Let me say that I have NO intimate knowledge of the intricacies involved in the Missouri Baptist Convention. I have known for a little while that the MBC was suing some agencies for control. I have learned much more since I posted a link and some comments in my last article, Messy MO.
What concerns me is the mess being created on a state level when issues of control arise.
Let me clarify that statement. Among Baptists, we recognize that we do not have the privilege of controlling one another, though that is what is being attempted in MO and in other places, including the SBC. We can’t control each other individually nor can we control other churches. Authority rises from the individual submitted to God, through the local church to the various associations, be they local, state or national.
We only associate ourselves as members of one church at a time, but our churches often associate with other organizations and churches to do ministry. I’m not talking about some “dual alignment” thing, either. We give money to a lot of ministries and we do it alongside other churches. Anyone donate to a local Christian campground, not owned by your association or state? I have been a member of a church who did. So did a lot of other Baptist churches in the area. Our church now gives to several other ministries not owned by our association but supported by us and others.
The other option is not to partner. No one can tell you what to believe – that’s a double edged sword, too – but they don’t have to work with you, either. If we have someone who is out on a limb, theologically, we can pull our cooperation from them. That’s about it, but we can do that.
My problem is that we are talking about doing that with folks over things that shouldn’t divide us to that level. At some point, you have to find balance, for crying out loud. We all have nuances to our beliefs. Are we going to divide so much that there is nothing left?
Balance. Cooperation is voluntary. For it to work well, there must be balance.
By the way, the division to restrictive interpretations of Scripture on things with such rich, diverse and orthodox views as moderation, PPL, worship styles, Reformed Theology and cultural engagement is out of balance.
Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? When will people understand that if we insist on uniformity, we can get it, but only by running everyone else off.
The whole point of cooperation is that we can do more for the Kingdom together than we can apart.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Tim Sweatman
on Dec 19th, 2006
@ 7:49 pm:
Art,
Great post. Like it or not, cooperation requires us to agree to disagree or even compromise (I know that’s a dirty word) on some issues. Obviously there are some issues where compromise or disagreement would make cooperation impossible, but these issues are relatively few and far between—or at least they should be. The greater the number of issues on which we demand conformity, the fewer the number of people we will be able to work with, which will create an unnecessary hindrance to fulfilling the Great Commission. Sadly, some people are comfortable with this.
R S Harrison
on Dec 19th, 2006
@ 8:19 pm:
So accurately stated, “We can do more in cooperation than we can individually”. Isn’t that the whole purpose in following Jesus, and in spreading the “word” to the ends of the earth ?
Paul
on Dec 19th, 2006
@ 10:51 pm:
Art,
I’m going to play the Devil’s advocate here.
If we accept restrictions based on views about PPL, moderation, worship styles, Reformed theology and cultural engagement are those who hold those views not de facto requiring that everyone accept their interpretations for the sake of cooperation?
Conversely: If we reject restrictions based on views about PPL, moderation, worship styles, Reformed theology and cultural engagement are we not de facto requiring that everyone accept our interpretations for the sake of cooperation?
If I’m right, how do we resolve that?
Geoff Baggett
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 8:29 am:
Well spoken Art. I agree with almost everything you said. ;) I am right there with you on moderation, worship styles, Reformed Theology and cultural engagement. Big time. You know I am. But “private prayer languages” requires a closer look. Already, outside Southern Baptist circles, people of pentecostal theology are calling this move to embrace PPL as a “Southern Baptist Reformation.” Mel Montgomery, an very outspoken proponent that “speaking in tongues” is normative for Christians, and has a blog dedicated to that cause, now includes Wade Burleson and Dwight McKissick on his blogroll with the preface “Southern Baptist Reformation” before each name. They are included in the same list with Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and Oral Roberts, among others. You can see it at http://giftoftongues.wordpress.com/ . This, my friends, is what concerns me. This is what Southern Baptists will take notice of and soundly reject. And, ultimately, I’m afraid this focus upon “private prayer languages” will actually be a detriment to our efforts to foster inclusion and cooperation in Southern Baptist life.
