rex, Bible believing, Christ loving Southern Baptists who cringe at the unbiblical word 'inerrancy,' but have no problem saying the Bible is 'truth without any mixture of error' and consider it infallible, authoritative and sufficient --- but . . .

For a very long time now they have been called 'liberal,' 'apostate,' and other choice words, when all they have done is reflect what they believe to be historic, Biblical (and Baptist) Christianity.

I may not agree with Rex on a dislike of the word 'inerrancy,' but I think I am beginning to understand why some may be a tad bitter.

I've told my wife that through all the events of 2006 my one prayer is that I would not become bitter --- so far, so good.

If Rex is, and I don't know that he is --- maybe a little compassion is appropriate.

Rzrbk said...

I appreciate your appraisal of this last year in your life and the life of the SBC. I am sure it has been unique for both. I believe you have taken a stand for truth that has made a difference in the future of our convention.

You say you are puzzled why certain trustee made such a big deal over your dissent. For those of us who have observed the conservative resurgence from its beginning it is not puzzling at all. You have stated several times and Jerry Rankin confirmed that there was no problem on the mission field over either the PPL issue or the baptism issue. These issues were not raised for theological reasons or to correct a problem. They were raised for political purposes. You asked them to be accountable and transparent in their reasoning and purpose and they could not do that. Therefore they had to punish you. The conservative resurgence can never succeed when there are calls for accountability. That is why Paul Pressler moved to fire Al Shackelford at BP and place his own men in charge. That is why blogging scares them so much and they make silly charges against it such as it is internet porn. They cannot control it. I wonder if blogging had been around in the 80s if our convention would have gone in a more Biblically correct direction than it did.

How many times have you asked them to give instances where these issues have been a problem and they refused to answer? How many times have you asked them to prove the charges they made when they voted to have you dismissed and no one answered? Do you remember how I asked Jerry Corbaley to answer my questions about his claim that there are doctrinal problems on the mission field and he would not answer? Any open debate where all claims have to be substantiated scares them.

I am thankful for your statement that you will remain a Southern Baptist and believe in our future. I would make a similar statement about why I will remain a Southern Baptist. It is also because I am aware of the true character of our convention that we find in the churches, small and large, where the Word of God is honored and we have a vision to take the Gospel to the entire world. I will also remain a Southern Baptist missionary until I feel God is leading my wife and I to retire. Even when I may disagree with strategies or personnel decisions by those in authority, I realize our missionaries are the kind of people I want to serve along side and many are accomplishing great things for the Kingdom of God.
Ron West

Debbie Kaufman said...

I think Ron West has hit on the answer.

Benji Ramsaur said...

Buttons popping off his shirt...

Imparting knowledge from Webster's dictionary...


I never know what to expect from you.

Can you yodel as well?

CB Scott said...


There is much more to the termination of Al Shackelford than to simply say Paul Pressler called for it.

If blogging had been around back then the resurgence would have happened faster. The benefit would have been much less collateral damage due to a greater presence of grass roots Southern Baptist being involved rather than the few on both sides.


hopelesslyhuman said...

Breaking News! Alabama Hires New Head Coach

Greenbow, AL native, Forrest Gump, has accepted the Head Football Coaching position at the University of Alabama. While at Alabama Gump was a standout All-American running back and was coached by the legendary Bear Bryant. As part of his contract Gump insists on being able to work with the Turf Management Crew at Bryant-Denny Stadium. He specifically wants to cut the grass.

War Eagle! said...

Ron West,

Once again, cogent analysis.

Wade said...


Would you mind giving my readers a little of your background?

Wade said...


Fortunately for you, no yodeling capabilities.

:) said...


I possibly would agree.

However, since it is blogging that laid the stripes on my back, I may not be the best person to ask about 'collateral damage.'


Bob Cleveland said...

Rex: Since Wade served as Parliamentarian at the Roundtable in Arlington, I'm afraid not to address all remarks to the moderator.

I also still have some latent admiration for Mort Sahl. And also, admiration for anyone willing to defend his faith.

CB Scott said...

Well, Wade,

I did not say blogging would have stopped all collateral damage:-)

Let me use football language to illustrate my point and, hopefully, it will not put me in Hell for talking about football again on this post:-)

Just ragging on you Rex. There is truth in what you say in the lives of many.

Wade, You suited up for the game. I suited up for the game. May other folks did also. Those of us that did expected to be hit.

(I know you are aware of this. You have suited up many times and you are no novice to to the "game")

The "fans" do not suit up, but they are absolutly necessary to the continuance of the game and future games. If we (the players) start hitting the fans that is collateral damage beyond the rules of the game and needs to be stopped for the sake of the fans and the integrity of the game.

Fans= Grass roots Southern Baptist.

I believe too many good, Grass roots Southern Baptist got hurt back there and if the blog had been present they would have been far better informed as to the intention of "all" players on both sides and could have done "instant replay" on some plays. For that matter, they could have been able to be in on some "play calls" and called a different play more suitable to the "rules" of the game from time to time.

Bottom line is football is too rough of a game to make up the rules as you go and the same can be said of the SBC. The blog would have helped keep the rules properly defined and many would not have been "hit" just for being in the "stands"

Of course, guys like you, Wade, and me, for that matter, were bound to get hit because we kept singing that song: "PUT ME IN COACH, I'M READY TO PLAY":-)

I hope this explains what I mean.


Rex Ray said...

Shame, shame---you’re not taking Wade’s advice—“be nice to Rex.” If I stopped “rambling” and you would use ‘spell check’, maybe we would both be understood better.

Let’s see, on the “Spooky” post, I explained something on third grade level, (1, 2, and 3). Wade understood and apologized, but you replied: “Oh…thanks Rex…that cleared everything up!!!!! rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttttt”

That shows it’s not the grade level or rambling that’s your problem; it’s your attitude of not liking what you hear and you can’t counter truth, so you attack the person.

Wade has got on your case again. He does a good job of explaining how people like me (I suppose he means moderates) have been given names.

All I want is for moderates to be included in the ‘tent.’ For many years, it’s only their money that has been allowed.

It seems you two are playing the ‘bad cop—good cop’ on me since both of you won’t answer my questions or speak to the issues.
Rex Ray

Rex Ray said...

That kind of ragging I can take. The story goes a team was getting slaughtered and fans kept yelling, “Let Leroy carry the ball.” Finally, the reply was, “Leroy don’t want the ball.”
That’s the way a lot of Southern Baptists are. They had rather keep their heads in the sand.
Now me…I feel like I’m on the sideline tackling players as they run by without being put in the game. That’s against the rules, but like my Dad always said, “The best thing about a good rule is to know when to break it.”

