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

A Case Study in How Fundamentalists Can Kill a Convention (Part 2)

During the aftermath of Peter Lumpkin's ridiculous post about Southeastern Theological Seminary and Peter's baseless accusation of a problem with rampant "drunkenness" on the campus of SEBTS, Dr. Danny Akin, the President of SEBTS, signed in to "comment" (comment #113) on Peter's baseless post. Dr. Akin was gracious but firm in his denial of Peter's charges. Peter Lumpkins responded to Dr. Akin by writing:

"Dr. Akin did not really address the main point of the two posts I’ve written."

I find that statement ironic since Peter invited me to debate him on the subject, but subsequently deleted every single one of my comments. Peter did not have the ability to delete Dr. Akin's comment, so he simply dismissed Dr. Akin as someone who "did not really address the main point of the two posts I've written." So,I will dialogue for a moment on Peter's assumptions in a place where he cannot delete what I write.

Question: What is the "main point" of Peter Lumpkins' posts? Here it is in Peter's own words:

Main Point:  "When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen?"

Peter is perturbed that some faculty members and administrators at SEBTS have either taught moderation of alcohol from the Bible and/or have invited speakers to the seminary who hold to personal "moderation." Peter believes they are not only wrong, but they pose a danger to the SBC. To Peter and Southern Baptists of his ilk, total abstinence is a first-tier, gospel-centered, foundational moral issue. You either agree with his position of total abstinence, which is the ONLY "official" Southern Baptist position, or you are "immoral." If one dares teach "moderation" as the biblical position, as some professors at SEBTS do, then one can expect the sin of drunkenness to be rampant on the campus among the students.

Wade's response  to Peter's main point - Hogwash.

Let me be clear. What is hogwash is not Peter's personal conviction for total abstinence. I respect that and affirm him in it. What is hogwash is Peter's demand that every Southern Baptist conform to his interpretation of Scripture and accuse those who don't, as in the case of some at Southeastern, as immoral Christians or at best on the verge of rampant immorality. That kind of condemning spirit is legalism; or it could be called Fundamentalism with a capital "F."

Dr. Gresham Mechan, the great conservative Biblical scholar was once asked if he considered himself a "Fundamentalist" or liked being called a "Fundamentalist." Listen to his response:

"I regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a "Fundamentalist?" Most certainly I do. (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, p. 337).

John Piper gives seven reasons why Machen never spoke of himself as a Fundamentalist. To Dr. Machen, Fundamentalism meant. . .

(1). The absence of historical perspective;
(2). The lack of appreciation of scholarship;
(3). The substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions;
(4). The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine;
(5). The pietistic, perfectionist tendencies (i.e., hang-ups with smoking, drinking alchohol, etc . . );
(6). One-sided otherworldliness (i.e., a lack of effort to transform the culture), and,
(7). A penchant for futuristic chiliasm (or: premillennialism).

The SBC should avoid Fundamentalism. It will kill us. We should never take third-tier issues of fellowship and place them in the first-tier category. I have written before on the freedom Christians should give one another on the issue of alcohol consumption. The Biblical command is to "abstain from drunkenness." Whether someone in the Southern Baptist Convention drinks wine, or beer, or alcohol--unless it is a violation of the law (such as "underage drinking" or "drunkenness")--should be none of our business.

The "main point" of Peter Lumpkins should be vociferously resisted by all Southern Baptists, vocally and in writing, because if the spirit of Peter Lumpkins is allowed to become the predominant and prevalent spirit of the SBC, our great Convention will die a slow death as it is strangled by Fundamentalism. Remember, the issue is NOT whether or not someone should be free to follow a personal conviction to abstain from alcohol, but the issue is whether or not one's personal conviction should be forced onto the entire Convention. Fundamentalism says it should.

God says it shouldn't (Col. 2:16; I Cor. 10:31; I Timothy 5:23 ).

In His Grace,

Wade

227 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 227 of 227
Anonymous said...

Rev. 21
7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass.


Rev. 22
14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

Anonymous said...

Free dog souls with conversion.

Jack Maddox said...

L's

You story has caused my dog to feel so much better. He now has a sense of peace and joy previously unknown.

Lydia said...