By the way, very astute observation, Paul. I’ve been thinking that all along. I wish I had said it first.
Call be thick-headed (among other things), but I still don’t see how the conversation (subject) shifted so rapidly and dramatically from missionary qualifications to an overall discussion of Southern Baptist cooperation. It seems to me like a premature expansion. Where has cooperation been rejected? (besides Missouri, of course, but that is not a PPL issue … I still haven’t figured all of that out). I’m just curious. I want to understand every view in this discussion.
God bless all. And pray for me … I’m visiting the “in-laws” for a a little early Christmas cheer these next couple of days. :)
Art Rogers
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 9:46 am:
Paul,
With deference to Geoff and yourself, I don’t think you are right.
If we enforce restrictions we certainly do establish a standard of belief to which others must adhere. There are such standards, I’m just saying that the standards now being proffered are overly restrictive, not necessary and threaten our future.
If we do not apply such standards as these, then we do not necessarily establish other folks’ beliefs, just tolerate the difference of opinion for the greater good of reaching the lost with the Gospel.
Real life example: I am not a moderationist. I don’t drink alcohol. I think Christians who drink, even in moderation, muddy the waters for others. As a Youth Minister for 19 years before pastoring this church, I knew that if I drank alcohol, the kids around me might become confused as to what was appropriate. I am not making any off the wall leaps, here. I don’t think my kids would have all become alcoholics, drunk drivers and pregnant – having made a bad decision at a party. I mean that stuff could have happened (and to some degree, did happen) without my example of drinking. I just think that they don’t need me muddying the waters. That’s how I read the advice Paul gives concerning meat offered to idols. If it might cause them to stumble, then it’s just not worth it to me.
To my knowledge, Marty Duren feels the same way. Yet he and I are friends of our two most famous blogging moderationists: Ben Cole and Wade Burleson. We disagree as to how the Scriptures apply to our lives, but I have no problem working alongside them to advance the Gospel. It doesn’t bother me for Wade to be where he is.
He is honest and forthright about his position. It doesn’t mean that I think he is right or am forced to say that he is. It is simply a difference that exists, but doesn’t hinder us from working together.
Geoff,
PPL is what it is for us. First NAMB made a rule against it, but not many paid attention. The IMB made a rule about it and Wade Burleson dissented, was pressured to leave, didn’t, etc. and it was on the front burner with a slow simmer. Dwight McKissic’s sermon, Paige Patterson pulls the video then creates the “don’t ask, don’t tell non-policy policy on PPL” and it is now on full boil.
The reason that we are at cooperation instead of missionary qualifications is that cooperation is the root issue. If we deal with it, the “Narrowing of Parameters of Cooperation,” then we will kill the various fruit that I listed in the article.
As for the Pentecostals, I agree that them claiming this issue will backlash to some degree. However, we can’t back away from the honest interpretation of Scripture if that is what it is. I don’t practice glossolalia in any form at any time. I don’t provide opportunities in my church for it either. Still, I read Scripture and do not see a valid argument for cessationist theology.
In the end, anyone can claim me for who they think I am. It doesn’t make me theirs. Pentecostals claiming Wade and Dwight are false claims. Those guys have made public their views that not all speak in tongues and that it is not evidentiary of salvation. For Pentecostals to claim them as coming to their beliefs is nothing more than wishful thinking and it doesn’t make it true, either.
Art
jasonk
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 11:21 am:
Art,
I agree with your response to Paul, for the most part. Your example of it being wrong for you to have partaken of alcoholic beverages in front of your youth is true, however, it does not really apply too well to the situation, IMO. I don’t think too many people in the Baptist world would argue that it is okay for people in vocational ministry to drink in moderation. I never did when I was a pastor, because of the qualifications of an overseer. Overseers are not to be given to wine, period. Deacons, however, are not to be given to MUCH wine. I interpret that to say that people in a position to oversee a flock should not drink, for precisely the reasons you stated above. However, for the layman, a moderationist position is the biblical position. As a layman, I enjoy a beer from time to time, and an occasional glass of wine. My testimony is not in jeopardy because I am no longer a pastor.
