Thursday, December 20, 2007

Southern Baptists Cooperating With Charismatics and Women Senior Pastors for the Sake of the Gospel

A few Southern Baptist bloggers took the opportunity this past week to chastise Dwight McKissic for appearing on the TBN Network alongside some brethren in Christ who are of the charismatic persuasion. It seems these bloggers fear that the SBC will somehow be tainted by the mere associating with evangelicals of different theological leanings. One blogger even went so far as to reveal that a Southern Baptist emailed him to say:

". . . I should repent of linking to TBN and have now corrupted many bloggers."

Such reaction seems extreme to me. I personally believe that if we evangelicals, whomever we may be, could ever begin to see each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, serving the same Lord - respecting our differences but loving one another for the sake of kingdom - then the world would finally see that Christ really does make a difference in peoples' lives. However, since Bart Barber, Tim Guthrie, Wes Kenney, Tim Rogers, and a handful of other Southern Baptists have registered such strong opposition to Dwight McKissic appearing with charismatics on TBN, I wonder what these men will write regarding Synergize! Pastor's Conference, January 29-31 in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Synergize! Pastors Conference has 35 speakers including a veritable who's who of Charismatic and Pentecostal leaders. Billy Jo Daugherty, Chairman of the Board at Oral Roberts and pastor of Victory Christian Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma is a keynote speaker. Other Pentecostal leaders speaking at the conference include Pastor David Mohan of New Life Assembly of God in Madris, India and Pastor John Lindell of James River Assembly of God in Ozark, Missouri.

In addition, several female Senior Pastors will be speaking at the Synergize! Pastors Conference Power Sessions including Senior Pastor Bev Mortlock of City Impact Church: Auckland, New Zealand and Senior Pastor Debbie Lindell of James River Assembly of God. The statement of faith of Pastor Debbie's church states the following about the baptism of the Holy Spirit:

The baptism of Christians in the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues (unlearned languages) as the Spirit of God gives them audible expression (Acts 2:4).

This faulty view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is one commonly held by Pentecostals and Charismatics. It has been eloguently and biblically refuted by Dwight McKissic on many occasions, including his infamous SWBTS chapel sermon. It should be obvious to any intelligent Southern Baptist that there is a difference between Dwight McKissic and our Charismatic brethren like those mentioned above. Further, there is no reason to attack Dwight for appearing on TBN.

I am not sure these SBC bloggers will retract their posts and apologize to Dwight for misrepesenting both him and his theology for simply appearing on TBN, but I will be very interested to see if they remain consistent and write similar things about . . .

Southern Baptist Pastor Ed Young

Southern Baptist Pastor James Merritt

Southern Baptist Pastor and IMB Trustee Ken Whitten

All three Southern Baptist pastors are sharing the platform with the Charismatic and Pentecostal men and women named above as the keynote speakers at the Synergize! Pastors Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. Ironically, the Synergize! conference is being held the same week, in the same city, that 20,000 Baptists will be gathering for The New Baptist Covenant Celebration. I have not one negative thing to say about either meeting. I believe good can come from both, though I will be attending neither.

I am simply calling upon our Southern Baptist blogging brethren to display a little more consistency. Preferably, they would not castigate any Southern Baptist for sharing the podium or platform with evangelicals of other denominations.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson


shadrach said...

Why do I feel like simply writing 'First'?

You mean we can work together? (sarcasm)

I wish everyone could spend just four months on a foreign mission field. I think many views on cooperation would be radically changed.

Scott said...

I can no longer eat at Chick-fil-a. No sir! Not if the founder is going to be speaking at a conference with these heretics. Chick-fil-a is dead to me now.

Thanks a lot, Wade, for ruining Chick-fil-a.

irreverend fox said...

brother Wade,

I don't think their beef with brother Dwight was over him sharing the platform with the Charismatics per se.

I could be wrong, but my impression was they were concerned of what they saw as him giving the impression he was (to a certain degree) in agreement with their strange theology.

Scott Shaffer said...

IMHO if they want to share a stage with these folks, let them.

Nevertheless, I am baffled why an SBC pastor would want to appear on stage with some of the TBN heretics. It just seems to lend credence to the the heresy.

DL said...

I wonder if the apostle Paul gave affirmation to the Athenian philosophers by publicly speaking in their arena. Some might have considered his mingling with the pagans an endorsement of their philosophies.

Anonymous said...

Have you changed your mind about the validity/importance/value of the New Baptist Covenant meeting? You were very much in favor of it when you and BSC met with Jimmy Carter earlier this year. What changed your mind?


P.S. Interesting quirk or perhaps subliminal message that my word verification was oneofwb? Hmmmm...

Scott Shaffer said...


Good question. One difference is the Athenian philosophers weren't pretending to be proclaiming the gospel of Christ.

Bob Cleveland said...


I had one sibling, a brother 2-1/2 years older than I. Dad told us, when were old enough to comprehend such things, that we were to get along with each other or we'd BOTH be punished. He said he didn't care who was "right" or "wrong", we WOULD get along with each other.

We weren't Christians, but we got along with each other.

Perhaps it is that God is going to hold us to the same standard as my Dad used. The big difference is that such accountability would probably be "payday someday", as opposed to Dad's, which was immediate and certain.

When I was grown up, I realized that the worst effect of discord between my brother and I would have been that it broke Dad's heart, not that he got angry. I think that's the case with our Heavenly Father, too.

Gary said...


To excise part of your post:

"This faulty view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is one commonly held by Pentecostals and Charismatics."

I agree that this is a "faulty view". But I have a question for you and others. I believe I know what your answer will be and I certainly know what my answer is:

"What 'faulty' views of scripture can a person or a belief branch have and still end up in Heaven?" Note that I have purposefully NOT stated the 'requirements' to enter Heaven, only requested to hear what would be disqualifiers.

[Soapbox mode on]
I expect that the answers are legion. My concern for us Baptists are, if you are excluding folks for having a Private Prayer Language or for not being baptized by a Proper Authority, it really is not a very long leap to exclude those folks from the Kingdom itself.

Yes, I know, I know. These are tags that we mortals put on these issues but because we mortals use these tags in a real-life manner, they have real-life consequences. We have told those folks I mentioned above that they are not "good enough" to be representatives for us on the missions field.

Where does it end?

[Soapbox mode off]


P.S.: Feeling rather contrary today ;->

Anonymous said...


Just to show my "consistency," I am very disappointed that Ed Young, James Merrit, and any other SB pastor would agree to enter into an agreement with those that are hyper-charismatic to the point of heresy. I am also disappointed that Jack Graham has cooperated with TD Jakes in a number of venues.