"Lydia, no way are we Catholics aren't as exclusive as you guys are. We are sinners and pray together for the Lord's Mercy on the whole Church 'cause we KNOW we need Him. "

Here you go again, twisting Words. I was speaking of the exclusivity of Christ as being the only Way. The Narrow gate. I was NOT speaking of us But Christ and WHO HE IS.

It is not Jesus + Mormonism just mix and stir....a lot.

Jesus Christ has an exclusive on eternal life. It is Him and Him alone. You cannot get there by mixing Him with abherrant teachings that negate the very truth of WHO HE IS.

Jack Maddox said...

L's

What if my dog is a mormon?

Lydia said...

"Yes. We Catholics absolutely believe that 'love' has something to do with heaven. It takes a bunch of forgiven sinners to know something about that. :)"

It is never loving to lie about WHO Jesus Christ IS. To add to WHO HE is or to take away is a lie.
Truth is Love.

Galatians 4:16

Christiane said...

Hi JACK,

ALL DOGS go to heaven.
It's a well-known basic dog-ma.

Don't worry. All will be well. :)

Christiane said...

Evensong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFU3LojPuM4&feature=related

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlyvLzIcTBc

Anonymous said...

Why is it that when I read all of these comments, criticisms and demands that the following verses come to mind?
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?"
Matt. 7:3-4
HM

shadowspring said...

I don't know, but absolutely nothing in Paula or Jack's posts make their religion the least bit attractive.

I was watching a movie about Bloody Mary, Queen Elizabeth and the martyrdom of Protestants and I marveled at how things change.

I sense peace and good will in Christiane's posts, and it is the Protestants who seem filled with animosity, pride and a desire to see those they disagree with suffer, perhaps for all eternity.

Maybe that's more a facet of fundamentalism in any religion: having a set of doctrinal positions that one elevates above the actual words of Christ.

Bloody Mary and her cohorts belong to that group, and later Protestant John Calvin had a man burned at the stake too. It's certainly tied to a specific, this drive to murder people who disagree with you.

It does very much seem to be tied to religion in most cases, though. I cannot imagine Jesus in any way supporting animosity toward others. Jesus died at the hands of people burning with that same religious zeal, fully convinced that their religion was the one true faith.

Fully convinced.

Scripture to back up their every decision and practice.

Yet Jesus said that these people were unaware of what they were doing, and asked God to have mercy on them and forgive them. The flip side of that being that they were certainly guilty before God of crimes that needed to be punished or pardoned.

Ugly, ugly, ugly. To this outside, Christiane's Catholicism looks a lot more like Jesus than Paula and Jack's fundamentalism.

Not that you care, Paula and Jack. I am sure you would consign me to hell for all eternity as quickly as Bloody Mary dispatched those she considered heretics.

shadowspring said...

Correction:

"It's certainly NOT tied to a specific DENOMINATION, this drive to murder people who disagree with you."

Paula said...

shadowspring,

When you say things like this: "Not that you care, Paula and Jack. I am sure you would consign me to hell for all eternity as quickly as Bloody Mary dispatched those she considered heretics", do you think THAT's "attractive"? Is this what real Christian love looks like? How are you any different from us when it comes to hate speech?

For the last time: practice this "Christian love" you preach, or stop preaching it. It's a double standard and you should be ashamed of yourself.

You have only twisted our words and burnt a straw man. Does the GOSPEL not matter any more? Is it evil, cold, and hateful to insist that people must believe in Jesus PLUS NOTHING to be saved? Is it unloving to believe scripture when it says you can't share Jesus with other gods? Are you now ashamed of the cross?

And are you blind to the hate you and others spit at us for staying true to the gospel? Where is your outrage over the things you, bill, and even Wade have said? By what right do you all get a pass for openly declaring your hatred of anyone who isn't just like you? Yes, that's what YOU do, though bill will be along shortly to deny it.

I want nothing to do with your religion of hate and hypocrisy. Call me lost or evil if it makes you feel superior, but God will judge between us.

You and bill can gloat over my resolve to never set foot here again. Have a nice party and dance on my grave. No wonder people are leaving the SBC, with "love" like that toward other believers. I shudder to think how you treat the lost--- if you can even tell who they are.

Wade Burleson said...