Enjoyed you comment. Hope me saying that doesn’t get you in trouble.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Speaking of being offended. . .bringing up the Enid vs. Edmond Bulldog basketball games pretty well takes the cake! While the support of one's son in his athletic endeavors is laudable, doing it at the expense of your mother's alma mater is abysmally inexcusable. This Edmondite (and your mother's high school classmate) contends that your remarks on this issue were neither gracious, respectful, nor even good "theology". This Okie just hopes the poor judgement you exercised here does not resonate with your detractors, causing them to revive their demands for your removal from the IMB BoT. . .After all, you must know that the original acronym, IMB, stands for "Inerrant Magnificent Bulldogs!"

In a related story, the AKC (American Kennel Club) has favorably received a petition from Edmond Bulldog, Timberwolf, and Husky supporters to have you censored and declared ineligible to serve on any committee in that august organization. Sadly, you have no one to thank but yourself for establishing such a disgraceful and shameful legacy. . .When will you ever learn?

In any case, this Okie is available as a mentor and counselor in restoring you to fellowship with those of us who are on the right side of this issue (though, in your case, the situation is gravely critical). Shall we begin with your "bark"? ;^)

In His Grace and Peace,

T. D. Webb

Jack Maddox said...

"If I stopped “rambling” and you would use ‘spell check’, maybe we would both be understood better."

Now on this Rex we can agree...not so much your rambling as my illiterate attempt at spelling. It seems I am fine when simply writing a note or letter but place a keyboard in front of me and I become 'Dyslexic Dan!" (No offense to anyone who is dyslexic or named Dan) : )

really I was just kind of kidding around when referencing your 'rambling' I see that it did not come across that way so I certainly apologize...for me to seriously accuse some one of rambling would certainly be the pot calling the kettle black! I rally was just playing around a little.

As far as Wade stating that the word "Inerrancy" is unbiblical...not so Wade! The word is certainly biblical...just like the word Trinity and Rapture are biblical words. I know you will not find them there however the truth they convey is certainly biblical therefore they are good words to define ones position.

If Rex and other moderates are offended by the word then they are offended by the truth it conveys. I am not offended by the word 'modelist', but I do disagree with what it implies and conveys.

Now Rex, as to your question that I will not answer...I did not know you asked me a Question. Can you re state it and I will certainly answer it!

By the way Rex...I like you...I was a Pastor in your area back in the early 90's...FBC Baily, Texas!


Jack Maddox said...

"All I want is for moderates to be included in the ‘tent.’ For many years, it’s only their money that has been allowed."


Moderates who will not subscribe to inerrancy will not be included nor should they be. As far as they sending their money...that is their decision. I would recommend that they have the courage of their convictions and quit supporting that with which they believe to be so wrong. In other words...if you cannot support folks who believe that the Bible is inerrant, if that term 'offends' you so much...if the BFM 2000 is such a 'heretical' document which 'undermines the priesthood of the believer' and 'subjugates' Women and ‘takes from Jesus His rightful place in biblical hermeneutics’...then my question is "WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT TO SEND THEM YOUR MONEY?"

I certainly led my church to stop supporting Baylor in the early 90’s and eventually the BGCT a little later on. When a viable alternative was available we shared our mission effort with those folks. (SBTC)


Jack Maddox said...

Wade B said

"You know Jack,

I think there are people like Rex, Bible believing, Christ loving Southern Baptists who cringe at the unbiblical word 'inerrancy,' but have no problem saying the Bible is 'truth without any mixture of error' and consider it infallible, authoritative and sufficient --- but . . .

For a very long time now they have been called 'liberal,' 'apostate,' and other choice words, when all they have done is reflect what they believe to be historic, Biblical (and Baptist) Christianity."


That very well be the closest thing to a recanting of your work and place in the conservative resurgence that I have read

Are you now denouncing yourself and those of us who shared your position during the resurgence?

If you mean what you have said...and I believe you do as man of high character...then you have adopted the positions of many leading 'moderates' during the resurgence. Men like Richard Jackson and Daniel Vestal...I believe if we could go back 20 years that is the camp you would find yourself in...

just a opinion


Jack Maddox said...

and before you say, I am not calling you a moderate...but it is the same thing other 'moderates' who claimed that label for themselves have said

Jack said...

TD Webb,

That was a funny post! said...


Unless a Christian can be kind, gracious and compassionate, or as Frank Page prefers to say, 'Unless you can display the fruit of the Spirit,' there can be no real claim to the presence of Christ, regardless of 'doctrinal orthodoxy.'

I am trusting you are able to distinguish between my kindness to my brother like Rex, while at the same time disagreeing with his view on inerrancy.

If you can't, then you and I are miles apart. said...

Very good comment CB.

You ought to write a major post on that particular theme.

On reflection, I wholeheartedly agree.

wade said...

To be honest with you Rex, I do not believe that theological 'moderates' ought to be in 'control' of boards --- neither do I believe 'angry' Fundamentalists ought to be either.

How about 'irenic' conservatives?

Just a thought.

Rzrbk said...

I wrote my post about midnight and did not take time to reread it which is always dangerous. If I had time to change it, I would take out the sentence that said it was done for political motives and also not use the term scares them. I do not want to make a blanket charge about the trustees motives and I did that and apologize for it.
You ask to tell about my background but it is not very special. My wife and I have been with the IMB for 27 years. I felt called to be a missionary when I was a young RA and I am thankful Southern Baptist have given me an opportunity to fulfill that call as part of our missions sending organization. I am not one with a great deal of influence in our organization but I am very thankful for the role I have been able to fill. The young missionaries consider me old paradigm. The older missionaries I served with in the early years think I have sold out because I still serve. The conservative resurgence supporters consider me a liberal or moderate because I do not support their political agenda. Many who oppose them consider me suspect because I am a theological conservative and an inerrantist. I guess I am the Rodney Dangerfield of the SBC. I don’t get no respect. Just kidding. I am thankful I have many friends who support me even thought they think I am a little strange.
I am also an Arkansas Razorback fanatic and I do not want Alabama to mess with our football coach who I support.
Ron West

Jack Maddox said...

Actually Wade I agree with Dr. Paige! And I also agree with you on that point. Much is loss in interpretation when one uses this medium...however what I did take issue with is the insinuation that the term inerrancy is a unbiblical word...and to Rex, that somehow moderates are forced to give their money to something that they cannot support theologically.

Both assumptions are untrue...

As far as kindness and a gentle spirit. I hope I am able to demonstrate both...even if I am a "Spooky" you so "Kindly stated brother Wade.

As far as you and I being miles a part on this issue...well yes Wade we are...but that does not mean that I don't love you and admire you for so many other things that we do agree on!

and by the way...since both of our boys will be leading the NBA here in few years we have got to learn to get along for All Star week : )

Jack said...


Thanks for the details!!

Keep up the great work on the field!

Wade said...