However, my disappointment with Dwight Mckissic is much different. I think he was wrong for what he did at SWBTS. But I do not have a problem with his appearing on the TBN talk show. However, I think it was very evident that the rest of the panel and the host were very demeaning to the SBC. Dwight was certainly the most theologically and historically knowledgeable of the group. But by his silence he appeared as condoning some of the more radical things that were said. [I think?] we all agree that the evident "health and wealth" gospel is damaging to the Kingdom. By Dwight silence on these issues he came across to those who are unaware of the Chapel incident as being a supporter and "one of the boys" with the panel. In sum, I have no problem with his appearance on the program, but I do have a problem with his silence as the SBC is demeaned. This only lends creedance to Dr. Patterson saying that his sermon was a movement towards the charismatic movement.

John B.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what God thinks when we are more concerned about who we sit on stage with than we are when one of our own, a shining star with a Ph.D., HAS TO SELL BLOOD TO TAKE CARE OF HER FAMILY.

All caused at the hands of man and yet, we fight and slander over others fellowship and do nothing to right this terrible wrong.

I challenge every one who reads this to tell every person they are witnessing to, or sitting in church with that a Southern Baptist woman in America is having to sell blood to take care of her family. Then tell them how great we are and how much we love Jesus.

Tell all 16 million and let them know the facts, not the propaganda. The fact that a woman is SELLING BLOOD. I wonder how many would show up at the next convention.

Probably what will happen is a bunch will get angry at me, quote a verse out of context, slander Wade for having this blog, claim to believe the Bible is inerrant and yet, do nothing to right this wrong.

Don’t write me and be self rightous. That is why she is having to SELL BLOOD.

I am embarrassed. We all should be embarrassed.

"By your fruits you will be known."

God forgive us all.

God have mercy on us all.

Darrell Treat

Darrell Treat

Bart Barber said...


If the stated purpose of the conference is to pray for the spread of these faulty doctrines into the SBC, including a heart-to-heart appeal into the camera calling for Southern Baptist pastors to take the Charismatic plunge, then the reaction of this blogger will be precisely the same.

It encourages me greatly to see that you can only critique the posts by misrepresenting what we have said, suggesting that we are opposed to being in the mere physical presence of our Charismatic brethren. I might equally suggest that you are in favor of limitless cooperation in any enterprise with Pentecostals, no matter the purpose of the union. The charge would not be accurate, but it would be no less accurate than what you have suggested in this post.

For any Southern Baptist to join with Pentecostals in praying for the Pentecostalization of the SBC is his right, just as it is my right to demur, and the right of our convention to refuse. said...

Bart Barber,

I have one simple question to ask you in your claim of misrepresentation.

Have you asked Dwight if he is praying for the 'Pentecostization' of the SBC - or are you representing him?

Finally, are you comfortable with Southern Baptists being used to promote the Synergize! Conference and being keynote speakers as am I? Or, are you fearful they too are praying for the 'Pentecostization' of the SBC? said...


Not only am I not fearful of my Christian brother who says to me that the evidence I have the Spirit of God is speaking in tongues, I'll put my arm around that brother, pray with him and cooperate with him for the work of the gospel - and pray in an intelligent tongue. It seems to me that the only people who would not accepting of that brother in Christ - and assign him reprobation - are those so weak in their essential theology of the Spirit they live in fear of themselves being corrupted - or, are so proud that they can't accept the fact that they could be wrong on an issue and be at rest in Christ even if they are, and refuse to condemn those who disagree. said...


My mind has not changed. I have said the same thing about the the Celebration from the get go. I may not agree all the theology of the participants, I may not attend, but I will not denigrate my brothers and sisters in Christ who are gathering to work toward building the kingdom of Christ. That should be our position on all evangelical groups outside the SBC in my opinion - and even more importantly, all pastors and churches IN the SBC who have chosen to cooperate with us for the purpose of missions. said...

Darrel Treat,

The thing I like about you is that you not only say what you think, you do something about it.

The Klouda family will be going to Texas to be with family because of your generosity yesterday. Thanks for doing something that would ensure they could be helped immediately.

May the Lord bless you 100 fold.

In His Grace,

Wade said...


Are you saying Charismatics and Pentecostals are pretending to share the gospel?


Chris Johnson said...


I would hope that these men would oversee the church of our Lord and Savior as the Spirit has instructed though His word. The Word is not ambiguous.

For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.
(Titus 1:7-11)

It is more important to be faithful to the Word of God, and able to exhort in sound teaching and refute those that contradict. We love each other because of our common union in Christ, not because of our desire for everyone to “just get along.” The kingdom is not built on the shifting foundation of men that are teaching any wind of doctrine. It is not a competition on who is right....but we should work hard to know the truth.


Chris Johnson said...

oops....ha, ha.
should have some fun with that one...

should read,

Scott Shaffer said...


No. I don't know what the people at this conference are proclaiming.

My point, in response to a question posed by Darby, was that the comparison between the Athenian philosophers and the heretics on TBN is weak. The TBN heretics pretend to proclaim the truth about the gospel while the Athenian philosophers didn't. Furthermore, Paul rebuked the Athenians. I don't recall anyone doing that on the recent TBN program.

irreverend fox said...

brother Wade,

I don't think their beef with brother Dwight was over him sharing the platform with the Charismatics per se.

I could be wrong, but my impression was they were concerned of what they saw as him giving the impression he was (to a certain degree) in agreement with their strange theology.

Lin said...

"Probably what will happen is a bunch will get angry at me, quote a verse out of context, slander Wade for having this blog, claim to believe the Bible is inerrant and yet, do nothing to right this wrong.

They usually say that if one is saved, God will take care of them. As if He drops money from the sky instead of working through those that are in the Body.

hopelesslyhuman said...



Is that really the word you want to use to describe Penetecostal/Charismatic beliefs?

How do you define "heresy"? said...


I like your style. Calm, measured, and to the point.

All Dwight SAID on the program was excellent. It was what OTHERS said that peopel are hammering Dwight over.

Dwight is not the thought police. Neither are James Merritt, Ed Young, and Ken Whitten.

Scott Shaffer said...


I would say that some of what is shown on TBN is heresy. For example, the health, wealth, and prosperity message is a departure from clear biblical truth. Also, whether or not you believe the so-called sign gifts continue, the way they are practiced and encouraged on TBN is a departure from clear biblical truth.

Gary said...


I believe I've shared this before, but decades ago in Southern Oklahoma, I had been on the field for one month when my Pastor came in to inform me that he was resigning that morning. Needless to say, I was shocked. "What now?" was my question to God. "why bring me here just to have the Pastor resign as soon as I get my desk arranged?" Little did I know what He was preparing to teach me. "What now, Lord?" was the question I would ask for a long time.

The Methodist preacher (just across the street as are so many Baptist/Methodist couplets in Oklahoma it seems) and I became the "Marry 'em and Bury'em" team.

I grew to respect and love Stan. He was a scholar and if he preached like he wrote, those folks across the street had a frustrated Baptist preacher in their pulpit each and every Sunday, and most certainly had a Pastor who loved and cared for them.

I had to ask myself if because he had been sprinkled rather than dunked, was he any less of a follower of Christ than me? My conclusion was "no".