Am I off base in my reading of your example?
Art Rogers
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 12:35 pm:
Jason,
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you missed my point completely.
It is not about whether I hold one position or another, but whether or not I can cooperate with someone I think is wrong in their understanding. Not only can I do it, but I am good friends with people I think are wrong. Moreover, I completely understand that they think I am wrong and I am not offended by that.
Still, if you want me to articulate my position further, I would say that whatever benefit any Christian might gain from a drink, its just not worth the possible confusion others may take away from that act. In other words, they are more important than me – and that is regardless of whether I have a position of leadership or am a layman.
Art
Paul
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 1:03 pm:
Art,
I’m not saying that we are establishing anyone’s beliefs. I’m saying that presently a moderationist must live with an abstentionist denominational policy (at least in our Seminaries and I suspect that Resolution #5 will have the effect of policy).
If the policy/practice were to be reversed, the abstentionist would be required to cooperate with moderationists – even if they didn’t believe it was right for them to do so – or leave, or become disenfranchised.
Let me use another example: Landmarkism. We currently have a “bigger tent” than strict Landmarkists. My experience tells me that they are quite adamant in their beliefs. To cooperate with non-landmark churches they must either compromise, or as many have done, leave.
Were the SBC a Landmark denomination it would be the non-Landmarkers who would either have to compromise or leave. I may not be expressing myself very well because I’m actually talking about something other than what your answer addressed. If I’m unclear then I’ll chalk it up to not being that important.
Jason,
Where does it say overseers are not to be given to wine, period? In both 1 Timothy and Titus the words the ESV uses are “not a drunkard.” I’m not challenging your personal convictions, but I do read the relevant passages differently.
jasonk
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 2:36 pm:
Paul,
A little respect, please. I’ve had an NASB since I was fifteen :>)
Art,
I took your comments the right way, and thank you for having the grace to make sure. You’re a good man, sir.
I submit that the problem is not that it is a bad witness to consume alcohol. If it is not a sin, then it cannot be a bad witness. If it is perceived as such, it is because we, the church, have failed to properly teach the truth of Scripture. If I stand up in front of a congregation and say, “the Bible says it is a sin to drink alcohol,” I have misrepresented the truth. If I IMPLY it is wrong according to Scripture, I am wrong. The church has been doing this for decades, and we have created a culture that believes the wrong thing. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to correct the wrongs of the past, and teach the truth as it is revealed in Scripture, without adding anything to it.
So, if I am sitting at a restaurant, and am enjoying a glass of Shiner Bock, and a Christian rebukes me for being a poor witness, it is my opportunity to repent not of drinking, but of teaching poor theology all these years. It is my chance to gently lead them to a truer understanding of Scripture.
I respectfully submit my opinion to you, because I do have a great deal of respect for you and your position.
Art Rogers
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 3:03 pm:
Paul,
Thanks for the clarification. I think the point is that there is no resolution. We accept that others believe differently and work together. The only other option is to split.
Jason,
The term “bad witness” is not mine, and I suspect it is not yours either, but is a part of the background we both bring to the conversation. We were told that it was a “bad witness” to drink and that hurts others.
I am not making that argument, but one that differs in perspective. I would contend that a “bad witness” is something that we know is wrong, but we do it anyway. If someone found pornography in our homes, that would be a “bad witness.” In other words, the testimony of our lives would be contrary to our verbal testimony.
On the other hand, while my liberty in Christ may be to drink in moderation, I freely give up my liberty out of an overabundance of concern for those around me. I want to put them first, so to speak.
While the Bible clearly does not call drinking in moderation “sinful,” it does tell me to care for my brother in issues of conscience.
I interpret 1 Cor 8 – 10 to mean that it is a sin for me.