It is no insinuation that the word 'inerrancy' is not in the Bible (i.e. 'unbiblical').

It's a fact.

But that doesn't stop me from believing it, when properly defined.

Jack Maddox said...


Thats double talk brother! Are you saying that because the word is not in the bible itself that the concept is unbiblical? If that is so then would not the Trinity be unbiblical? (The actual word is not there but certainly the doctrine is not only implied but asserted)Surely this is not what you mean and I am simply misunderstanding you?

If not, then you and are indeed MILES apart.

Jack said...

Mr. Jack,

Don't get worked up.


I have already said I believe in 'inerrancy.' I also believe in 'the Trinity.'

As you rightly point out, both words are not in Scripture, but the truths the words represent are.

I like you a great deal Jack, but it seems that sometimes your strings mght be strung just a tad too tight and it causes your pitch to elevate a little higher than what is normal.


God is still in charge.

Jack Maddox said...

Sorry Wade...I am not going to let you off that easy. In fact I am very calm, my strings are nothing but relaxed and at last check the blood pressure is just fine. But I am challenging you on this one.

1) You said that the word Inerrancy is UNBIBLICAL

2) You then say that you believe it.

3)Do you then say you believe in a unbiblical concept?...I don’t think you do.

4) Why then do you say it is unbiblical?

By saying this you are also saying that current leadership by insisting on inerrancy are insisting on a unbiblical concept.

You could clear this up by maybe just admitting that you misspoke when you said to Rex that inerrancy was unbiblical.

or maybe not

Jack said...


The WORD is not of Biblical origin.

The CONCEPT which the WORD represents IS.

The problem is, there are some who don't like the WORD, but accept the CONCEPT the word represents --- these folks are functional inerrantists, conservative, and worthy of our fellowship.

However, anyone who denies the CONCEPT, which is taught in Scripture, should be denied leadership in the SBC. To understand the CONCEPT of inerrancy, without USING THE WORD, read The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: a very scholarly paper defining the CONCEPT of inerrancy using THE BIBLE, without the word (except in the title). The paper defines the word in the title.

If you can't understand what I have just said, I don't know what else I can do for you to

Jack Maddox said...

gee seems like it is now you who is getting a little riled up. Yes Wade, I am very familiar with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. I am also aware that the word 'inerrancy' is not in the Bible. My point is and I will say it this last time so we can move on is that you said, point blank,

"I think there are people like Rex, Bible believing, Christ loving Southern Baptists who cringe at the unbiblical word 'inerrancy,'"

If I understand you clearly what you are saying is that if a word is not in the bible then that word is 'unbiblical' That the concept may be biblical but the word is not.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. At no time has the SBC said you have to use the word "Inerrancy" The SBC has said that to be in leadership you have to be in agreement with the BFM 2000 which does not use the word

" The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. " I believe that many folks were more concerned with the concept than they were the word.

and by the way...can you really separate the concept from the word...I am not so sure you can.

Thanks for the exchange and I join with others on this thread in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Blessed New Year.


Rex Ray said...

So you were a pastor at Bailey in the early 90’s. Yes, I remember having this conservation a long time ago, and I told you that Bailey kept us (my twin and I from Ector) from winning district in basketball in 1950.

You say you led your church to join the new Texas convention. That convention started in 1998 and was formed trying to replace the old convention. It’s sort of a mirror of the SBC.

At that time I was just starting to wake up that there was friction between Southern Baptists.
I had missed the ‘war’ or so called ‘conservative resurgence’ because I was just a happy-go-lucky uninformed Baptists like most still are today.
They believe it’s only politics and to some extent they’re right.

I became concerned when my then missionary son was asked by Rankin’s 1997 letter (in my opinion) to be demoted from missionary to employee.

The BFM 2000 didn’t ask; it told them by it being made into a creed for all to sign.

So what did all that have to do with inerrancy? In my opinion—absolutely nothing.

Inerrancy was made into a battle cry, flag waving, unite the troops, and to win a political battle by making the Bible a political football.

It eliminated all opposition by declaring they were non-Bible believers, and so it is still flaunted today.

Jack, do you realized how much you fussed when Wade said:

“It is no insinuation that the word ‘inerrancy’ is not in the Bible (i.e. ‘unbiblical’). It’s a fact. But that doesn’t stop me from believing it, when properly defined.”

Don’t confuse the Word of God and the Bible. The Word of God spoke the world into existence. The Bible is only the messenger. No other Gods include the Bible.

Wade hit the nail on the head when he said, “…when properly defined.”

Jack, you said you would answer questions from me—so:

1. What are the names of the seven definitions of inerrancy that the Chicago group gave?

2. Concerning the ‘strict definition’ that the SBC chose, what are the 12 qualifications that go with it?
Rex Ray said...


Thanks for making my point in your last comment.


CB Scott said...


The Bible is the Word of God.
It is not the messenger. It is the Message. For you to say the Bible is not the Word of God reveals one of the problems from back in the "DAY". To say the Bible is the Word of God is not to worship an Idol. It is simply the truth unless a person is truly a theological dwarf.


Your constant attack on Wade for the way he used the word "inerrancy" is totally without merit which reveals another problem from back in the "DAY"

We had many problems back in the "DAY". It appears we still do.


Jack Maddox said...


Thanks for the advise and basically placing me in one camp without really even knowing me, The fact is that in my last post I thought it was obvious that Wade had clarified his position and although I do not totally agree with him I do realize now what he meant by using the word "Unbiblical" in regards to inerrancy.

As far as attacking Wade...I did not realize that spirited debate is an attack...It seems like that if anyone disagrees with Wade they are automatically 'mean spirited' or 'attacking ' him. I think Wade does a pretty good job of defending himself!

And since you have publicly chastised me, I am now officially pulling for whoever plays Alabama.


CB Scott said...


How silly for you to take this out on "crippled up" Alabama:-)

Ask Wade if anyone has attacked or debated him much more than me.

My point was and still is that the attack was without merit (Not all attacks are. If you "play" in the Big League you expect it) and that was a problem back in the "DAY".

So many of OUR attacks were without merit and for that we ALL should be repentant. The way you speak of the past would include you as well as me.

Your attack was without merit and you have the privilege to be angry, glad, repentant or whatever you wish. The reality is still the same.

It was and will always be without any soundness or merit for you to take the man to task for the way he used the word inerrancy was not uncommon during the Resurgence nor is it today from the mouth of any true and knowledgeable conservative.

Any knowledgeable conservative from the Resurgence would tell you the same if he is seeking to be honest before God and man and is not talking for political reasons only.

I mean no malice to you. What I said to you was and is just a fact and nothing more and nothing less.


hopelesslyhuman said...