Paula,

You write: "By what right do you all get a pass for openly declaring your hatred of anyone who isn't just like you?"

?

I think there is opposition by some toward those who would be happy to force their views on others. I can categorically state I've not seen anyone "declaring their hatred" to anyone else in this comment stream.

Jack Maddox said...

Wade

No hate - I agree! But enough Straw Men to keep the crows away for a very long time!

Preach well tomorrow friend! May the Spirit of the Lord speak and lives be changed!

Jack

Lydia said...

"I think there is opposition by some toward those who would be happy to force their views on others. I can categorically state I've not seen anyone "declaring their hatred" to anyone else in this comment stream."

Wade, I have to wonder why it is considered hate speech by some here to defend the truth as in Jesus + nothing?

Christiane suggests that the exclusivity of Christ leads to us murder people. Do you agree with her?

Personally, I thought her suggestion was pretty hateful. Even if couched in her usual cryptic way of plausible deniability if we ask for names. Those who believe in the basics are hateful.

Actually, I call it deceptive. Why not name names of those she thinks will encourage others to murder people. It is so much easier to be cryptic because one does not have to have courage.

Can you say, Hyperbole?

Yet, that is perfectly acceptable here and cheered on by many. I do not get it. And I do see a double standard. If one insults cryptically, it is ok.

I could probably understand your position if most here did not profess Christ. But they do and yet, it is considered hate speech to proclaim HIS exclusivity as in Jesus + nothing. That exclusivity leads me to understand that one day our children, if true believers, will face horrible persecution. Most likely by those who hate the exclusivity of Christ.

But they won't have to face persecution if they come from the position that Mormons and many other abherrant doctrines are Christians, too. We are well on our way to 're Imagining" Jesus into what we want Him to be instead of WHO HE proclaimed He is .

Christiane said...

LYDIA,

You write: "Christiane suggests that the exclusivity of Christ leads to us murder people."


Lydia, I don't know who 'us' is but anyone involved in the murder of people is involved with evil. There is not nor ever was anything in the Gospel message that was not an ANSWER to evil,
certainly belief in the Lord Christ could never lead someone into sin.
It's not going to happen.

Who is "US", Lydia?
I don't understand you.

Here is the sort of thing I think may have 'influenced' unstable people to kill others:

"“wanted” posters targeting several abortion providers were distributed by anti-abortion extremists … just before those abortion providers were assassinated.

Posters created to describe the late doctors David Gunn, George Patterson and John Britton are terrifyingly specific, offering information such as physical appearance, addresses, license plate numbers and even children’s names and ages. All three doctors were murdered in the months after the posters were distributed. A similar “wanted” poster was created for Dr. George Tiller, who of course was gunned down by an anti-abortion extremist in 2009."

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/21/anti-abortion-extremists-distribute-wanted-posters-for-abortion-providers/


Last time I read the Gospels, I didn't see anything about Christ advocating murders. People that take advantage of the mentally and emotionally unstable people to kill, Lydia, THOSE people are not Christians. They are evil people who know exactly what they are doing.
They target the abortionists and they use sick people as pawns to do it for them.

If that is 'Christianity', I never heard of such a thing. I'm Catholic, and no fan of abortion, but my Church does NOT seek the murder of people, and I honestly don't think that the SBC Churches do that either. I think it is the extremist-fundamentalists who have no conscience about killing, or encouraging sick people to do their bidding.

I don't think it is possible for people who rely on Christ for salvation to harm disturbed individuals by inciting them to violence. It's not possible.

It is a great sin to take advantage of the mentally and emotionally-challenged in that way. I think you know that.

You surprise me sometimes, Lydia.
They even targeted the doctor's children on those 'wanted' posters.
I have never been able to see you as connected in sympathy with anyone who could do such a thing as that.
?

Lydia said...

"What scares me lately is that there is a certain strain of fundamentalism that apparently, perhaps inadvertantly, encourages some unstable people to hurt others.

And now, that people have been killed, the 'encouragement' is growing bolder.

I know that there must be accountability when a 'knowing' group of fundamentalists purposefully stir up unstable individuals. The unstable people are just as much victimized as those they hurt under the influence of certain 'fundamentalist' preachings.

I am very concerned about this."