Paul
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 3:04 pm:
Jason,
Oops. “Not addicted to wine” (NASB). So, if you see me in Chili’s enjoying a glass of Shiner Bock should I be rebuked? And if so, what for: the Shiner Bock or teaching poor theology? :-) [Those are rhetorical questions all in fun.]
Alan Cross
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 3:46 pm:
Good discussion, guys. Not that anyone asked me, but I can see Art’s point here a little more. The moderationist view, while one that I can definitely see in Scripture, becomes difficult to maintain in practice. Romans 14:22 even tells us to keep what we think about disputable matters to ourselves, I would imagine, so that they would not become points of controversy and items of poorly written Baptist paper editorials and convention resolutions. God has the grace to spare us from all that if we will just obey Him. :)
I would have been a lot happier with the resolution at the SBC if they would have said that it is not wise to consume alcohol, in the same way that Art illustrated. But, that position requires nuance and a bit of theological sophistication, which is not exactly something that we baptists are known for. I’m glad that Romans has it, though.
One other thing: I don’t give a rip what the Pentecostals claim or disavow. We need to stop engaging in reactionist theology and read the Bible for ourselves. If some group actually eats the Bible or worships the Bible because they interpret wrongly Jesus being the Bread of Life, and that Jesus is the Word of God, I am not going to stop reading, meditating, and obeying the Bible. It is two entirely different things. Just because one group misinterprets a teaching, doesn’t mean that I must keep away from that doctrine completely. I just need to interpret it correctly, which is something that I feel Baptists have been pretty good at until recently on most of these issues.
jasonk
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 4:06 pm:
I think, Art, that our ability to properly communicate this via a blog is inhibited by our inability to hear one anothers’ words. We are close on this, but I’m still not getting it.
Yes, we have freedom in Christ, and that freedom should not be exercised if it causes another to stumble. But where do you draw the line? For that church member who does not believe in television, would you give up your tv? For the guy in church who is a vegetarian, would you give up eating meat? You, as a pastor especially, are in a tight spot, because everyone expects you to live up to their definition of morality.
Alcohol, in my view, is a similar issue. I would not drink in the presence of a brother or sister who struggles with alcoholism, because I would not want my liberty to get in the way of their lack of self control. But I would certainly have no problem drinking in front of a group of judgmental deacons, because their misinterpretation of the Bible is not a reason for me to abstain.
Are we close on this?
Paul, I would have no problem with you drinking a Shiner Bock at Chilis, heck, I’d sit down over a couple with you. I just have a fancy for Shiner, having visited the brewery and all. They’re a good bunch of guys down there in Shiner, Texas.
Art Rogers
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 4:28 pm:
Jason,
I think we are close in some ways. I certainly don’t cow tow to judgmental folks over actually reading my Bible.
You bring up a good point about the tv, etc. You can’t let everyone make a claim on your behavior claiming that you might make them stumble. I am not giving up meat – Paul and Alan can affirm that I like my food. Alcohol, though, is not something that has value to me in light of the detriment it could be.
Balance. Personal conviction, led by the Holy Spirit and revealed in the Word.
Art
Paul
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 5:27 pm:
Art,
Cursed WordPress ate a fantastic comment that would have revolutionized the SBC. ;) Here’s the short version, which offers no revolution whatsoever:
I think you know I agree with the thesis of this post. My primary concern is with this:
“We accept that others believe differently and work together. The only other option is to split.”
We are presently not showing the ability to accept others who believe differently so that we might work together. I’m not convinced that can or will change. You gave the other outcome.
Mel Montgomery
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 7:06 pm:
Hello Brethren,
I was unaware of your site or the fact that I had been referenced in it, until I checked my blog and found a link from it ( giftoftongues dot wordpress dot com) back to your site. Thank you for the link, by the way. I wish to add what I hope will be clarifying comments.
If I am reading him correctly, George Bagget disapproves of my llisting Dwight McKissick’s and Wade Burleson’s sites on my blogroll, or at least the manner in which I do so. I’ve read his post several times, and those given in response to his, and I am unclear as to his concerns and what he believes Southern Baptists will “soundly reject.” Other posts seem to me to be putting forth the proposition that Pentecostals are claiming an internal Southern Baptist debate as our own.