Personally, I'm a dunker. I long ago came to the conclusion, sitting under the leadership and teaching of Godly pastors and professors, that dunking was the scriptural means of baptism. But I also was taught, and believe, that it is how we signify that we are believers, it is not what saves us.

I miss Stan. I miss that he taught me much about my faith, and yes even my denomination. Others may look on him as less of a Christian than one who has been immersed, but I certainly do not.

I'm also not going to hang a tag on someone else's faith as long as they can tell me "the main thing" about their salvation experience.

What a great God we have.


greg.w.h said...

I think that it is a pretty common mistake to confuse Jesus's promise that we would have life and that more abundantly as meaning understandable, visible blessings. I also think that as we mature in the faith we come to places in our lives where we have to deal with what prosperity--or lack of it--really means in our relationship with God.

Given that as Southern Baptists we CONTINUALLY emphasize our 16 million members, perhaps we aren't that much more enlightened than the TBN folks regarding how our relationship with God can be calculated in terms of measurements of visible things?

I regret that a gracious man like Dwight McKissic--particularly because he is one of our African American pastors--would be subjected to the open ridicule and correction first of a man who should instead be in submission to Dwight's authority and then by a group of pastors, professors, and other indiscriminate commenters from a Convention that has an infamous history regarding racial relations.

If for no other reason than those we were to choose to reach out to Dwight and ask HIM to embrace US "warts and all", perhaps we would be convincing and perhaps Dwight would be forgiving.

Perhaps we should consider a term limit for Seminary presidents like the one in place for the Convention itself? I'm thinking six years as the leader of a Convention entity would be a good choice. And we should also prevent Putin-like manipulation of our term limits and also consider the appearance of excluding many of our members by favoring a few in re-seating them on various boards.

And perhaps someone should nominate Dwight as president for his alma mater SWBTS? I'd be happy to do so since I also matriculated at SWBTS (though after a year God closed that door and led me to where I am today...that is...offering advice as a lay person to whichever Southern Baptists might choose to listen to my humble and lowly thoughts.)

Dwight seems a gentleman and a scholar to me. He is careful in his speech while encouraging in his thoughts and comments. If only all of our leaders and pastors were gifted with those spiritual gifts. But, alas, it seems that many believe in cessation instead. ;)

Greg Harvey

Bart Barber said...


In my posts on the subject I have clearly indicated when I was writing about Pastor Mckissic and when I was writing about others. I know nothing about the Synergize conference. I suspect that, unlike the TBN broadcast, its purpose will not be to pray for the Pentacostalization of the SBC. I encourage everyone to look at the video for themselves.

Debbie Kaufman said...

What did you guys want Dwight to do on a 2 hour program with 4 or more guests? Int erupt constantly and turn the program into a free for all? Dwight wasn't controlling the conversation, the host was. Where in the world in that that program could he have gotten in to "correct" anything? Dwight speaks as God moves him, I thought he presented himself well and in my opinion the only one who supposedly couldn't tell where he disagreed were those with their magnifying glasses out watching for something to pounce on rather than listening to what he said. I too encourage everyone to watch the video. I have from the beginning.

Rev. said...

TBN. The Blasphemy Network.

There's a big difference between cooperating with pious Charismatics and outright heretics (e.g., Paul Crouch, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, T.D. Jakes).

Jason Epps said...


Thank you for speaking out in defense of Brother Dwight in this matter. It amazes me what the political opportunists in the SBC will do to try and strengthen their exclusivist agenda. If more people had Brother Dwight's heart of acceptance and unity, maybe the there would be a place in the SBC for people like myself and others.

Merry Christmas,
Jason Epps

Scott Gordon said...

I must concur with Dr. Bart & Rev. on this one.


Was Dwight in the right to take the lead from Richard Hogue to pray for those SBC pastors to just lighten up and let go and let God take them into the things of the Spirit? Was he not at least in error to be complicit in that little 'invitation' at the end of the program?

I do not personally know Brother Dwight, but all the guys I know (Wes, Robin, Tim, etc.) have held him in high regard and esteem him as a brother in Christ.

Is it a problem to disagree with a brother? Must disagreement always be perceived as adversarial? Is that where you want this to go?

By Grace Alone.

Anonymous said...

If Ed Young wants to go on his own somewhere he can and will. What we object to is the "importation" of non-Biblical and non-Baptist beliefs such as "anti-abstinence to alcohol" and "pro-charismatic" practices and those who beleve such doctrines in our institutions as speakers/seminar "experts".
We need to remain Biblical, Baptist and not have being evangelical as our priority!

Debbie Kaufman said...

Scott: What did Dwight pray that wasn't scriptural or went against what he said on the program? And....some Southern Baptist ministers do need to loosen up...a lot...and they do need to trust the Holy Spirit to guide when they pray.

Scott Gordon said...


Which, of course, said Spirit-filledness was evidenced as Scott Camp's babblings, right?

No thanks.

By Grace Alone.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Scott: I'm confused. Is your problem with Dwight? Scott Camp who is not Dwight McKissic or who? Are you holding Dwight responsible for Scott Camp? I am not able to keep up with you.

davidinflorida said...


Todays post is a good one, It really brings out the high angled pointed noses that I`ve gotten to know and love in the SBC.

"The Blasphemy Network" ... "Heretics", really good stuff. Its just like reading the book of Acts.

I feel the love.....

Dave Miller said...

I will only appear in public to promote what I support. I have been on stage with charismatics before, but it was for the sake of the gospel, community prayer, or some other united cause.

I didn't see the show. But by appearing in public with the TBN folks, tends to validate their message and ministry. If he supports them, that is his prerogative.

I have no problem with people with a private prayer language being part of the SBC. But it is not my hope that we will open ourselves to the TBN-type thing.

I can call a charismatic or pentecostal my brother. At the risk of being cliched, some of my closest friends are charismatic. But I am not wanting my denomination to become what they are.

Rev. said...

There is such a thing as heresy and it is warned against in Scripture and defined through church history. Those who love people and love the truth are concerned about its presence. The "little gods" / non-Trinitarian / tri-Trinitarian / health and wealth / teachings do not build anyone up in Christlikeness or advance the Kingdom of God. Again, there is a big difference between cooperating with pious Charismatics and outright heretics. This is not being said because of a lack of love, but due to the presence of love.

davidinflorida said...

Yes,..... I believe that its all in the mind of the beholder. You know the one`s. The one`s that are right about all theology.

Martin Luther was a heretic, according to the Pope wasn`t he.

Tim G said...

Since you quoted a comment from me I will respond here:

I will go and preach where invited when I am not told what to preach or what i cannot. I have and do preach in many different types of churches yearly. However, the difference to the TBN thing and the Pastors Conference is that TBN was promoting the idea of the SBC becoming Charasimatic and NO disagreements where announced during the program. That is it! Nothing more and nothing less. This distinction is the one thing missing from your account of the many posts you presume to hold accountable.