Perhaps "extra-biblical" is a better descriptor for the word inerrancy as it applies to the Bible than "un-biblical" as the prefix "un" often carries the connotation "contrary to" along with the meaning "not" (e.g. unwise, unwilling)

Jack Maddox said...


I am glad you mean no 'malice' towards me...I would hate to be me should you ever change your mind : )

I stand by my position that the word Inerrant is NOT unbiblical nor is it EXTRAbiblical...either in concept or meaning

Words represent concepts and thoughts and are descriptive of that idea they represent. For me to claim this for inerrancy has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with convictions. For you to insinuate that this is motivated by politics speaks more to your being jaded by the errors of the resurgence (You are right, not everyone involved was without sin)and disappointed by the mistakes of others than it does my 'political' motivation.

CB - I could give a rip about politics...yours, mine, Wades, Ben's or any one else. I pastor a church that runs 100 in Sunday School in rural North Central Texas. You have to be driving through here to know where we are! I will never be published, my name will never be bantered around the newsrooms of any agency, I will probably never preach at any convention, conference or gathering o any side. When I attend these functions I hob-nob with no one except my wife and a occasional associational colleague. Like a lot of preachers I know, my ministerial life for the most part is one of subtle solitude not for any reason except I am like 99 out of a 100 other Baptist preachers. I am to busy visiting, studying, serving and pastoring my church to get caught up with 'politics'. At the end of the day all we will have is truth and the knowledge that when we look in the mirror the man looking back has at the very least not compromised what he holds dear and believes in. I know this is true for you, Wade, Ben and many, many be glad to brand me a fool and question my positions and conclusions...I am not offended in the least...but please understand that this conservative "Spooky" fundamentalist will have to take 1/2 a baby aspirin just to sleep tonight because of worry about politics.

I appreciate your point, but it just ain't so!

Blessings to you - and I repent for what I said about Alabama...Roll Tide! Whatever that means! : )


Jack Maddox said...


I said I would answer your answer your question, but I thought it was one you had already asked.

As to the 2 you posed

1) I do not know
2) I do not know

I guess you will just have to stay in the dark concerning these questions...I will pull out my CSOBI doc and look at it afresh and anew and see if I can find the answer to question 1 for you. Should I e mail the answer to you?

As far as #2 - I really don't ever asked me to help define it and I really would not need to since 2 Timothy 3:16 does a pretty good job of that

Thanks and Blessings to you in the great villa of Ector! I do recall you telling about the great Bailey BB teams of the past!

Jack said...


I agree.



CB Scott said...


Everything I am about to say is from the depth of my ability to speak my heart which is very wicked and not even I can always "know it". So this is my best effort at honesty to a fellow Believer.

I have met real spooks in my time and you are not one. They always leave you making you feel like you need to throw up or take a bath. They destroy countries, men, women, and children and I am sure you are not of that "ilk".

You do not deny the Faith, so I do not think you a fool and truthfully, I use many words that I should not, but Fool is a word that is very rare to pass my lips out of fear of the judgement of God if I use it.

I did not seek to offend you, although, I have sought to offend others many times and I am sure I will again. This was not one of those times.

The thing I most want to say to you, now, is the life you describe as the one you live is the life that I wish I had lived. You are blessed beyond blessed to love God, love your family and serve a church as Shepherd.

It truly does not matter the size of the flock if it is the flock that God has put you among to shepherd (1Peter 5:1-4).

To be faithful is the mandate and nothing else matters. If you are faithful never look at yourself as not effective in the Kingdom relating to the size of the flock you shepherd. God sees you and that is all that matters.

Lastly, if you can look in the mirror at the end of the day and know you have compromised nothing before the Lord you are truly a man after God's own heart and not in need of any praise of man which is something I wish I could claim for every day of my life, but I know I cannot. I can say I am feeling better about the mirror of late.

You are blessed, Jack and I know many of us, at this time, wish we had sought what you have.

This is my last comment on this matter for today:-)

May God richly bless you in this season when we examine the supernatural event of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.


hopelesslyhuman said...


The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture but the word itself does not appear. As such, although the doctrine of the Trinity is not extra-biblical, the word "Trinity" itself is extra-biblical.

I did not say that the doctine of inerrancy is extra-biblical - only the word itself. Do you disagree with this?

If you disagree, I would be happy to learn where it appears in the text of Scripture. Please cite book, chapter, and verse...

Jack Maddox said...

thanks cb

your good people....what does roll tide mean?And whats up with that funky elephant?


Jack Maddox said...


We are splitting semantic frog hairs here.

To you extra biblical means not found in scripture at all or not mentioned...ok, I guess that is fine.

Extra biblical to me means more of a concept or teaching or even doctrine which is outside the realm of biblical revelation without violating scripture or infringing on it’s clear meaning.

example - a extra biblical position would be that it right and proper to sing hymns only. It may be right and it may be proper due to context, but it is not necessarily biblical...thus extra biblical. Or in other words...out of bounds of biblical revelation while at the same time not being prohibited by scripture.

Although the word inerrancy, or as you have properly stated the Trinity is not found in scripture...both concepts and truths are glaringly biblical as I know you agree and attest.

So to answer your question, yes I disagree that the word's Inerrancy or Trinity are extra biblical for that which they represent and convey are as you have agreed "Biblical"

You and I do not disagree on this and I think we both are probably straining at natts a little


volfan007 said...

i have to agree with jack on this one. if someone has a problem with saying that they believe in the inerrancy of the bible, then i have a real problem with them. it makes me very leery of them. it makes me wonder big time about thier stand on scripture and the essentials of the faith.


Rex Ray said...

I’m picking on you because you said I could. Ha Here’s a question that won’t take any research.

Before I ask, would you say a dog is not a dog if he has fleas? (Not the question.)
I think there are about 100 picky differences in the Bible that don’t amount to a hill of beans. They don’t bother me in the least in my belief of the truth of God’s word.
Likewise, if I see a dog scratching, I don’t say, ‘It can’t be a flea because that would make him not a dog.’

By the way, God gave dogs fleas to remind him he’s a dog. Hmmm…Naw, I’m not going to say it.
The Bible is God’s Word—just not the part rejected by the Holy Spirit which is the devil’s lies, man’s lies, man’s ignorance etc.

The only time I’ve met Patterson, I may have tricked him into thinking I was on his side.
I told him my son was an IMB missionary in Israel where I had swam across the sea of Galilee, and it was taking more courage to ask him a question than the swim.

I held out the Criswell Study Bible and asked him of his ‘Forward’ if all the supposed discrepancies had been answered or just some of them?

He answered in a loud voice for all to hear, “We got all of them.”
I asked what about the girl alive in Matthew and dead in Mark and Luke?

He bent over and said in my ear, “We got all we could.”

The hard discrepancies, such as the ‘girl event’, are omitted in their explanations.