I do not believe that listing McKissick’s and Burleson’s sites along with tose of Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts and others, is somehow a sinister action to which Southern Baptists should react in alarm. What Brother George fails to note in his post is that I also list “Catholic Writier”–a Charismatic Catholic site, and also “Jewish Current Issues,”–which is utterly non-Christian in doctrine, but reports Jewish Issues in a conservative, common sense, and Christian-friendly manner. I don’t think anyone would reasonably infer that I list these sites because I somehow hope to convert Baptists to Catholicism or Judaism. So to infer that I am entering your debate, attempting to influence it, or claiming a side of it as my own, simply because I list two Baptist sites on my blogroll is a stretch.
Brother George’s objection appears to be centered around the fact that I added to the names “Dwight McKissick” and “Wade Burleson” the preface of “Southern Baptist Reformation.” Is there some other term he would suggest? If I may have a bit of fun with this–or have we lost all sense of humor?–I guess I could have called it “Southern Baptist knock-down-drag-outs,” or “Southern Baptists Gone Wild…”
:)
I chose “Southern Baptist Reformation,” because–well for one thing, I thought it sounded more dignified than the two options I stated earlier and—most readers of my blogs have no idea who McKissick or Burleson are. But if I add “Southern Baptist Reformation,” they will at least know that these two are Southern Baptists, and that they are seeking change of some sort. And if my readers are interested in this, they can then click on the links and read McKissick’s and Burleson’s articles and positions for themselves. If Brother George can think of preambles more appropriate, and will e-mail them to me, I will certainly consider them.
As to the charge that Pentecostals are claiming your debate as our own, I don’t see it that way.
Truthfully, and I say this respectfully though directly, most Pentecostals/Charismatics I know or have heard from couldn’t care less about this debate in your ranks. Few are even aware of it, and even fewer are closely following it. I know of none that are attempting to influence it or “claim it” somehow as their own. This isn’t even a blip on most Charismatic’s radars, because this debate was settled in our own hearts years ago. Do you closely follow Catholic sites to see how closely they are coming to accepting the position of justification by faith alone? Or do you hang in susspense as you read Methodist sites to see how they are adhering or wandering away from entire sanctification as a progressive work of grace?
No?
I thought so.
Respectfully, neither are any Charismatics following youir debate, at least as far as I am aware.
You can look through all of my writings and see that I have taken no position whatsoever on your debate. I don’t think it is my place to do so. You must decide for yourselves what position you will take on Holy Spirit issues. Nor have I posted any comments on McKissick’s or Burleson’s blogs pro or con, except one post in response to a request posted by Wade Burleson. He asked for suggestions or rules he could put in place on his blog so that the debate remains congenial. I wrote a comment in which I gave the web address of a Christian forum that has strict rules, which as they have been applied, has kept the debate above a dog-eat-dog level. This was my only contribution to your debate until this post.
I have not and will not take a position on your debate. But in this comment, I will express a hope I have for you.
My best friend is a Southern Baptist that I have fellowshipped with for many years. I find the level of wisdom he shares with me, and the love and concern he shows to me, to be considerably above the fellowship I experience with most of my fellow Charismatics. His encouragement and advice has seen me through some of the storms of life. And he tells me that the truths I’ve shared with him, he has found enough insight in, that he has in turn quoted me many times to fellow Baptists. He has attended the same Baptist church for 20 years, serving on various committees, teaching classes, serving on two pastoral search committees, and preached many times as a fill-in for the pastors he has served under. I have ministered in various capacities in Charismatic circles for 25 years.
In all the years we have known each other, we have never discussed the topic of tongues.
Our firendship and fellowship is too precious to risk on the self-centered goal of winning the argument. I accept him where he is, and he accepts me. I have never tried to convert him to belief in tongues, and he has never tried to talk me out of it.