Gotta get it right bro.

Merry Christmas!

jasonk said...

One quick word of clarification: Billy Joe Dougherty is not the chairman of the board of regents. He was a member of the board of regents for ORU, but is currently serving as interim president.

A few years ago, my pastor was preaching on the charismatic movement. It was completely critical. I agreed with him 100%. A few days later at a Sunday School party, a friend expressed disagreement with the tone of the pastor's rhetoric. He then pointed out that one of the churches being critized by the pastor was Victory Christian Center, pastored by the aforementioned Billy Joe Dougherty. Victory Christian Center was responsible for operating what is known as the Dream Center on the north side of Tulsa, near where you used to pastor. They provide help for needy families throughout the year. My friend asked me, "what is our church doing to help needy families?"

I also remember serving on a church staff in the 1980s. People were paranoid in the SBC, that the charismatics were going to take over. History repeats itself.

There is nothing here to fear.

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Wade,

I would agree that we can celebrate what we have in common with any believer, and I have much in common with my evangelical brothers and sisters. Yet we would be less than sincere if we did not articulate the differences in our doctrinal views as well. It would be disingenuous to lower doctrinal clarity just for the sake of holding hands and pretending we agree…. whether you are Baptist or any other denomination.

There is much to be thankful, but are you comfortable agreeing and presenting a gospel to the world that cannot be lost, then turning the microphone over to your brother in Christ and let him explain on the other hand it can be lost?

Are you comfortable telling this same group that as Christ saves His church we are commanded to follow Him in baptism, because the New Covenant is clear concerning this act of worship, and then hand the microphone over to someone that will say “no” that is not really the way that God intended and then go on to tell the crowd that if there are any babies that have not been baptized in your churches you are in sin?

I can celebrate with my brothers concerning the gospel, but am I really being honest if I am not concerned with doctrine?

The tendency with these types of events in the past has been “not to mention doctrines of disagreement”. And just the two doctrines mentioned above are serious ones. Some are willing to overlook these differences for the sake of hand holding.

God has given a different solution…

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
(Ephesians 4:14-15)

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
(2 Timothy 4:1-4)

I think you would agree that doctrine does divide. I have a feeling that some pastors just don’t like doctrine very much or at least the biblical doctrine that separates Christians from heresy or aberrant doctrines that can lead to apostasy.


Larry Thompson said...

I guess you could say, if McKissic went to TBN, Patterson drove him there. I do think caution is in order, though. Crouch believes God speaks to him even if it contradicts the Bible. Jakes is not even a Trinitarian. However, it is hard to criticize when Lifeway carries his books. You could take the SBC critics more seriously if they applied consistent standards.

Anonymous said...


I don't mean to be snotty but I do have an honest question.........Where does the Bible specifically say that God does not or cannot speak to a man if HE wants to.

Darrell Treat

davidinflorida said...

Hey Larry,

Could you tell me more about Crouch believing he hears from God, but it contradicts the Bible. I would like to read about that.

Bryan Riley said...

Shadrach, excellent comment on an excellent post. It is amazing how God can use the work of missionaries working together. We were a part of a group of people ranging from Anglican to Baptists to Pentecostals to Methodists to Lutherans to Dutch Reformed to Assemblies of God to Nondenominational to more. And the people we were ministering to needed to hear about Jesus, not baptist distinctives.

I wish everyone would hear that: The unreached do not need baptist distinctives. They need Jesus.

Anonymous said...

OK, for those who keep throwing around the words "heretic" and "heresy"

Lets talk about salvation. What can wash away my sins? NOTHING but the blood of Jesus.

whole again?? NOTHING but the blood OF Jesus

makes me white as snow? NOTHING but the blood of Jesus.

Who saves? Jesus

Who created you? Jesus

Who created all things? Jesus

Who gave you life? Jesus

Who is the Master of the Gospel? Jesus

Who is the Master of Doctrine? Jesus.


Who created the men on TBN? Jesus

Who do they preach gives salvation ? Jesus

Who gives them breath? Jesus

Since some people seem to think that they have all knowledge how can they ignore t the verse that says "take care of thoses in need"

1 John 3:17 "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?"

You who have all this puffed up knowledge, you know of a woman who is selling blood to survive.

She is a persecuted child of the King.

If you love Jesus then you MUST get involved. NO EXCUSES. IT IS THE WORD SPEAKING.

THE INERRANT WORD ALSO SAYS: MT 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'



ECC 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.





some thoughts

fear god or die

darrell treat

Dave Miller said...

I have raised this issue before, but no one has ever given it a definitive answer. I guess I will keep asking until someone answers me.

I am a baptist (small b) by doctrinal conviction. I am a Southern Baptist by choice. I was a strong supporter of the SBC conservative resurgence, but am very concerned with the recent narrowing of doctrinal parameters by IMB Bot, Dr. Patterson and others. I have followed this blog and others because of my concern.

Here's my question. Is this current "big tent" Baptist movement a repudiation of the conservative resurgence or an attempt to refine it?

Are we affirming our commitment to conservative principles (inerrancy, etc) but trying to limit the parameters of cooperation to the BF&M, or are we trying to re-involve the moderates who left over the inerrancy issue?

I stood for the conservative movement because I believe the future of the SBC as an effective denomination demanded it. I will stand against the legalistic narrowing of cooperation being promoted by a few leaders for the same reason. But I am not interested in reevaluating the conservative resurgence. I thank God for it.

I keep watching this blog and others and wondering. I am not sure yet which it is. I just hope someone will tell me.

davidinflorida said...

Hey Larry,

I just checked the website of the church T.D. Jakes pastors;; and read their belief statement. Sure looks Trinitarian to me.

Can you help me out bro?

Anonymous said...

I think some of the standards that are being used to critique Dwight are a bit high in my opinion.

First, many people might know the ends and outs of those that he appeared on TBN with, but that does not mean that Dwight necessarily does.

And if someone wants to come back and say "Well, he should have known", then I would point out that Dwight already has alot on his plate in being a pastor of a numerically large church.

Do we really want to place a standard on people that they have to know the ends and outs of everyone's theology that they ever share the platform with?

Second, there is a big difference between being on a stage live with other speakers where ideas are continually coming out verses being able to watch something, rewind it, read it [and pause to think about it], etc.

When things are live like that, someone might say something that gets you to thinking, someone might say something that you are not sure that you heard right, someone might say something that you are not sure what the meaning is, someone might say something that you are completely not paying attention to because you are having a hard time getting your mind off of a church member who is sick, and someone might say something that you completely disagree with, but are unsure whether it would be worth saying something in response to or how to respond if you want to.

Do we really think that every single thought that Patterson disagreed with Mohler on he actually responded to in Greensboro [and vice versa].

I, for one, doubt it and don't hold Patterson or Mohler to the standard they would have to do this in order to not communicate necessary agreement with the other.



Rev. said...

