I am going to answer this response by you and then I am done discussing this issue with you. I encourage you, again, to take it up on your own blog if you think it is fruitful.

You said that you thought the Roundtable was getting a taste of its own medicine because WE were part of a group excluding Christians by changing to doctrine rather than missions the glue that bound baptists.

First of all, you have NOT provided evidence that Wade, Art, Ben or Dwight was a part of anything. To be sure, we certainly never led such a group. Rather, in everything we have done, spoken and published, we have expressed a desire to work across minor issues of diversity. That’s why I said there was no evidence and that the comment was libelous. That hasn’t changed.

Secondly, if that is what you meant to say, you were very unclear about it. Now you’ve said it and now we are done discussing it.

For anyone else interested, Rex’s blog is truthofacts.blogspot.com.

I was not charged for not providing evidence. You said I had NO evidence and concluded I was libelous and had discredited myself.

Now that I have provided “evidence”, will you take back the words “libelous” and “discredited”?

2. You state, “We get it. You think we deserve to get kicked out because we didn’t stand up for you, once upon a time…I was in grade school when it all went down in ’79.”

No, you don’t get it. I want the roundtable to have success in standing for God called people to be missionaries. “Tasting your own medicine” is not a wish for the roundtable to get “kicked out”, but it’s a wish for it to be a wake-up to the still present exclusion that started in 2000 when missionaries were fired.
You have said, “Cooperation between Baptists of different convictions is my passion.”
How do we have “cooperation” when throughout history the religious have excluded their own in one way or another? Why would we expect it to be different today?
Rex Ray

You said, “Saying it another way, you are giving Tim grief for something you would do, too, just on different issues.”

This is not true. Tim would exclude violators of the BFM and would expect us to do the same. This is not about major doctrinal issues that we have in common. This is about the minor points on which we differ. I don’t think we should exclude on minor points. At least on this one, we are assured that Tim would.

The other way of looking at it is that Tim might think that this is not minor, but a major issue. This is also a problem, because that would indicate that specific interpretations of Scripture had been elevated to the level of Inerrancy.

Hmmm…the Council was to decide how Gentiles were saved. The Council rejected Peter’s warning, (“Why are you going to correct God by burdening the Gentiles…” Acts 15:10) and said, “For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and—ours to put no greater burden on you that these necessary things.” (Acts 15:28)
The Council decided God didn’t know how to save Gentiles as Peter reported unless that obeyed some “necessary things.”

With that said, what did Paul say that was consistent with their findings?
In fact, Paul spent the rest of his life fighting “necessary things” as shown by, “You are certainly free to eat food offered to idols…it is not against God’s laws to eat such meat.” (1 Cor. 10:23) He wrote almost 100 verses saying, man was saved by believing, trusting, or having faith in Jesus. He preached faith plus nothing, and not faith plus works as was the ‘findings’ of the Council.
I believe their findings were the roots of Catholics, while Paul’s writings of the teachings of Christ were the roots of Baptists.
Rex Ray

However, I THINK that Tim Roger’s position makes a whole lot of sense.
If I read others’ comments correctly, they actually do, too. Sounds like if something is specified in the BF&M, many of you would also exclude others from SBC leadership who disagree with that.

So it really isn’t that “good” fellow Baptists would ever be excluded from leadership, it is that alcohol is not on many peoples’ lists as an excludable issue. But other issues are.

Saying it another way, you are giving Tim grief for something you would do, too, just on different issues.

For example, in OK recently, a very large SBC church proposed allowing adults to join its church who had never been baptized by immersion. That maybe someday after joining, they would want to be immersed. Or not. That was withdrawn for now.
I personally would not vote for such a leader to have a position in larger SBC life.
Although in other ways I could and do cooperate with and study what evangelical Presbyterians have to say.

Micah, add to your list of historical figures that would be unable to serve Jesus.

I don’t understand comments about voting one’s conscience (a conformity with one’s own sense of right and wrong). I pray we would all vote as God directs us to vote. That’s not a personal conscience, which may just be idolizing oneself; rather, that is submission to God. And, please don’t chide me for playing semantics here. Words are important and when someone says “my conscience” or talks about others’ conscience, i worry that we are submitting to ourselves and not to God.

We need to stop worrying about what is important to us individually and start praying that God will release us to live for Him, living a life of love, submitting to one another in love, and living the truth that we belong to one another.

Two things:

1. I don’t have to provide evidence that you didn’t provide evidence. That’s a logical fallacy. I can’t provide evidence that there is an absence of evidence. I can only point to it, which I did.

2. We get it. You think we deserve to get kicked out because we didn’t stand up for you, once upon a time. Isn’t this where you quote Niemoller and say “they came for the Jews,” etc. Fine. I was in grade school when it all went down in ’79, but I’ll take it.

