At this point, I have to wonder at what is going on within the leadership of the IMB’s BOT. I have a friend who has theorized that the “Caucus Group” at the BOT has broken away from the “Power Network” and are acting on their own.
Why would anyone think this? Well, whatever the “Powers that Be” are, they are not bad at politics. Well, they aren’t as bad as some of the decisions that were made this week by BOT leadership. Even this last year’s decisions have been increasingly mind boggling.
The move to throw Wade Burleson off of the Board, then the ever changing characterization of the motives behind that move, then the unanimous vote to rescind that move, the rationale papers for the two missionary qualifications – not to mention the qualifications themselves, the open denial of any move to govern dissent within the BOT and the move a month later to silence dissent from the BOT, all wrapped by making Wade a martyr in front of his wife this week, with bloggers present, and a month before Greensboro…
All of these things tell me that this group is probably not taking its marching orders from “higher ups.”
Mark the difference in how the pros do it. Kind and gracious words, with a “hand of God – visionary endorsement” passes the nomination of Johnny Hunt to Ronnie Floyd, who humbly accepts. The blogosphere applies the same scrutiny to Ronnie as it applied to the IMB and to Johnny. Ronnie does not publicly run anyone down, but simply weathers the storm. Three Seminary Presidents then endorse Ronnie in various ways.
People loyal to Ronnie begin to enter the fray at the battle lines – in the Younger Leader movement and in the blogosphere. Some are loyal friends of Ronnie. Others are in for different reasons.
Here, the issue of Ronnie Floyd as President begins to bleed into the overall issue of control over the convention. Anonymous bloggers begin to ask leading questions that may illicit answers that could be used to discredit certain bloggers. Here are a few from my blog:
Anonymous said…
Where in Scripture do you gain your doctrine of the priesthood of every believer?
[Anonymous Pseudonym] said…
I have a question about #4 of the ‘declaration.’ What do you mean by ‘articles of faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy?’ What ‘articles of faith’ are not essential?
Anonymous said…
Is inerrancy essential or non essential?
I turned off the comment section on the Memphis Declaration because I was getting these baiting questions. I have received anonymous emails asking for the comments to be turned back on. These emails originate in places that cause me to suspect their motives. Since I can’t prove who I think was behind them, I won’t post them, and the server information that goes with them, at this time. But I have saved them.
Some of these questions are not anonymous. Brad Reynolds is a professor at Southeastern Seminary and has been asking/challenging Wade Burleson quite a bit on his blog.
Also, many know this, but I think the power structure has not yet caught on. We have stat checkers on our blogs that tell us the name of the server of the computers that log on. We can see who is reading but not commenting. You should see my list of institutions and churches who have been reading and re-reading certain things.
There is more, but I will stop there.
Some may ask, “Why has nothing come out, if people are gleaning information to attempt to discredit you?” Because information leaked now will be old news by the time Greensboro rolls around. A month in the blogosphere is plenty of time to answer any charges. That’s true even if you count the lag time in getting our quotes picked up by news agencies and state Baptist papers – those that would print our quotes. Besides that, our numbers are off the charts when it comes to hits we are getting from Baptists all over the world. We are on the verge of breaking down the wall that separates the established Baptist news agencies and ourselves. I know for a fact that my website gets more hits per day than the page loads of some news agencies and some state papers.
When would such accusations come? The week before convention is when public statements might be made. The grapevine is hard at work now. In the grapevine, Frank Page has been linked to Russell Dilday for saying that his firing was political and wrong. Frank is being called a “liberal,” behind closed doors.
Yes, this article is a notice that we know who is reading. It is also a notice that some might need to check their own backyard.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Dorcas
on May 25th, 2006
@ 7:00 pm:
Yeah, the whole statcounter thing can be quite an eye-opener. Sometimes I’ll get so many hits from one place I am tempted to post a blog something like this:
Dear Intern at [fill in the blank institution] in charge of watching my blog for anything incriminating by checking it every 3 to 5 mintues:
I don’t plan to post anything earth shattering within the next 10 minutes, feel free to take a restroom break. If your boss gets mad at you for unchaining your ankle from the desk, I promise I’ll vouch for you.