Is it biblical to teach that we are "little gods"? Is it biblical to teach that there is no Holy Trinity? Is it biblical to teach that there are nine members of the Godhead? Is the "health and wealth" teaching biblical? Which "Jesus" are you talking about? The one that is not distinct from the Father and the Spirit? The one that is the half-brother of Lucifer? The one pictured toting a machine gun and advocating Liberation theology?

Theology/Doctrine draws the borders on these questions, and the Bible does not permit a free-for-all.

Rev. said...

BTW, the doctrinal statement on the Potter's House website is clearly Modalism (Sabellianism/ Monarchianism): "There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

Anonymous said...


Here is my personal view.

The CR centered around the single issue of innerancy for a long time but branched out to become something comprehensive in the adopting of the BF&M 2000.

And it is that document that affirms closed communion [among other things]. Therefore, that document shuts out the large majority of Southern Baptists in the pews.

Accordingly, I am FOR innerancy as a standard in the denomination and I am AGAINST a strict subscriptionist application of the BF&M 2000 towards who can and who cannot be employed by the denomination.

And I am against the further narrowing of parameters of cooperation.



Anonymous said...


A few other thoughts.

I believe that if the CR would have stuck to the issue of inerrancy, then it would have remained a grassroots oriented movement.

However, I believe once the CR went comprehensive in the adoption of the BF&M 2000, it became elitist [even though it was a legitimate vote].

Here is a question for the strict subscriptionists:

How can the majority of SB's in the pews be justifiably shut out by a strict subscriptionist application of the BF&M 2000 when they are providing huge monetary support to the Cooperative Program?



Anonymous said...

Strict Subscriptionist Calvinists,

Have you ever realized that it is strict subscriptionism that could deliver the knock out blow to Calvinism in the SBC?

Just add an amendment to the BF&M 2000 affirming general atonement and it would be "see ya later alligators"

Anonymous said...

To ucm-i will always eat at chick-fil-a. He is another man that stands behind his principles, ie, not being open on sunday. You might not know this fact, i met his daughter and son-in-law and became good friends with them in the 1980"s while living in FtWorth. They were both Southern Baptist missionaries and were at SWBTS to receive training to go back out into the field. So his family is doing some good.

rick t

Chris Johnson said...


I had a Granny that is in heaven now. She and I were in the same church when I was very young. I was even saved and baptized in that church. By the time I reached 10 years of age, I began to realize that the doctrine of that church taught I could lose the salvation that God had given me. They didn’t just come out and say it right off the bat, but there was no doubt, …they really did believe that God would somehow take it back.

So, my family decided to find another church family that did not believe that God was going to take back His gift of salvation. These people seemed to believe that God’s word was more important than experiences. They were not perfect by any means, but they seem to be sure about what God had promised.

I remained great friends with my Granny for years and years and years before she went to heaven. I am more than confident that she knew the Lord. We never had any problems in our relationship whatsoever. I would try to explain to her the sufficiency of Christ. But, then she would go back and hear that her salvation was dependent upon the law as well as the gospel.

The point is….trying to help someone understand is different than agreeing and pretending to work with them. I would never teach or preach to a group of people and then let Granny get up and preach and teach. This was be… at the very least confusing to the audience, and Granny would be teaching the error that she had been taught back at her church, which is, that you could lose your salvation.

God tells us not to do that.

If it is narrow to believe that God is: sufficient, the only truth, able to save and persevere His adopted children, able to baptize them. That narrowing is ok. But you may want to consider the implications of narrowing can work both ways. Granny seemed to have a very narrow view of doctrine. It just happen to conflict with scripture. I didn’t love her any less, or ridicule her at all. We were best of friends.


Rex Ray said...

Dave Miller,
You seem good at wanting to know something that people are not willing to tell you.

On December 2, 10:10, you wanted to know the eight definitions of Inerrancy. You said, “I assume they are a moderate response to the Chicago statement…”

I replied that all eight definitions were made by Chicago, and the Southern Baptist picked the ‘strict’ definition.

Its obvious no one is going to tell you the other seven because they want to keep the impression the 300 smart men of Chicago only had one definition.

Do you know the twelve qualifications that go with the ‘Chicago Statement’? In my opinion, when the qualifications are added to the ‘strict’ definition, it gets close to some of the others.

Today, you ask, “Is this current ‘big tent’ Baptist movement a repudiation [denial] of the conservative resurgence or an attempt to refine it?”

Benji did a good job on the history of the conservative resurgence and what it has become, but it didn’t quite answer your question did it? Especially the one you asked, “…are we trying to re-involve the moderates who left over the inerrancy issue?”

In the first place, moderates did not leave; they were KICKED OUT (except their money). “All the barnacles have been removed…” Don’t you comprehend that statement by a president of the SBC?

The C/R removed some bad professors, but it removed a lot more good people like Dilday who saw through the smokescreen of making the Bible a political football so the elite could have power and control. That power and control has caused the mess that Baptists are in today.

Anonymous said...

I don't have access to TBN broadcast where we live so I don't mean to endorse or take shots at the content of their programming. But I wonder if folks know about the great work they are doing in other countries? I needed to produce a video for proclaiming the Gospel in the language of our people group. I have "zero" knowledge about doing such a thing, but TBN ministries in our country enlisted the national actors, filmed the entire video and made a fantastic video that is being used to reach our people. The spirit of all the TBN representatives was only a desire to contribute to sharing the Gospel among our lost people group. They did it all without my having to use any of my budget to pay them for their work. I only had to pay for expenses renting independent studios, etc. I didn't know much about TBN before this, but if I ever have the opportunity to watch their programming in the US my impression will be colored by the ministry they have done for us and our people group. The entire experience made me want to seek ways to encourage others in those things we have in common rather than seek differences that can drive wedges between us.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

Since you have called me by name I feel I should respond. First, when did you contact me before you posted this article. Did I not contact you and even worked out the wording of your response that was ok'd by you before I posted it. You then called and took me to task concerning a wording that you had already approved, and I changed that wording with an update. Even though I disagreed with you, I still posted the update. However, you present a post and use my name but you do not give me the same respect. But, do not worry, I can still cooperate with you in the SBC within the context of the BF&M2k.

Second, you said; have registered such strong opposition to Dwight McKissic appearing with charismatics on TBN If you will review that post you will find that the opposition was not registered toward Brother Dwight for his appearance, but for his lack of clarity in distinguishing himself different from the host's position. The entire program was presented as "Tongues within the SBC According to Brother Dwight and others it is not the classical Pentecostal Position that is being disagreed upon in the SBC. Now, according to your position, you believe it is the classic Pentecostal Position of tongues. In your response to Brother Gary you say; "Not only am I not fearful of my Christian brother who says to me that the evidence I have the Spirit of God is speaking in tongues, I'll put my arm around that brother, pray with him and cooperate with him for the work of the gospel If planting churches is not the work of the Gospel, I do not know what is. However, you try to paint those who disagree as ones that will not have anything to do with anyone that is of a charismatic bend in their theology. Brother, you need to really re-check your statement. For your information, not that I need to tell you this but only to reveal your absolute ignorance concerning your allegations, I have a biological sister that prays in tongues. Every time you make a statement about my lack of willingness to work with charismatic is a slap in my face. Why? Because I work with a charismatic in my family. Do you want to talk about the number of times my sister and I have gone out and witnessed to people? Do you want to speak about the times we held Bible Studies together? Do you want to speak about the times we have kept others from within our own families from dividing us because we did not have the same theology in pneumatology?