Here is a picky discrepancy that may have caused a few frowns but caused no one to go to hell:
At what location did God stop the death angel from killing people for David’s sin of taking a census of his troops? (I’m working up to your question.)

2 Samuel 24:16-25 vs. 1 Chronicles 21:15-28

In Chronicles, the location was at the threshing floor of Ornan where he and his four sons hid from the death angel. David bought the place for 15 pounds of gold to offer a sacrifice to the Lord.

In Samuel, the death angel was at the threshing floor of Araunah which David bought for 3.1 pounds of silver.

Patterson OK’d the explanation that said, “The site mentioned by the chronicler will become the locale for the temple. Its cost was [50#] of gold.”
In Samuel, “The threshing floor is the site where David built an altar and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings after he had purchased it for [3.1#] of silver. The apparent differences arise from a confusion between these two different sites which are purchased by David.”

That’s all folks. That’s the best answer that Criswell, Patterson, and 20 PhD’s could come up with.

Jack, you think I’m going to ask you to explain, but I’m not because I can explain it real easy with the Chicago Statement selected by the SBC. (I’m saving a hard question for you.)

Chicago, EXPOSITION—C…Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

“Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, [anyone encouraged by Criswell’s solution?] and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that ONE DAY they will be seen to have been ILLUSIONS.”

See how easy that was Jack. No problem. The answer is “illusions.” That’s almost up there with, “The King has no clothes.”

Wade wrote: “The day of proposing an action and then saying...‘We must do this. Trust us, we’ll explain later’…have been buried forever.”
Does Chicago say? “We must believe this. Trust us, we’ll explain later.”

I appreciate your honesty and fairness in saying, “I don’t know” to my first two questions. I thought seminaries would teach them, but maybe they hide them.

I made a mistake on my first question. There are not 7, but 8 names of different definitions of the Chicago study.

And there is another mistake I made. It is not 8 definitions of the Chicago Statement, but 8 definitions of the Chicago STUDY on inerrancy.

Catholics picked a different definition than the SBC or maybe I should say conservatives, fundamentalists, or controlling powers.

If you rolled 7 of these definitions into one, it would say something like this: “Can be trusted in what it teaches and affirms. Does not contradict itself but does with science, geography, and history. Without error in faith, morals, and salvation, but not true in all words or statements. Speeches reported in truth but not all speeches have perfect contents.”

Conservatives adopted what is called the Chicago or Strict definition: “The Bible does not lie, deceive or err in any assertion it makes.”

I am correct that the Chicago definition does have 12 qualifications which is permissible to believe all, any, or none. Here are six.

1. Applies only to the original manuscripts. [None exist.]
2. Possible for NT writers to misquote OT writers. [Was Ahimelech or Abiathar the high priest when David ate the consecrated bread? 1 Samuel 21:1-6 vs. Mark 2:26]
3. Does not imply agreement in parallel accounts of the same event. [Girl dead or alive? Matthew 9:18 vs. Mark 5:23 Luke 8:42]
4. May err with scientific truths. [Sun travels around the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:4-5]
5. May use folklore. [“..hail is made and stored…for war.” Job 38:22-23]
6. May disagree with history, chronology, and genealogy.

Jack, I didn’t write the others down and have forgotten them. But if you add them all to the Chicago Statement, the Chicago sounds like the other definitions. If you find the other six, I would like for you to post them unless you’re afraid of being labeled a moderate/liberal.

I believe all Baptists as well as others believe Peter’s speech in Acts 15:10 was God’s Word. He said if the Jews put a BURDEN of obeying Jewish laws on the Gentiles to keep or obtain their salvation they would be testing God, correcting God, tempting God, challenging God, questioning God. (Different translations.)

Acts 15:28 “For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and ours—to put no greater BURDEN on you than these necessary things: that you abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

I believe this discrepancy led thousands into hell with more to follow, and that is why it needs to be explained.

It is as Paul wrote: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit by keeping the Jewish laws…have you gone completely crazy? You are following a different ‘way to heaven’ that doesn’t go to heaven at all.” (Galatians 3:2-3 1:6)

Did the Holy Spirit correct God, or was verse 28 NOT the word of God?
Rex Ray

Jack Maddox said...

Well rex, "There you go again" (in my best Ronald Reagan voice)

Rex, your not really asking me for information, you are using rhetorical devise to prove your own point. Even if I did answer your question my friend you are not looking for an answer, you are trying to prove your point.

And you have succeeded in doing so. What is your point…not all of the Bible can be trusted, just that which you determine to be trustworthy.

I will say this Rex...where I am from we called that Dalmatian theology...that is the Bible is inspired in spots...and some of you guys are inspired to see the inspired spots!

God bless my friend...and yes, they still teach it in refusal to answer your question had nothing to do with an inability to do so, but with a understanding that you are more concerned with discrediting conservatives than you are actually dialoging.


Rex Ray said...

First of all, I consider myself a true conservative. Webster---“Conservative; opposed to change.”
I like singing, “Give me that old time religion” and “I shall not be moved.” (As a kid, I did not understand the verse that said, “Though the church is moving, I shall not be moved.” Now at 74, I do.)

On October 13, 1999, The Baptist Standard printed a letter from me:

I miss the old songs. Sometimes I wonder if I’m out of God’s will or if I’m just that old hippie trying to hold on to the old but surrounded by the new. I feel like the captured Jews when they were told to sing and their reply was they could not.
___I did not rebel against my parent’s songs but learned them by heart and sang them with joy. Each song had a message, showing God’s love for me. The church has gone overboard on praise songs. Can they touch a sinner’s heart like “Amazing Grace’, “Nothing but the Blood”, or “At Calvary”?
___Why have we settled for second best? Did it happen because the 20-year control by conservatives has taught our song leaders a “better” way”? You hear only them and a loud organ.
___Is there sound when a tree falls in the forest? Do people sing when never heard? How sweet it is when no instruments are blaring and the leader steps back and there are voices. The captured Jews are no long captives...they’re singing.

Jack, the main thing that concerns me about your reply is that it mainly talks about me. Me, me, me. You don’t speak to the issues. You avoid them.
Sure, I’m trying to prove a point. Is that wrong? I thought that’s what Wade’s blog was about—truth and grace. I’ll admit I’m a little short on the grace part but I try to stay with truth.

Communication is always a problem. You say, “Yes, they still teach it in the seminary.” What “it” are you referring to?

You say you refuse to answer my question because I’m trying to discredit conservatives. Duhh?

That’s almost like the guy found innocent of chicken stealing; asked, “Does that mean I don’t have to give back the chickens?”
Rex Ray

volfan007 said...


if the bible has errors in it then we have no faith. we are all disillusioned fools, and we need to close the bible....shut the doors of our churches...and start living in sin with the world.


Rex Ray said...

Sorry to take so long to reply to your comment.