What else? It’s a done deal and you can lament it all you want, blame others all you want. If you expect a crowd of conservatives to turn on their heels and beg for the CBF to rejoin the SBC, then you are either delusional or high. It’s not going to happen and if you think we deserve the division we now have, then that’s fine, too.

But enough. You are off the topic of this post and I am tired of being pulled off topic to defend the Resurgence. That’s your issue and you can blog about it on your blog. Feel free to comment ON TOPIC here.

You said, “Your last statement is libelous and one for which you have NO evidence.”
Hmmm—what evidence did you present that proved my statement was libelous with No evidence?

My last statement said, “The roundtable is getting a taste of its own medicine since they were part of the group that exclude Christians by changing the glue that held Baptist together from ‘missions’ to ‘doctrine.’ The love of doctrine had priority over loving their brother.”

The only evidence is history which I thought everyone knew. The new convention of Texas (SBCT) was formed to contrast the old convention and is a mirror image of the SBC. Their executive director of the SBCT stated “Theological agreement will be the first foundation of the new Convention. Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent. To the foes of the SBCT, we say, we’re not in competition with you, but we’ve been called to contrast you.” (Baptist Standard 11-18-98)
Keith Parks (IMB president for 12 years) wrote (Baptist Standard February 11, 2002) “IMB President Jerry Rankin has precipitated an agonizing choice for many missionaries: Give up their historic Baptist conviction that ‘we have no creed but the Bible’ or give up their calling. It has never been clearer that the fundamentalist leaders have changed the very nature of the SBC. Their highest priority is not missions. It is doctrinal conformity.”

I believe forcing over 100 good missionaries from their call by God because they would not sign doctrine (BFM) pretty well proves the ‘inner circle’ loved doctrine more than their brother. That changed the glue that held Baptists together from missions to doctrine. Is that enough evidence?

Oh yes, is the roundtable getting a taste of its own medicine? Again, history shows the SBC is run by inerrantists. Inerrantists did all the above. Now the roundtable ‘inner circle inerrantists’ have a PPL problem with the larger ‘inner circle inerrantists’, and that’s getting a taste of what they’ve been dishing out.

Last night I watched “Prison Outbreak”. All prisoners were in one large room. The ‘turfs’ were divided into black, white, and Spanish. The Spanish outnumbered the others 7 to 1. The Spanish (SBC) beat up the whites (roundtable) while the blacks (moderates) watched. I hope that is not an omen.
Why don’t we drop the petty doctrines and get back to ‘missions’ and loving one another in lifting up Jesus? Why not let moderates eat at the same table?
Rex Ray

Tim, because others may misuse a word, does not mean that they don’t know what they are talking about. I haven’t misused “Sufficiency,” by the way. For instance, someone on this thread has misused a word several times, but I didn’t point it out, nor did anyone else. We all understood and gave grace. Don’t discount the Sufficiency point because others may throw it around loosely. It is THE issue here. In fact, we should all make sure we understand it well before we move further in our prayers and actions concerning the Convention.

To answer a much earlier question, I would be greatly disturbed if others left because they found out they were in the minority. I would be willing to promote leadership that doesn’t agree with me on most of this stuff. However, if my generation leaves, it will not be because we are in the minority, but because we are excluded from the marketplace of ideas within SBC life.

Rex, how can you count that word so many times and still not understand what it means, even after I explained it in a previous comment?

MODERATIONIST – ONE WHO DRINKS ALCOHOL IN MODERATION

It has NOTHING to do with Conservative and Moderate!!!! The root word is the only similarity there.

Also, your last statement is libelous and one for which you have NO evidence. You are discrediting everything you say, here.

Finally, JMS. Your argument leads to existentialism where experience of the reader/interpreter is superior to revelation. It also leaves out the work of the Holy Spirit in both the authorship and the reading of the Bible. You are walking a path that ends with God, revelation and interpretation are what we make of them rather than who and what He says they are.

No dice.

Alright, I am heading for Arlington tomorrow, as are some of you. If you are, I look forward to seeing you there. If not, play nice in the comment string. I do still have rules for comments, but have yet to put up the button on the new blogsite. I haven’t needed to delete anything, and I would greatly appreciate everyone acting in such a way as to keep it that way.

Blessings.

Art

In practice, number 3 says, “Denies the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures the way we interpret.”
The roundtable is trying to stop Pharisees from excluding Christians who interpret Scripture a little different than the ‘inter circle.’
The roundtable is getting a taste of its own medicine since they were part of the group that excluded Christians by changing the glue that held Baptist together from ‘missions’ to ‘doctrine.’ The love of doctrine had priority over loving their brother.
Rex Ray