Many times he has said to me, “Mel, I preached Sunday and gave an altar call and x-number of souls came to Christ.” I’ve responded, “Praise the Lord!”
Many tiems I have said to him, “Sunday I taught, the Holy Spirit moved, a message in tongues came forth and was interpreted and affected the people in x-ways and y-number of people were saved or set free.” He replies, “Praise the Lord!”
We have matured to the point where neither one of us has to win the argument. Each is content to stay where he is, and is content to accept the other where he is.
My hope is not that tongues or “PPL” as you call it will “win” or “lose” in your denomination.
My hope is that both sides will reach the point of maturity where on this non-salvation related issue, there is no longer the need to argue about it.
My purpose in writing on my blogs is three-fold:
First, to refute the oftentimes vicious anti-Charismatic arguments which have gone unchallenged, and with we have been repeatedly assaulted for years, particularly concerning the specific issue of speaking in tongues. Upon close examination, I can not find any anti-Charismatic arguent which can withstand scriptural examination, and I discuss and refute these arguments.
Second, to help all believers understand what speaking in tongues is, and what it is not, and to help bring a better understanding of how to do things decently and in order.
And third, to address extremes that have arisen in teachings and in practices in our branch of Christianity. There are rare occasions in which our critics are–accidentally–right.
So brethren, I and others are prayijng for you in your debate–that you find God’s will for your denomination, and that you can do so without ripping each other to pieces.
In the meantime, we are going on with what the Lord has for us to do.
Let’s both stay true to Jesus Christ, and walk in love toward each other, and let’s meet in Glory some day. What a day of rejoicing that will be.
Kind Regards,
Mel Montgomery
Art Rogers
on Dec 20th, 2006
@ 9:54 pm:
Mel,
Thanks for commenting. Not to engage in a debate over charismatic practices here, but most Baptists disagree with some fundamental beliefs of Pentecostalism.
What Geoff (not George) is alluding to is that most Baptists would consider those listed alongside Copeland, Hagen et al as having theology with which we disagree overall.
Some consider it “dangerous.” Indeed, many may.
The problem with the way Wade and Dwight are listed on you blog is that it can be interpreted to be that you consider them to be bringing a Pentecostal theology to the SBC. Indeed, they are accused of that and if you affirm it, then it will be used against them.
Jonathan K.
on Dec 21st, 2006
@ 1:06 am:
Mel,
I hope you got my encouraging e-mail. I’m also glad to see you commenting here as well. Now I’ll have a charismatic friend to share with.
I do have a few comments to clarify here. First of all, just so that you and everyone else knows, because I live in Oklahoma City, I do follow some of the Baptist issues. I have Baptist friends and know people who attend Baptist churches. I am concerned for their denomination out of Christian love.
Second, while I do not “claim” the PPL debate as my own, I do believe that charismatics have a place of influence in regards to that debate. I say this for three reasons, Bro. Mel. One is that I believe all Christians should have an influence on those around them, no matter what the issue is. A second reason is that there are charismatic Baptists out there for whom this is a major issue, e.g. the Fresh Oil/New Wine network of churches, based out of Pastor Ron Phillips’ church in Chattanooga (Ron Phillips is Southern Baptist). Third, and lastly, the charismatic Christian news media (mainly Charisma magazine) has issued at least one editorial on the situation involved Rev. Dwight McKissic in Arlington. So, that’s why I follow this stuff, Bro. Mel.
I find your comments, though, inspiring, and I hope that we are in touch with each other on our respective blogs.
Blessings,
Jonathan
Mel Montgomery
on Dec 21st, 2006
@ 6:50 am:
Hello Brother Art,
Sorry for misspelling Geoff’s name. And I’ll grant you a special dispensation for misspelling Hagin’s name.
:)
I see your point about listing McKissick and Burleson. I’ll remove their links today. Goodness knows we Charismatics know alot about being stoned by our brethren. McKissick and Burleson will suffer enough without me giving ammunition to their opponents.