You’re right; the Bible is not the messenger. You have taught me not to say that. The Bible is the message—as you say.

Would you agree along with the message comes the messenger—the Holy Spirit?

God wrote his Word through ‘inspired men’ which is Holy and perfect in every word that is true. Any untruths are NOT his Word, but are the lies of the devil and men.

In a sense, the Message has been witnessed by one who has been on the battlefront—the Holy Spirit. If there is a question about the Message, He will explain it. He saw the creation. He saw the devil cast to earth like a bolt of lightening. Jesus said—He will teach you all things.

In a nice way (grace), I’d like to say you are wrong when you wrote; “For you to say the Bible is not the Word of God…”
I never said that.

Do you see how you have made improper conclusions until it builds up to putting words in my mouth?

What is an idol? It’s something put above God.

You’re right that the Bible has not been made an idol, but someone’s BELIEF of the Bible may become an idol.

The Bible teaches we should love our brothers. When Christians burned their brothers at the stake, their belief became an idol.

How close can one get to sin without sinning? How much can one persecute their brothers before their belief becomes an idol? “Theological dwarf”…? ?

I like what Wade wrote quoting Frank Page, “Unless you can display the fruit of the Spirit, there can be no real claim to the presence of Christ, regardless of doctrinal orthodoxy.”

That’s sort of like Lincoln saying, “I care not for a man’s religion if his dog is not the better for it.”
Rex Ray

Rex Ray said...

You bring up an interesting point: “If the Bible has errors in it then we have no faith.”

It is a mirror of Thomas’ faith when he said unless I see…I will not believe.

Unless you ‘see’ no errors, you will not believe and will throw the Bible out the window.

Jesus said blessed is he that has ‘not seen’ and still believes.

I have ‘not seen’ the Bible to have ‘no errors’ and yet I believe.

Is my faith weaker than yours, or is it stronger?
Rex Ray

CB Scott said...


You said: "Don't confuse the Word of God and the Bible. The Word of God spoke the world into existence. The Blble is only the messenger. No other Gods include the Bible."

If you did not mean to make a difference as to the nature of the Word of God
(The Word as in the written, inspired Word not the Logos as in Christ would be my point of reference)
then I, with a gleeful heart stand corrected and apologize sincerely.

I have had people, in the past, use similar language and mean that the Bible was not the Word of God. Nonetheless, I superimposed my rational, based upon MY history, upon what you said and for that I am sorry.

You are right, God the Spirit is the Messenger of the Message.

A "theological dwarf" would be a person that actually does make an idol of the Bible. I did NOT infer that of you and the context of both your comment and mine will verify that as true.

Relating to Lincoln's comment concerning religion and dogs, the world that knows me will have to testify to the fact that if any living creature has benefited from my religion it has most certainly been my bulldogs:-)


Rex Ray said...

Thanks for the nice reply. I believe in our own thoughts we have learned from each other and can walk as brothers.
Rex Ray

Jack Maddox said...


What I meant by 'they still teach it in seminary' was simply in response to you implying that either I did not have any understanding of the CSOBI or that somehow it was not taught. Neither is true. Not only did I study the Chicago Statement at Criswell College, but also at SWBTS.
Although my belief in the Bible is not based upon either the Chicago statement or the BFM 200. but on the Bible itself. It claims for itself what you seek to deny.

You said:

"I appreciate your honesty and fairness in saying, “I don’t know” to my first two questions. I thought seminaries would teach them, but maybe they hide them"

Thus my reply...

and the reason I stated I don’t know was more rhetorical than actual truth...I have already stated why I did not answer your question...perhaps the same reason that Jesus did not answer many of the questions posed to him by the Pharisees and Sadducees of His day, because he recognized that the questions were being asked to promote and agenda.

Now on a later post you stated that in a letter to your state paper you posted

"___Why have we settled for second best? Did it happen because the 20-year control by conservatives has taught our song leaders a “better” way”? You hear only them and a loud organ."

Let me get this straight Bro. the "FUndies" are responsible for the worship wars in the SBC?

Rex..God bless you brother...I really feel it is unfortunate that this kind of forum does not convey the context of emotion, because I really do appreciate your zeal and your concern...but you are like a few of my "Fundy" and that you paint every ill in our SBC society as the result of your self appointed ememy...

But all that aside, let this end our tit for tat on this thread and perhaps we can take it up somewhere else...but to you and your family, your church family and all who you care for I wish God's richest blessings...knowing this...The Master wills straighten both of us out on that great and glorious day! I can't wait!!!!


Anonymous said...

Wade and friends:
Carolyn Crumpler, whose address to Mainstream Alabama Baptists Wade has read and commented on at SBC Trends, is engaging Wade about the implications of several of his most recent blogs for Cooperative Program giving and missions definitions within the new world of BFM interpretation as conflicted by Duren and Paige Patterson.
I encourage all of you to go to and engage that discussion.
Frank Page two weeks ago at WMU headquarters opened up again the whole can of worms about The BWA.
Is this all a ruse, a false discussion or is their authentic ground for new and genuine discussion?

Rex Ray said...

“King’s X” is a statement that signifies and immediate truce: all fighting stops, there are no winners or losers. It becomes a cooling off time. It brings order out of chaos.

According to my twin brother it ought to be added to the Ten Commandments. It has been his rule over 60 years, and he usually yells it just after he’s got in a good ‘lick’ or word.

Jack, that’s what you remind me of when you state, “Let this end our tit for tat…”

Wait…I’m very much in the dark on knowing what you know even though you’ve tried to tell me.
I asked you two questions on one comment and one question on another comment.

You said you didn’t know the answer to the two questions that were:
1. What are the names of the seven definitions of inerrancy that the Chicago group gave? [I clarified later there were 8 definitions.]
2. Concerning the ‘strict definition’ [Chicago] that the SBC chose, what are the 12 qualifications that go with it?

Your latest comment says you studied the Chicago Statement at Criswell College and SWBTS, and you wrote, “The reason I stated I don’t know was more rhetorical than actual truth.”

If Criswell College and SWBTS taught you the answers to my two questions, are you ashamed of these facts?
Are you saying these facts are like the trick questions of Pharisees?

If you know the answers, these were easy questions. You didn’t say anything about my ‘hard’ question. You sound like someone in a corner yelling, “King’s X.”

On that great and glorious day when we meet, I’ll only know of your love for God and his Son. Our ‘tit for tat’ will be as far as the East is from the West.
Rex Ray

Jack Maddox said...


I am sure that other posters are growing weary of your and mine bantering back and forth as we split theological frog hairs. This why I have asked you to cease for now. I did not say that I would not address you in the future...I simply said lets let this thread die...

But if it makes you feel better...YOU WON!!!! You da man!