Oh good, Christiane. You were not posting the above because anyone here reminded you of this, I guess? You just happened to think of it and posted it for no reason?

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what fundy's you ARE talking about who encourage this sort of thing and why this thread reminded you of them. Why not be direct, for once.

Thy Peace said...

Emmanuel - Enid > Series on "Seven 'I Wills' Of Christ" > I Will Give You Rest (Matthew 11:28)

Christiane said...

Lydia, 'the strain of fundamentalism' ?

If you don't know what that 'strain' is by now, I can't help you.
There's a program scheduled Monday night about the murder of Dr. Tiller, and the 'examples' you are interested in finding out about, some will be mentioned then. Time: 9 P.M. MSNBC

My understanding is that the an element of that 'strain' of fundamentalism that is going to be outed has already raised a fuss,
without even seeing the documentary.

should be interesting . . .

Lydia said...

"If you don't know what that 'strain' is by now, I can't help you. "

No...YOU brought it up on this thread so obviously you have people in mind. WHO? Who is the "strain" you are speaking of and what do such people have to do with anyone commenting on this thread?

Christiane said...

I shared something originally.
You obviously are upset with that.

But YOU made 'an assumption' about what I shared.

I responded to that 'assumption'.
You obviously are upset with that.

round and round

yawn . . .

Lydia said...

"But YOU made 'an assumption' about what I shared."

What else can one do when you are always cryptic? People ALWAYS make assumptions when communication is purposely vague. I think you WANT people to make assumptions. I think that is the whole point!

Then you can have plausible deniability if it turns out not to make you look so sweet, after all, when you want folks to think that "some" on this board are encouraging others to murder people.

It is pointing fingers without actually pointing them. It is quite clever and deceptive. I prefer clear and direct communication that is honest even if people think it is mean. Vague accusations have no place among believers. They are seeds of poison.

You won't answer my quesstions, or anyone elses that ask you to be specific. I am still trying to figure out what your comment has to do with this thread and WHO the fundy's are here who are encouraging others to murder. Guess I will never find out who you were accusing here of such things.

Christiane said...

It's YOUR assumption.
Lydia

Own it.

People don't 'cause you' to do stuff like that. You choose to do it.
But when someone 'responds' to YOUR ASSUMPTION, you don't like that.

Sometimes you are not making much sense to me lately.

I hope you get a chance to watch that program tomorrow night at 9 P.M. on MSNBC.

I would love to know your opinion about what is presented there.

BTW, I just left a note over on SBCVoices. I hope you have a chance to read it.

Lydia said...

"It's YOUR assumption.
Lydia

Own it."

It was YOUR comment you made here. Own your words. Why do you refuse to explain WHO you were referring to on this thread? Here it is again:

Christiane wrote:

"What scares me lately is that there is a certain strain of fundamentalism that apparently, perhaps inadvertantly, encourages some unstable people to hurt others.

And now, that people have been killed, the 'encouragement' is growing bolder.

I know that there must be accountability when a 'knowing' group of fundamentalists purposefully stir up unstable individuals. The unstable people are just as much victimized as those they hurt under the influence of certain 'fundamentalist' preachings.

I am very concerned about this."

WHO are these people you refer to above on this thread?

Christiane said...

"WHO are these people you refer to above on this thread? "

'people I refer to above
ON THIS THREAD' ?

Where did you get THAT idea from ?
You cooked that whopper up yourself, Lydia, I don't mention I'm talking about anyone on THIS thread.

What DO you know? Are you AWARE of any secret crazies ON THIS THREAD who whip up 'wanted' posters with physicians and their families targeted for murder?
I don't think so.

And you do know, Lydia, that those poster-makers aren't 'conservative Christians', don't you? Don't you?
Christians don't engage in that kind of behavior.
Lord in heaven, I hope you know that.

Anonymous said...

The real problem here is that Bro. Burleson cannot discern the difference between "personal conviction" and "settled doctrinal facts."

The truth is narrow.

The Convention doesn't have to survive, but the truth must never be compromised.

The only thing worth reserving within the Southern Baptist Convention is the Fundamentalists.

Bro. Burleson it appears that your demand is that nothing is settled truth, and that everything is a matter of personal conviction and interpretation. That dear sir, is Hogwash.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 227 of 227   Newer› Newest»