Third, before you begin speaking about the strong opposition I have against Brother Dwight, you may need to reveal something to your readers. Before I posted the "Baptist Dissent" post, I emailed a final version to Brother Dwight. He critiqued it and got back with me on it. We spoke about the differences in the post and I changed some of the wording to better present his point of view. The last thing that I wanted was to come across as being in strong opposition to Brother Dwight.

Fourth, as to the conferences that are taking place in Atlanta at the end of January. The New Baptist Covenant Celebration is something that was originally promoted by you and Brother's Marty Duren, Ben Cole, and C.B. Scott. I have not kept up with all of you guys every day, so I may have missed it, but only one has recanted his promotion of this conference. So, did I miss you recanting your promotion that SB should involve themselves in this conference? Because you certainly came out in favor of SB involving themselves in this politically charged, Democrat version, Get-out-the-vote campaign.

As to the Synergize conference. No SB on that conference will hear me present any disagreement to them being there. Now, if there is a altar call and the speaker on the platform begins swinging their coat and blowing on people, saying they are being filled with the Spirit, you can rest assured of something. If our SB Brethren involved in that conference do not make statements distancing themselves from such practice, SBC Today will lead the way calling on them to do so. The same thing we did with Brother Dwight. Calling on him to distance himself from the theology of TBN and their host.


greg.w.h said...

Dave Miller asked:

Here's my question. Is this current "big tent" Baptist movement a repudiation of the conservative resurgence or an attempt to refine it?

Big picture from Wade's blog: he affirms the Baptist Faith & Message as an essential consensus document of current doctrinal views of the Convention. He has promoted the view that it is sufficient for administering doctrinally-oriented policies.

He has further suggested that if there is need for additional administration of doctrinal issues that those issues should be brought before the Convention through amendments to the BF&M.

There is a range of opinions expressed beyond Wade's here, but I think it is fair for those of us who have followed his blog to clearly articulate--in his absence--what he has stood for in response to Dave Miller's question.

Greg Harvey

Anonymous said...

Rev. -
The label of Bishop Jakes as a modalist is misrepresentative of what he and his church believes. Just as later patristic writers characterized Paul as a modalist, you are misrepresenting Bishop Jakes’ theological stance on the trinity with this brief quote you have taken from The Potter’s House Church’s website.

Modalism/Monarchianism/Patripassianism/Sabellianism believes “it was the Father who became incarnate, was born of a virgin, and who suffered and died on the cross” (SWBTS Provost, Craig Blaising, wrote this in Elwell’s 2nd Edition of his Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, s.v. “Monarchianism”). The paragraph following the one you quoted from The Potter’s House Church’s website says, “Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died on the cross…”

If a modalist believes the Father was born of a virgin and died on the cross, but Jakes believes the Son was born of a virgin and died on the cross, then Jakes can therefore not be a modalist.

Anonymous said...

Tim, It is clear that you can cooperate with a charismatic person in support of the gospel. I suppose my question is why do you favor prohibiting IMB missionaries from doing what you do with your sister? If it is right for you to cooperate with her to reach people for Christ, why is it not right for IMB missionaries to cooperate with missionaries from other charismatic groups to do the same thing? There is a strange fear of all things charismatic in the SBC. If we are right and confident in our interpretations on these matters, why should we fear that the SBC will become charismatic? I just don't get it.

Based on discussions with several people on this blog and others, I do understand part of the issue on Private Prayer Language. There is no definitive exclusion of this practice in scripture, and no one was able to refute that the most straightforward interpretation is that Paul endorsed it. So, we are excluding well qualified missionaries based on marginal interpretation of the Word while people who could have been reached by them aren't being reached by anyone. This seems more of a problem to me than the possibility of a charismatic SBC. As a layman, it is my estimate that the vast majority of laymen in the SBC will not tolerate tongues in worship in violation of scriptural restrictions on this practice. We were members of a church in which the lay leaders, with the agreement of the pastor, offered the option to a group who spoke in tongues in worship of either desisting or leaving. I think that is exactly what would happen in virtually every SBC church.

Lin said...

"Is it biblical to teach that we are "little gods"? "

Many of our SBC professors and leaders do this very thing everytime they teach extra biblical on authority, priesthood of believer and that woman are not made in the direct image of God and must have an earthly authority. Everytime they teach that mere human men are meant to RULE other mere humans in Christendom. They are putting themseleves in place of Christ for others. Little gods.

It is really quite simple: Servanthood not rulership.

Lin said...

Someone brought up a great point: Lifeway.

Shouldn't you guys focus on cleaning up Lifeway and all the Charismatic stuff they sell before you go after Pastor Dwight for being on TBN?

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Stephen,

First, this discussion is not about fear of the SBC becoming Charismatic. This post is one presented to place me and others who called for Brother Dwight to distinguish his beliefs from those on the panel. While he certainly said that he did not believe that speaking in tongues is for all believers, he certainly did not distinguish a difference in his pneumatology and that of the host and other panelists.

Your statement of confusion; "There is a strange fear of all things charismatic in the SBC." I believe is an overstatement. There is nowhere in the history of the SBC where PPL has been something that has been active. There is the accounts that Brother Dwight called attention to before the turn of the century and even back in the 1700's. However, those were not accounts of PPL they were accounts of a flawed pneumatology, that through the years, has worked itself out.

As to what my sister and I do, we are not doing it under the auspices of the SBC. Neither are we doing it in hopes of planting churches. If my sister were to apply for appointment with the IMB she knows that I would be on the front lines speaking against her appointment. Of course she would not apply for service because she knows that she does not represent SB. Thus, she would not apply for seminary because it is a cheap way to get an education, neither would she apply to the IMB because we would pay her salary and she would not have to worry about funds while being on the mission field. Something no other Mission Sending agency does.


Anonymous said...

“Anonymous” wrote.:

”What we object to is the "importation" of non-Biblical and non-Baptist beliefs such as "anti-abstinence to alcohol" and "pro-charismatic" practices and those who beleve such doctrines in our institutions as speakers/seminar "experts". We need to remain Biblical, Baptist and not have being evangelical as our priority!”

1) “Anti-Abistence to alcohol” is unbiblical, based upon Jesus first miracle, the Last Supper, and the liefestyle of Jesus and the Apostles.

2) “We need to remain Biblical, Baptist and not have being evangelical as our priority!” is unbiblical based upon The Great Commission and Jesus’ entire ministry while on this earth.