Let me say in closing Rex (and I mean it this time) That for someone who claims that fundamentalist rationalize to much you sure seem to be caught up with rationalization yourself.

Rex, you claim that your faith in the revealed word within the document we call the Bible is sufficient for your understanding of the truthfulness of the Bible..good for you

allow me the same privilege to say that my faith in the Bible as the absolute Word of God word for word is not based upon anything but the Bibles claim for itself and my faith in it.

Is my faith better than yours? I can not and will not say...It is not my place to make that determination. I will say only that I do not rely on any man made document to defend the inerrancy of scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 is good enough for me. When I stand to preach this Sunday I will preach from a God-Breathed Word. My faith is in the Jesus that the messenger (The Holy Spirit) reveals to me, however, all I know of this Jesus is found in this Bible that I is enough for me.

Rex, I disagree with you but I am sure that I will not change your mind or your heart...nor will you mine.

My comments about the Pharisees and the Sadducees Rex was in reference to your don't question to gain question to trap and to prove your point. The Bible that you and I both claim to believe says something about word wrangling...In the BJV (Brother Jack Version) it says DON'T DO IT! It is my prayer that the Holy Spirit will tell you that that part of the Bible is true so that you WILL quit it : )

And I guess it will make you feel better Rex, you got me man...I am ashamed of the truths of the Study of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and the whatever you said it was concerning the BFM2000..

You feel better now?

I have to go now Rex...I have several young ministers of music that I have to go and teach that we should only sing new know how us Fundies are?!

Love ya Rex

Rex Ray said...

I went to SBC Trends

But I could not find what you were talking about. What do I do when I get there? I’m not very savvy on computers.

Jack, I still know only one name (Chicago) of the 8 names, and only 6 of the 12 qualifications. You went the extra mile and turned the other cheek; not many will do that. Thank you.
Rex Ray

volfan007 said...


i have looked over all the so called contradictions and errors that you have mentioned. they can all be explained to the one who really seeks the truth. it's people like you is why the conservative resurgence had to take place.

may we never widen the tent to include those who try to discredit the bible and put down Gods Word.


ps rex, if the bible is not Gods Word....if it contains errors...then we have no faith. no eternal life.

Tim Cook said...


Are you saying that the Christians who first heard the Gospel weren't really saved? they didn't have a Bible fact, some of the scriptures that some of them may have used we have since declared NOT to be scripture.

I say this with nothing but love and good intentions: be careful what you say. JESUS is the only necessary thing for salvation. I believe the Bible is 100% true, and accurate in every place that it intends to be accurate...but that is not a necessary belief for salvation. The Bible is precious, but it is only precious because of the PERSON it reveals. It has no value in and of itself; it reveals a God of infinite value within its pages.

In Christ,
Tim Cook

volfan007 said...


if we dont have an accurate bible, then how can i trust it? how can i trust what it says about Jesus and salvation? if its not right about creation, then why is it right about heaven?

also, without the bible....we have no faith. faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

listen, the early church fathers did have a bible...they had the ot, and they had the apostles and the writings of the apostles. they had the Word of God.

now, we have the Word of God. and, if it's erroneous, then it cant be trusted. and, we are disillusioned fools playing a religious, philosophical game. and, we are denying our flesh for no reason, and we should close our churches and quit preaching. its that serious.


Tim Cook said...

We have an accurate Bible; the degree to which it is accurate is the question. We know, for sure, that in the last century the scripture that was widely used was erroneous in some places; we have corrected those errors as scholarship has improved. How do we know our translation is currently correct?
Most NT Christians used and quoted form the Septuagint, which contained books we now consider non-canonical. Did they have a deficient faith?

I understand what you are saying, but we have enough certainty about the texts to be able to verify the essentials of the Gospel: Jesus lived a perfect life, died, was buried, and rose again. We hav life through Him. This Gospel is not affected by who exactly the priest was when David ate the bread from the temple. There are not even any contradictions asserted by anyone that would damage the Gospel.

Jesus is the living Word; the written word reveals Him to us, but He is the one who died. all I am saying is that we have to keep those things straight.

In Christ,
Tim Cook

volfan007 said...


read john mcarthurs study bible for a good explanation of the priest and showbread and david issue.

also, i know that there were errors in certain manuscripts. and, in certain copies, some scribe got careless and such. but, in conservative scholarship, the effort to get back to the original manuscripts is what we are after. and, so much work has been done, so much has been found, that we have close...very close to the originals. and, we have the quotes of the early church fathers...who were quoting the nt that we can see the originals in thier quotes. we could have the entire nt just from thier quotes from the apostles.

well, i do understand that some translations had mistakes in them...and some manuscripts have mistakes in them...but, the bible we have today is very, very accurate. we are able to see what the originals were. we have the accurate, inerrant Word of God today.


ps. thus, i have no problem in saying that i believe in the inerrant Word of the originals. do you?

Rex Ray said...

There are two ‘slippery slopes’. One started in the early 1900’s by atheists saying there was no God because the Bible had errors.

The other slope was started by Fundamentalists saying God existed because the Bible had no errors.

Both slopes are wrong. God’s existence does not depend on the Bible having no errors, but upon “I Am.”

Can we meet together and start with “I Am”? If we can’t agree there, then you’re too far down the slope for any rope to reach.
Rex Ray

Rex Ray said...

In the hope that we can meet with God’s statement of “I AM” for His Existence, I would add that ‘meeting place’ would include being at the foot of the Cross.

There, the playing field is level. No hierarchy, chain of command, or picking order.
There are no names like conservative, moderate, fundamentals, or liberals.
No one has God in a box, preconceived ideas, or being so smart we tell God what He can and cannot do.

We are there to ‘know God’ so we can enjoy Him more throughout eternity.

We must agree man’s ways are not God’s ways. Therein is man’s problem. We want to reason if God is God, He would do so and so.

Volfan, if you were Jesus, what would you have done after his resurrection to teach man you were the Son of God?

I would have appeared to every person that had anything to do with putting me on the Cross.
I’d tell them, “You see these thousand magic whips dancing in the air. They can read minds, and if you doubt that I am the Son of God, they will beat you until you do."

Volfan, you and I could think of a thousand things we would have done, but He didn’t.

So now you’re demanding, “Lord, tell me you’ve given us a perfect Bible or I won’t believe.”
He may use those whips in ways we don’t realize.
Rex Ray

Tim Cook said...