:)
Wes Kenney
on May 25th, 2006
@ 8:04 pm:
I have been similarly tempted. I had a conversation in Albuquerque with someone who was amazed by the statcounter technology, and had not been aware of the information it provides.
GeneMBridges
on May 25th, 2006
@ 8:49 pm:
Over at Strange Baptist Fire and at Centuri0n’s blog, he and I both posted big old welcome messages for the folks coming to our blogs from FBCS. I even wrote a post on hyper-Calvinism just to give to Ronnie Floyd, since he failed to identify the “hyper” view about which he said he was so concerned.
Bryan Riley
on May 25th, 2006
@ 8:52 pm:
I started the process of reading blogs and writing on my own this past weekend. I discovered statcounter two days ago. It is pretty amazing. Setting that aside, I am going to repeat a prayer here that I have posted on some of the other sites highlighting all these debates.
Father, may we all be one, as Christ and You are one, and may we all be one in You, that the world may believe that Christ was sent of You…Christ in us and the Father in Christ, that we may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that the Father sent Christ, and loved us all as the Father loved Christ.
Oh Father, thank you that we have been called to liberty, but I pray you protect us all from using liberty as an opportunity for the flesh; instead, show us the grace that we might be empowered through love to serve one another. Because, Lord, you taught us that all the law is fulfilled in one word: Love. That we shall love our neighbor as ourselves. And you warn us that if we bite and devour one another we should beware because such conduct will result in us consuming one another. Lord, please help us.
And Father, forgive us for making this a denominational thing. It isn’t. It is about You, not any one denomination or set of beliefs. May all who believe and confess that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Jesus from the dead unite and be as one just as Jesus prayed for us. And may we refuse to proclaim ourselves and simply proclaim You, humbly, in prayer and thanksgiving. May we repent of our sins of pride and lust and selfishness and turn to You. Heal us and heal our land, Lord. Amen.
Are we focused more on religion or relationships? Are we focused more on conduct or character? Are we focused more on external things or the eternal?
CB Scott
on May 25th, 2006
@ 9:10 pm:
Bryan,
I am most positive you are a godly man. I am sure you are much more devoted than me. I struggle every day with my sorry self. I am my biggest problem.
With that reality stated I want to say to you, I have read your prayer three times on three different blogs. Keep in mind that I, in no way think myself more holy than you, but I would like to direct you to the Words of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew 6:5-8.
cb
anonymous...definitely not Paul Littleton
on May 25th, 2006
@ 9:24 pm:
Brother Art,
Where in the Scripture do you find support for using a stat counter? Don’t you know that David was commanded not to count the people?
[shakes his head with disdain]
GeneMBridges
on May 25th, 2006
@ 9:27 pm:
Anonymous said…
Where in Scripture do you gain your doctrine of the priesthood of every believer?
The same place the historic Baptist Confessions locate it. Read the LCBF1 and 2 then get back to us. The difference over this doctrine between the Enlightenment and Reformation tradition groups in the SBC is a difference over the ground of that doctrine and its application. One takes it in the direction of community and grounds it in Scripture itself (the Reformation tradition) and the other takes it and grounds it in soul competency and indvidualism (the Enlightenment tradition). Art is in the Reformation tradition, so you can look there for further information on where Art gets his doctrine.
[Anonymous Psuedonym] said…
I have a question about #4 of the ‘declaration.’ What do you mean by ‘articles of faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy?’ What ‘articles of faith’ are not essential?
Anonymous said…
Is inerrancy essential or non essential?
These are good questions, and I’ll be happy to answer them for Anonymous and for Anonymous Pseudonym. First of all, it depends on how you define “essential.” First, we have to agree on what is essential. That would include the gospel itself, which assumes inspiration, and monotheism. It also assumes some form of trinitarianism. Since there are folks we recognize as regenerate who do are not inerrantists, it is not essential for a saving profession of faith. It is, however, essential for a credible profession of faith for purposes of interchurch relations, but not for baptism itself.