3) Who are “we” and why must “we” remain anonymous?

I am praying for you to become a Christian.



Anonymous said...


Do your sister's charismatic practices extend beyond praying in tongues (ie: does she believe that salvation must be evidenced by the gift of speaking in tongues)?

If not, why should she be excluded from IMB service or an SBC seminary given the biblical instruction not to forbid speaking in tongues?

These are honest questions from one who has not spoken or prayed in tongues -- but who has learned not to put God in a box.



Anonymous said...

Now i see some of the problem here. some don't seem to know who is the right Jesus.

Let me spell it ouT C.R.O.S.S.

I only believe in one Jesus. All others are mistaken.

I am not confused.

I have never lost a debate to a person who holds to liberation theology,

however, here is a quetion to ponder.

In a foxhole, in a war, when I am being shot at and I am shooting at the enemy , if we both pray, (me to the real Jesus and him to whatever he believes )if i hit him and he misses me, he dies, was my Saviour directing my bullet and the bullet of the enemy. to protect me?

Also, I believe in the Trinity, some don't.


The inerrant word says in Math 12:36 " But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken"


He also said " My sheep know my voice" and he also said "I have other sheep that you do not know of"

This should be plenty of warning for those who pridefully think their every opinion of interpretation and application is right.

I know who Jesus is.


Since we have to give account for every word and the Bible says slander is the work of satan and that Jesus has sheep we don't know and that we will reap what we sow, maybe we should all ask God to help us keep our prideful slanderous opinions to ourselves and teach us to not say ONE WORD WE WOULD NOT WANT TO REPEAT AT THE JUDGEMENT SEAT.

Never speak a word you don't want to have to give account for.

darrell treat

Kevin Bussey said...

Philippians 1:15-18

It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Jack,

I responded to Brother Stephen because he sincerely seemed to ask a question that was one of a seeker. Your question, on the other hand, is not one of a seeker as you have posted your position and it appears that you are not willing to change. Thus, your question seems to be one for another time and post.

This post, and my response, is centered on Brother Wade's apparent desire to stir up more discontent among those who read his blog. I responded only to correct Brother Wade's false accusation of my intent when posting my article at SBC Today.

Of course I also took the time to reveal how a dichotomous position as Brother Wade takes is easily revealed. He insists that he has contacted people before he writes about them. I can assure you that he never contacted me and some may say that he doesn't owe me the courtesy. That is alright with me. However, he certainly placed Brother Ken Whitten in a very precarious position with his questions. I do not believe he has contacted him, and he is a fellow Trustee.

So, to keep in line with the comment stream, I will not respond to your question.

Tim said...

Tim Rogers,

The only people who put Ken Whitten in a precarious position are people like you.

I wish my friend Ken well, and hope he enjoys the conference. I have no questions, but obviously, you must.

Call Ken.

There's no need for me to call him since I only wish him well and compliment his decision to speak at the conference.


Anonymous said...

I can handle the Charis crew, but I refuse to associate with women pastors, its simply not in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Wade, why does it seem that SBC leadership -- i.e. Trustee Boards, State Convention Executive Directors, Seminary Profs, etc. -- don't seem to be representative of the SBC at large? They tend to speak on behalf, and be representative, of Southern Baptists, yet the voice they give is not necessarily in line with the Southern Baptists for whom they speak. At least according to Lifeway research that came out a few months ago.

DL said...


Agreed. However, they did speculate on what "wisdom" was, and people believed what they said - so in that way, they are similar to anyone speaking something other than the pure Gospel.

Anonymous said...


I was -- and am -- sincerely curious about your position. I did not mean to offend you.

Please accept my apologies and best wishes this holiday season.



GeneMBridges said...

If a modalist believes the Father was born of a virgin and died on the cross, but Jakes believes the Son was born of a virgin and died on the cross, then Jakes can therefore not be a modalist.

Uh, no.

Sabellianism is classic modalism. Modalism can come in many forms. Sabellianism and Monarchianism overlap but they aren't identical. Likewise, Oneness Pentecostalism, is a form of simultaneous modalism in which all three manifestations are present at the same time, so, yes, he can, in fact, affirm that the Son was born of a virgin and died on the cross.

In fact, in Sabellianism proper, the modalism was articulated such that God revealed Himself as "Father" prior to the Incarnation, then all events during the Incarnation were ascribed to God as "Son" and to the Spirit in the Apostolic period. So, even on a Sabellian model" this is not out of bounds.

The key term here is "manifestation." That's modalist language. There is, of course, much more that can be said with respect to Jakes' modalism. My friend Jonathan Moorhead has done so here:

Indeed, his blog includes a very full discussion of Jakes and several others. Be sure to read the article on Jakes and his handling of John 14:11. Also read carefully what Lawrence Robinson had to say.

I am more concerned about Graham comporting with Jakes than McKissic on TBN. That said, I am still not at all pleased that so many SBC churches feel the need to broadcast on TBN and TCT networks (in my area, they share bandwidth) either nationally or locally. On the one hand, I understand why: locally, these channels are, for some of us, the only game in town. That's sad. What this does, indirectly, is lend an air of tacit approval, legitimacy, to the other programming there. I don't think that's intended, but, unfortunately, as in politics, reality sometimes does not matter - only the perception of it. I think this is one of those instances.

On the other hand, I have to say that RC Sproul, Kay Arthur, and others have, IMO, taken the high road here and set the example by going with DTV (I think it's DTV) via satellite.

What this testifies to, more broadly, is the failure of more mainstream groups like Southern Baptists with respect to religious broadcasting. If we didn't see Presbyterians, for example, as "questionable Great Commission Christians" we might be able to do more in the teaching arena in religious broadcasting, but no, we're too afraid of being tainted by Paedobaptism and, for some, Calvinism is an issue too. So, we're left with our leaders broadcasting on these channels, which then leads to them cooperating in other venues...but who, then, is really to blame? This strikes me as a self-fulfilling sort of prophecy.

On the one hand, we'll castigate Dr. Merritt, to take just one example, for participating in an event like this, or let's say Dr. Young, but then one of the main reasons they do it is because of the relationship they already share in broadcasting. Yet, we refuse to cooperate with others who, on a scale of types and kinds of errors, I dare say most of us would think is less than that of the TBN crowd. This only feeds itself in the end, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Tim, Thanks for your response. Your point with regard to Dr. McKissic not distancing himself from the positions of the other panelists is taken. This would have been preferable, and Dr. McKissic may think so as well. However, human beings do not always say the things they intended to say live in front of cameras.

Anonymous said...

OK, can we get 1000 people to send $50 each to Mrs Klouda? Why not, I know a little country church of less than 50 people that is in the process of sending their second $500 check to her. Just a bunch of poor farmers who actually do practice the Bible principles.

If we keep discussing, arguing and slandering each other with five dollar words and to much seminary talk while she sells blood, what kind of people/christians are we?