I do think that the word of God is without error, in all that was intended, in the original manuscripts. However, we don't have those. What you said, Volfan, was that if the Bible has errors, we have no faith...but neither you or I have yet seen or read that hypothetical Bible without errors that we both say we believe in. The Bible we use most probably still has a few, and the Bible being used a hundred years ago had quite a few more. Yet, we still have relationship with the almighty Author of that holy book. Thus, an inerrant Bible is unnecessary...what is necessary is an inerrant GOD (which, when talking about the original manuscripts I am convinced we will never have, amounts to the same thing; if God said it, it can't have errors. but, again, we don't have that copy, and I don't believe we ever will). It is, for some reason, God's perfect will to work through imperfect people to copy and translate His Holy Word. I can't question Him on that; all I can do is depend on the Holy Spirit and my God-given brain to determine what God wants me to know about Himself and His will in my life. And, for the record, I am the first to say that the Bible is the single most essential tool that God has given us to accomplish that.

In Christ,
Tim Cook

volfan007 said...

if i cant trust the bible about creation, then how can i trust what it says about salvation?

if i cant trust what the bible says about history, then how can i trust what it says about the person and nature of Jesus?

if we have no bible in which to learn about God and how to know God and how to live for God, then we have no way of knowing God. we are no better off than the hindus and the buddhists and jews and the athiests....they all have thier own thoughts and views about God, and thats all we have if we have no inerrant bible.

if what you are saying...tim and true, then why in the world did i quit drinking and smoking weed and chasing women and why did i give up porno and other pleasures of the flesh and the world? why in the world am i trying to live for God...according to what the bible teaches....if i cant know if its really Gods Word, or not?

maybe i need to fire up the still and order the porno channels on the satellite and live for my flesh again. is that what yall are telling me?


Tim Cook said...

(Sigh) I didn't say we have NO BIBLE. Then, we would indeed be without hope. The Bible is trustworthy. What it says about the person and work of Jesus Christ is at issue only for those with the least respect for the historical accuracy of the text.

Here is what I am saying: the work of getting as close to the original manuscripts as we can is an ongoing process. Archeaology and Biblical scholarship are ever-advancing. If I understand what you are saying, I am afraid that if a particular scripture gets changed in a future translation (because of better scholarship, getting closer to those inerrant orignals), then you or others who hold a similar position will either 1) deny that the change is valid, even if it closer to the originals as far as we can tell, or 2) throw up your hands and say "The Bible I have been reading is untrustworthy because it had an error! Fire up the still!" You see, if faith is in the AUTHOR of the Holy Bible and not the text itself, then any change that is closer to the author's meaning is to be praised. If it is in the text itself, any change is viewed with suspicion. I have confidence, from scripture and other sources, that Jesus Christ was God in the Flesh, and died in my place. THAT is why I renounce sin and follow Him. If a third of the Bible were pronounced untrue tommorow (it won't be, but if it were), I would still have faith in Jesus Christ. Would You?

In Christ,
Tim Cook

PS I do enjoy our periodic discussions; they make me think, and that is always healthy. I hope they beneit you as well.

volfan007 said...


i understand about us trying to make sure that we are as close to the original text as possible. i am all for that. i believe that we have it.

now, if someone came out and said that one third of the bible was not true, and they could prove that it was not true, then honestly, i would have to say that i would doubt it all. at that point, i would have to reconsider everything about my life and my view of God. if one third of what we have now was proven to be untrue, then i would have real problems with the christian faith.


Rex Ray said...

Would you agree the laws of God were lifejackets on a sea of sin for Jews until faith in Calvary put them on dry land?

Would you be a Jew that said? “I’m not wearing this lifejacket that’s got a tear. I’d rather sink in sin.” Or the guy that said, “Moses is not holding his arms high enough, I’m not going to look; I’d rather die”

Tim made an interesting statement, “If a third of the Bible were pronounced untrue tomorrow (it won’t be, but if it were), I would still have faith in Jesus Christ. Would You?”

Volfan, your answer was: “I would have to reconsider everything about my life and my view of God. I would have real problems with the Christian faith.”

One of the works of the Holy Spirit is to convince man of sin. Did He ever convince you that you were lost? Did that ‘Lostness’ cry for relief in asking Jesus to save you? If you never had a heart experience and all you have is head knowledge, I can see why you demand a ‘perfect’ Bible.

When I was 10, I hardly knew anything about the Bible—perfect, imperfect, half way between, or otherwise. Yet, I was saved because the Holy Spirit knocked (almost physically) on my heart, and I asked Jesus to save me. That experience will never leave me regardless of what status the Bile is.

Does this Scripture have any application to you? “Did you receive the Holy Spirit by keeping the Jewish laws (by believing the Bible is perfect)…have you gone completely crazy?”

God’s word is true, but the devil’s lies and the lies and ignorance of men are untrue.
Rex Ray

volfan007 said...

we have nothing to base our experiences on if the bible is not true. your experience could have been a baloney sandwich that disagreed with you. unless, you have the bible to show you what the feelings and the experiences mean.

no one, and i mean, no one has been saved without hearing the Word of God from a child of God.

the joy of the Lord is my strength. why, because i know the Lord....according to what the bible teaches. my heart is set free by His truth. and, the Holy Spirit leads me into truth and only into truth. the truth of Gods' Word.


Rex Ray said...

You are correct in saying, “No one has been saved without hearing the Word of God.”

But incorrect when you said, “By a child of God.” Countless people have been saved by only reading the Bible.

How many souls have been saved by hearing the Word of God from lost preachers today and in the past?

I said yes to everything the preacher asked me, and I was baptized hoping it would save me but I just got wet. The Holy Spirit bothered me day and night. He said only one word—lost. I couldn’t concentrate in reading and it was a relief when the teacher scolded me for not knowing the place. I had the mumps and my face looked like a basketball. I was isolated in the attic—alone with Him. I would come downstairs crying and lie that my jaws hurt. One night my mother said, “Oh your jaws are hurting again”, but I said, “No, Mama, I want to be saved.” That night peace came in my heart. I resent you saying it could have been a baloney sandwich.

Can a person be saved without the New Testament? I believe the thief on a cross proved that, and Pentecost, and on and on. In fact, the number of Christians that started preaching the Gospel to the ratio being saved was probably the highest on record and they did it without the NT because it had yet to be written.

Just suppose, the NT had never been written. Would Christianity have died? If you were a Christian and there were no Bibles, would you realize there was a greater need to tell your children, your loved ones, your neighbors, and strangers the Gospel? Would the stories have lasted?

What two reason did Moses wear a mask? There is only one reason given in the OT. How did the other reason show up in the NT if it was not handed down from generation to generation? Paul talks about it like it’s old hat in 2 Cor. 3:13. If something that insignificant could last that many years, how much more would the Gospel last?

Yes, if the NT had never been written, the main thing would be the main thing, and we wouldn’t be arguing inerrancy would we?

I try to answer all your questions. Why is it you never or seldom ever answer mine?
Rex Ray

Rex Ray said...

Suppose your parents and you being a baby were the only survivors of a plan crash and were never found but all died of old age. Your parents were Christians and told you the Gospel but had no Bible. Do you think you could have been saved?
Rex Ray