In Reformed theology and Baptist ecclesiology, we draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith. For purposes of church membership, cooperation with other denominational entities, etc., since we cannot know of a certainty who is or isn’t saved, we only require a credible profession of faith. A saving profession of faith lies solely between an individual and God.
For example, a Catholic that affirms the current dogmas of Rome cannot offer a credible profession of faith to a consistent Protestant. But whether a Catholic can offer a saving profession of faith is a different question. The answer varies on a case-by-case basis. It is easier to say who isn’t saved than to say who is.
To be a Christian is to be, among other things, a Christian believer. One must believe certain things, and not believe certain other, contrary things. On the one hand, some dogmas are damnable dogmas. On the other hand, the Bible lays out certain saving articles of faith. This is God’s criterion, not ours. We did not invent it. By the same token, how God applies that criterion in any individual case is up to God, not to us. We are not the judge, God is the Judge. To take a concrete example, Scripture teaches Sola Fide (faith alone) (Romans; Galatians). An individual is saved by faith in Christ and saved by the sole and sufficient merit of Christ.
However, in Catholic dogma, one is saved by the merit of Christ plus the merit of the saints plus one’s own congruent merit. And this results in a divided faith. That is why a Catholic cannot give a consistent Protestant a credible profession of faith. In fairness, Protestants are more prone to give a Catholic church member a pass on the credible profession of faith than they do a Catholic bishop or the Pope or some of their lay apologists, because they very clearly have bought into the full range of Catholic dogmas.
Any of the following creeds/confessions could supply the basis for a credible profession of faith:
1. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Christian Religion
2. The Formula of Concord
3. The Baptist Faith & Message (any version)(http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp)
4. The C&MA statement of faith
(http://www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/doctrine.jsp)
5. The JFJ statement of faith (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/statementoffaith)
6. The EFCA statement of faith (http://www.efca.org/about/doctrine/)
7. The Campus Crusade statement of faith (http://www.ccci.org/statement_of_faith.html)
8. The AG statement of faith (http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm)
These are all broadly evangelical affirmations of faith. Notice, not all are Reformed. Some are Lutheran; some are Arminian. By contrast, Trent or Vatican II does not supply the basis for a credible profession of faith. Still, it is possible for a Catholic to be saved, unlike a Muslim or Mormon or other suchlike.
Regarding Arminianism and Calvinists talking about what the others teach:
Let’s contextualize this. The 5 Points of Calvinism stand in direct contradiction to the Five Points of the Remonstrants. Calvinists are saying nothing about Arminians that Arminians have not readily admitted. The Five Points of Calvinism are simply the written response to the Five Points of Arminianism, so Calvinists knew full well what the Arminians were teaching from the beginning. We know what they believe, because the codified version of what we believe soteriologically was written in response to their codification.
Likewise, Dort also recognized that Arminianism is simply Roman Catholicism without the sacramentalism. Both are committed to libertarian free will, a premise that Arminians frequently admit comes from outside of Scripture. Both repudiate any form of eternal security. Catholicism calls having assurance of your salvation the sin of presumption in the Council of Trent. (Ironic, considering the Pope got a free pass to heaven, but I digress…. Classic Arminianism waffles on the total depravity issue. Wesley taught it as stridently as any Calvinist, and the Remonstrants were inconsistent with it in the Opinions. Rome repudiates it completely. Election is conditional. What passes for predestination is just election based on foreseen faith and merit. The scope of the atonement is general, and, in current Roman soteriology Muslims may be able to enter heaven apart from faith in Christ. Grace can be resisted. On these essentials, Rome and the Remonstrants are as one, with the exception of the inclusion of infidels.