It is His gold and silver and it is Southern Baptist who should be talking about her and helping her instead of waxing elequent on so many things.

Please, please, there must be 1000reading this blog that want to be called sheep and not goats on judgement day.

Isn't the verse of "hungry and you fed me, sick and you........" and the one that says "well done good and faithful servant" the only conversation at the throne/judgement seat?

I have a dear Jewish friend who was wounded in 4 different wars in the armies of Israel. His mother is still in the Gaza Strip and we get regular reports from there.

God called him to be a preacher of the Gospel to the churches of America.

The last time I saw him, he was very discouraged. He said that he had not found many christians in the churches of America.

I wounder why

I find myself ashamed at what has happened to her.

Darrell Treat

Rev. said...

Jeremy Roberts:
The label of T.D. Jakes as a modalist is, in fact, neither a misrepresentation of his beliefs nor of the Potter's House. Jakes is a "Oneness" Pentecostal (e.g., anti-Trinitarian, hence "Oneness"). He is a leader of the "Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies," a network of Oneness congregations. In addition to this, no orthodox Patristic writers ever concluded that the Apostle Paul was a modalist.

1) Not the same topic to which I referred.
2) Which SBC professors or leaders have taught that women are not made in the direct image of God? You seem to be stretching things because of your dislike for their teaching on women submitting to men in the church and the home (i.e., the 2000 BFM).

Lin said...

1) Not the same topic to which I referred.
2) Which SBC professors or leaders have taught that women are not made in the direct image of God? You seem to be stretching things because of your dislike for their teaching on women submitting to men in the church and the home (i.e., the 2000 BFM).

23 December, 2007 16:12

1. I beg to differ

You wrote above about TBN:

Is it biblical to teach that we are "little gods"?

The same teaching has infested the SBC only it is Patriarchy. "little earthly Christs'

One would think the veil was torn in two on the cross for men only and that Jesus left earthly priests in place just for women.

2. I do not like when some add to scripture and ignore obvious scriptural contradictions to their view. I am referencing some SBC professors who taught at the Different by Design conference.

Result: We have our own problem with little gods.

Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that the new conservative resurgence, standing on the inerrancy of the Bible, ignores a direct command of scripture: do not forbid speaking in tongues. Many excuses, perhaps valid, can be given: it was a temporary phenomenon, etc. But one is not allowed identical excuses about women in the pastorate, for example. I doubt we any longer believe nor trust the Bible. BFM 2000 is now our Scripture.Plus the opinions of various boards.

Anonymous said...

I don't mind the childish babbling, but NO WOMEN SR. PASTORS. It is wrong! It is unbiblical. It preverts the Gospel

WatchingHISstory said...


You wrote: "The statement of faith of Pastor Debbie's church states the following about the baptism of the Holy Spirit:

The baptism of Christians in the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues (unlearned languages) as the Spirit of God gives them audible expression (Acts 2:4)."

"This faulty view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is one commonly held by Pentecostals and Charismatics."

From a former Pentecostal who now attends a SBC, I can say that when a Pentecostal refers to the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4,17 Matt 3:11) generally he differentiates from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (I Cor 12:13)

There are Pentecostals who still call it the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit', unfortunately, meaning power for service.

The Holy Spirit baptizes into the body of Christ- regeneration. The promise of the Father is Christ pouring out the Holy Spirit upon the believer for service. One baptism (regeneration) many fillings (for service)

For me I am a bold, Spirit-filled, evangelistic Calvinist (5pt)

Charles Page
Collierville, Tennessee

Anonymous said...

Wade, The lady pastors are speaking to pastor's wives, not at the main part of the conference.

zbvhs said...

I've always viewed charismatics as radicals off in left field somewhere. The supreme irony is that in the olod Arminian SBC, "Charismatics" and "Liberals" and "Fundamentalists" were welcome to join in the work of promoting Christ's message in this world. Today the SBC is apparently marred by doctrinalism and exclusionism. Crying shame.

WatchingHISstory said...


How is the old Arminian SBC different from the 'new' Arminian SBC?


zbvhs said...

The "new" SBC is no longer Arminian; it is moving strongly toward Calvinism. Case in point: R. Albert Mohler, who is president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, is a full five-point Calvinist. They are bringing up young preachers in the Calvinist tradition.

WatchingHISstory said...


Praise the Lord!

The SBC started off Reformed and by 1925 it abandonded orthodoxy and has continued in variations of Arminianism since.

But your news is good news!


WatchingHISstory said...

zvbhs said: "The supreme irony is that in the olod Arminian SBC, "Charismatics" and "Liberals" and "Fundamentalists" were welcome to join in the work of promoting Christ's message in this world."

I am 61 and was raised a Pentecostal in middle Tennessee. (I am now SBC - Calvinist) Baptist treated us awful in my part of the Bible belt.

The SBC was marred by doctrinalism and exclusionism back then. Crying shame.


Rex Ray said...

You say, “I can handle the Charis crew, but I refuse to associate with women pastors, it’s simply not in the Bible.”

You say, “I don’t mind the childish babbling, but NO WOMEN SR. PASTORS. It is wrong! It is unbiblical. It perverts the Gospel.”

Jesus told Mary to tell his disciples, but if you’d been one, you’d said, “I’m not listening to you…you’re a woman!”

If you think I’m wrong, read your words and listen to yourself. You’d be Jonah when his shade died.

Are you going to sulk if God assigns you to associate with a thousand women pastors in heaven? What if all their praises to God is what you call “childish babbling”? What if the only multitudes of people you can see are the results of their “perverted Gospel”?

If you reply, you’ll say, ‘That’ll never happen’ because you are one of those who enjoy telling God what he can’t do.

zbvhs said...

I don't understand the antipathy toward women in the SBC. I know the scripture references but don't understand them either. I can understand Paul's reluctance to place women in places of leadership. That was the culture of the day. But why would God be antipathetic toward women? If it was because of Eve's original sin in the Garden of Eden, that was covered by Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross and should no longer be an issue. So, why doesn't God like women?

Anonymous said...

to zbhvs - the shame is we can't come to a Biblical conclusion about women pastors unless we come out of our study with the BFM position. A more Baptist way would be Bible study and discussion about various passages seeking truth. The discussion would include whether Paul's statements were culturally motivated or intended as eternal truths. To me, the BFM2000 has become a straightjacket for professors seeking Biblical truth. The convention attitude is, why search? It's all right there. Ex cathedra!

zbvhs said...

I came out of a church polity tradition (Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas Baptists) in which the clergy-laity division was not recognized. Pastors and deacons were called to serve the people who were the local church. Pastors were overseers and were viewed as having no special place in the church. Pastors were traditionally male but there was no reason why a woman couldn't have just as easily have served. One thing that is bothersome about the current state of affairs in the SBC is that the doctrinarian approach to the scriptures may be stifling the voice of the Holy Spirit. Seems to me Southern Baptists should be more concerned about that than how women serve in the local church.