On the means by which they are dispensed, however, they differ. Arminians tend to shy away from sacramentalism. Catholics do not. Catholics affirm baptismal regeneration/efficacy. Arminians, with a few exceptions, do not. Arminians repudiate the sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics do not. Arminians’ faith is undivided in practice, though not in principle, because, in principle, one would have to admit he chose Christ because he was more spiritual, intellectual, or better equipped than his unregenerate friend, exactly the argument made by Graves. With regard to Christ’s merit through His active and passive obedience and the atonement, that alone is the merit for our salvation. The Arminian’s faith is undivided. A Catholic faith that buys the full run of Rome’s dogma’s is divided between three types of merit, including his/her own. Moreover, in Arminianism saving faith is underwritten by prevenient grace. Although the ultimate decision is made by the libertarian choice of the person, s/he would be unable to make that choice apart from this non-effectual, but prevenient grace.
The gospel, however, is not actually about such things as the origin of faith. It does not include eternal security for example. To say it does is a level confusion.To assert one must believe in the security of the believer in order to (a) possess the true gospel and / or (b) give a credible profession of faith in order to underwrite baptism confounds the means of salvation, the object of saving faith, and the method of salvation itself The means of salvation is the gospel alone and the grace of God alone. The object is Christ alone. The method is faith alone. The object of that faith is not a particular scheme of doctrines. Faith in a range of doctrines does not save. Saving faith is more than mental assent; it involves a clinging or a trust, what the Reformers called “fiducia,” but it’s object is not the five points of Calvinism, the Remonstrance and the Opinions or the Baptist Faith and Message. The object is Christ. Baptism pictures the union of Christ and the conversion of the sinner, not identification with the Baptist Faith and Message. How many young children are baptized in Southern Baptist churches without having any idea of the security of the believer? Will the Southern Baptist Convention seriously argue that the Assemblies of God or the Free Will Baptist churches preach a false gospel? One need only believe a rescuer will pull him from the water to be saved; he need not believe he won’t be tossed off the boat if he misbehaves later. The fact of his flawed faith in his security does not necessarily translate into his lack of saving faith when converted.
What about the Trinity? I say that is a fundmental doctrine for determining if a person is saved, but that a person need not understand it in order to be converted. If that was so, then we’ve moved into the arena of dogmatic faith, a Roman Catholic idea. God saves, not doctrine. If a person professes Christ and rejects the Trinity, not by ignorance, but by willfulness, I say that’s a sign he may be unregenerate, and he needs to be disciplined and instructed.
On the other hand, how far do you want to go? Trintarianism has a direct affect on soteriology. In classic Arminianism, you have election based on foreseen faith, general atonement, and regeneration is placed after faith. However, a doctrine of universal prevenient grace that is part of the atonement itself underwrites saving faith in some way. This is “Bi-Nitarian.” Is this, therefore orthodox? In Calvinism, the Father elects, the Son redeems, and by monergistic regeneration, the Holy Spirit is active in converting each individual. This is actively Trinitarian from beginning to end. In the 4 Point Arminianism of the majority of the SBC, however, election is viewed based on foreseen faith, the atonement is general, and the Spirit’s work is put after regeneration and there is no coherent doctrine of universal prevenient grace. In fact, most say that the ability to believe is still in the believer and is thus a matter of common grace (Elmer Towns says this very thing on his website), which is not from the cross but by design. Thus, unlike the classical Arminian who puts the work of the Father outside the chain of grace, this view makes the Father and Spirit passively wait on man to believe in order to act. Election and regeneration and calling are all outside a chain of grace; only the cross is in view. This is functional Unitarianism.
Now, how does this relate to inerrancy? I happen to be an inerrantist, but then I’m also a Calvinist. First of all, for those who affirm libertarian free will and inerrancy, you are borrowing from Calvinism to do this and from irresistible grace, for, if God is making men “robots” by monergistic regeneration (which you say is wrong and thus false), then God must also be making men “robots” in inspiring an inerrant autograph of Scripture. However, you accept this, but you disaffirm the other! Let’s be clear here, my confessional theology has the metaphysical equipment to support inerrancy, but yours does not. Do not, therefore, come crying that you think inerrancy is essential for orthodoxy, when you don’t have the metaphysical and theological framework if you are a synergist. Likewise, do not tell us inerrancy is a requiste for orthodoxy when the majority of the Southern Baptists these days are functional Unitarians when it comes to the conceptual framework from which they do evangelism and missions. I happen to think inerrancy is essential for orthodoxy in terms of interchurch relations because we know when folks can’t agree on the formal principle of the faith, they will differ over the material principles if not now then later, but I also affirm you can only really do this when you have the metaphysical and theological equipment to support it in your confession of faith. You can either write an intentionally vague confession in an effort to be inclusive (which the BFM is) or you can write a specific, consistent confession. Since you do not very likely have that level of a consistent framework in your confessional documents, you have no basis on which to demand that it be considered an essential without demonstrating how that is consistent with the rest of what you affirm–in other words, before you go making demand over what is and is not essential, you’d better make sure your confession is consistent and has the tools to support all the articles in it. That’s one reason many of us prefer the older confessions.
Kevin Bussey
on May 25th, 2006
@ 9:46 pm:
Art,
Have you had any hits from Northworst Seminary?
Kevin Bussey
on May 25th, 2006
@ 9:48 pm:
Seriously,
Someone was just on my stat counter checking out my stat count!
Rob Westbrook
on May 25th, 2006
@ 9:49 pm:
I started a blog in 2004, calling it SBC Talk (pimp). I posted a couple of times, and then it faded from my mind. I have decided recently to reopen it. I checked my stats and it’s amazing over the past 18 months where the visits have originated. I posted a little notice last week that I was reviving the blog, and I’ve had 20 something hits from some very, very interesting places. Someone is combing the web pretty thoroughly right now.
Rob Westbrook
Anonymous
on May 25th, 2006
@ 10:48 pm:
Gene,
Why don’t you use Scripture rather than a baptized Presbyterian confession to answer these questions?
A Southern Baptist from Texas
Anonymous
on May 25th, 2006
@ 11:18 pm:
Hey Anonymous,
If you read some Scripture you would see that the Presbyterian Confession reflect it pretty well.
Semper Reformada!
art rogers
on May 25th, 2006
@ 11:39 pm:
Bryan Riley,
I followed your name to your blog and saw that you were in Fayetteville, Arkansas. So I googled your name and city and found this page that said you were with Tyson Foods. Is that you?
I searched some more and found that the Bryan Riley at Tyson is their attorney.
Because if it is, then I have to ask if you attend Ronnie Floyd’s church? I know that the owners of Tyson attend there and many employees attend there.
This is no accusation, just a question, because if you do attend there, your prayer, here and at Marty and Dorcas’ blogs, comes off pretty pious and maybe disengenuous. If not, then I apologize in advance.
art rogers
on May 25th, 2006
@ 11:41 pm:
“this page” & “their attorney”
in the above comments are links to the pages where I found that to which I refer.
JUSTAMOE
on May 25th, 2006
@ 11:51 pm:
All this statcounter technology!–a guy has a hard time remaining anonymous anymore!!
Since Art already knows who I really am, I’ll post my question here: is there anything that prevents those who maintain blogsites (eg., Art, Marty, etc.) from posting for the others of us to see a list of those to whom you have referred in this thread? I want to be surprised, too!
Seriously–can you post that information, or why not if not? Doing so might be a way to open further the dialog as ones posting here initiate conversations with the readers not otherwise commenting.
art rogers
on May 26th, 2006
@ 12:13 am:
justamoe,
Let me think about it. Ben Cole has already posted what he has had on his blog.
Art
JUSTAMOE
on May 26th, 2006
@ 12:16 am:
Thanks, Art. Doing OK this week?
Dorcas
on May 26th, 2006
@ 3:25 am:
Dang it … Chad Edginton, Brian Riley, me … all these attorneys infiltrating SBC blogs. What is the world coming to these days?
Hey Art – I got a laugh about your response to JUSTAMOE … Ben Cole is doing it, I’ll think about it. Ha! Be careful. There are some backyard spies watching. ;)
Seriously, since you’ve already alerted them to the fact that we can check the stats, I don’t know that it would be a problem to give the information. However, I personally would suggest leaving off the international hits as you don’t want to endanger any possible missionaries in foreign places.
Bryan Riley
on May 26th, 2006
@ 7:20 am:
I am an attorney for Tyson Foods. To my knowledge none of the owners of Tyson Foods (the Tyson family) go to FBC Springdale (except the many shareholders who thus are owners in a sense do).
I am not a member of FBC Springdale and do not attend that church. Even if I were I am unsure why that would make encouraging words of Scripture appear to be stated piously. I think it very prejudicial to stereotype an entire church membership in that way. Although, I took from CB Scott’s public posting that apparently he took my words in a pious fashion, so you were clearly not alone. Your approach of asking about them is much more appreciated and appropriate. I appreciate the honesty and apologize for potentially creating an offense.
The prayers came from the heart and Spirit. When I began reading these blogs this past weekend it broke my heart, not because I’m some super spiritual person or because I’m young and naive, but because what I saw was, from my perspective, having the same effect on the lost as what is noted so well at Kevin Bussey’s http://studentguru.blogspot.com, when he posted the picture of an angry looking woman picketing the Da Vinci Code. It struck me that many were arguing over very insignificant things in a way that didn’t reflect the law of love and liberty that we should be proclaiming.
I apologize if people saw references to scripture as pious. I am ever in a state of falling short of the standard of love, and I have been through a very difficult church situation (I would be happy to discuss privately), but all i can say is that I am a follower of Christ, saved by His blood and through God’s grace, and I did not intend offense. I intended encouragement in Christ’s love.
I understand that blogs create situations where we can’t see body language or hear tone and all we have are words; moreover, we often don’t know the individuals who are writing. Consequently, there is a lot of room for misinterpretation. It seems to me the wisest way to handle those types of questions would be to use direct, private email to the individuals as I did with CB Scott (rather than responding to him publicly here for his remarks).
Words…
Watch how you wield them;
Tools of great power
To heal and to harm.
May my heart be
To use my words for good;
Evermore prudently,
Communicating as You would.
CB Scott
on May 26th, 2006
@ 8:44 am:
Bryan,
I stand by my statement. Prayer is communication with God. It is very sacred and serious. The content of a prayer such as yours is very right when beseeching the Lord’s help and directives. Where it is prayed is another matter completely.
Sometimes people pray in front of others to send indirect admonitions or corrections toward a person or persons they think are in need of stated admonition or correction.
My opinion is that praying in such a manner is wrong. If I want to give a person an admonition or correction I just talk to that person as I did to you.
I pray for the correction of myself and others often, especially about correction in my own life, but I do not stand on the street corner, in the hearing of others, to do it.
Seeking the help of God and using prayer as a means to indirectly correct another are two different things. I take prayer very seriously and I know you do too. I was not going to respond to your prayer with another prayer asking you be directed to Matthew 6:5-8. I simply directed you to it as a Brother to another Brother.
I really believe the words of Matthew 6:5-8 are proper in this case for us all to heed, not just you. I directed it toward you because you posted the same prayer on three different blogs.
You made it public and I admonished you in public. That is the way it works in Blog Town.
cb
Bryan Riley
on May 26th, 2006
@ 8:52 am:
Good Post, CB. The next time I refer to scriptural words of encouragement on a blog I will do so directly and not in the form of a prayer. I personally feel like we are talking form over substance, but I appreciate and understand your opinion on this and will respect it.
Rod
on May 26th, 2006
@ 12:32 pm:
You’re creepin’ me out with this stat counter technology. I thought I only had to worry about “Big Brother” watching me. Now you’re telling me “Little Blog Brother” is watching me too?
…I am soooo behind in techno-knowledge!
I bet you even know my weight…better hit the gym to keep you confused.
art rogers
on May 26th, 2006
@ 1:46 pm:
It’s not that detailed, Rod. Besides, I wouldn’t want anyone to have to work out if they don’t want to…
Anonymous
on May 26th, 2006
@ 2:05 pm:
Anonymous said,
“If you read some Scripture you would see that the Presbyterian Confession reflect it pretty well.
Semper Reformada!”
…the Presbyterian Confession reflects it…
Semper Reformanda!
If you believe your statement is true, why are you concerned for what are internal Southern Baptist discussions?