But you know what? You or Geoff could have simply e-mailed me, asked me why I had listed Burleson and McKissick, and expressed your concerns to me. I would have been glad then, as I am now, to remove their names from my blogroll. I think this is where we build up resentments and misconceptions about each other–because we afraid to step over that line and actually talk to each other.
I think that the discussions that are going on in Southern Baptist blogs is healthy and encouraging. I rarely read them anymore as I am busy with my own sites.
Thanks for not trying to draw me into a debate on Charismatic issues. I’m weary of arguing.
One of my earliest childhood church memories is of attending a service at a Southern Baptist Church, and hearing the pastor preach about Paul being caught up to the third heaven. He taught the people that there were indeed three separate heavens. And the one you ended up in was determined by how passionate you were to Christ, and how faithful you were to the Southern Baptists. And numerous “amens!” came in response.
Your spiritual family tree has isolated nuts in it, as does ours.
I could be railing today against the Southern Baptist heresy of “three heavens.”
I could be shouting, “Don’t bother to deny it! I’ve heard Southern Baptists preach this with my own ears!” And indeed after I accepted Christ, I was reluctant to begin attending a Southern Baptist Church, because I didn’t want to embrace that false doctrine. But after I actually attended a Southern Baptist church, I found out that Southern Baptists don’t believe in three heavens after all. And I am thankful for the time I had with the Southern Baptists, as they laid a foundation in me which I have not left to this day. (Although some readers of this post may disagree).
Just as Southern Baptists do not believe in three heavens, so do most Charismatics not believe in many things we are accused of believing. And as I have tried in debates in the past to correct the record, I’ve been greeted with “Don’t bother to deny it! I have a tape by so and so in which he clearly preaches this!” They had heard some Charismatic nut somewhere preach something somewhere. Or heard a legitimate Charismatic minister express a sound Bible truth in theologically incorrect language, or make an off the cuff remark, and they feel their one mission in life is to protect the true faith from the assaults of the heretical Charismatics.
Oh boy.
Their minds are like concrete: thoroughly mixed and firmly set.
In the future, if there is anything else I’m doing which may cause unnecessary difficulties among the Southern Baptists as they discuss Holy Spirit issues, I welcome your contact.
In the meantime, godspeed.
Kind Regards,
Mel Montgomery
Bob Cleveland
on Dec 21st, 2006
@ 7:07 am:
***OFF-THE-WALL THOUGHT ALERT***
Let’s say you’re driving along and you see someone whose car has stalled in the middle of an intersection. Imagine it’s a person you’d have compassion for (insert favorite description here … pregnant lady, handicapped person, helpless teenage girl, whatever).
So you park your car and go join the 2 other folks who are going to help push the car out of the way. Now .. are you going to help, to do that, in the name of your Savior? Is that your motivation to help someone in need?
According to some, (seemingly) you’d best be checking out the beliefs of the other folks pushing, shouldn’t you? One wouldn’t want to be seen cooperating with folks whose theology doesn’t line up with your sanitized version, would one?
Even in a cause as noble, and with such eternal consequences, as helping a stranded motorist?
Bob Cleveland
on Dec 21st, 2006
@ 9:46 am:
I tried to post this thought earlier, from home, but it didn’t take. I’ll give it a shot from here.
Suppose you’re driving and see a young lady (or your favorite sympathetic figure) stalled in the middle of the intersection. So you park your car and join the 2 other guys who are going to help push the car out of the way.
Would you check their theological positions, first? Sure … this is a noble and worthy thing, and you’re doing it in response to various commands of Jesus … but would you want to cooperate with someone who thought that tongues was a valid gift, if you didn’t? Or maybe someone who was only pushing because his dominant wife, who was also a pastor in some church, told him to, and he was afraid not to?
I think you’d help, anyway. You might be more concerned for the lady in the car, than someone seeing you cooperating with somebody who’s different from you.
Art Rogers
on Dec 21st, 2006
@ 11:14 am:
Mel,
Thanks for the generosity.
The reason I never contacted you is because I didn’t know you or your site existed until Geoff linked to it.
Jonathan,
You couldn’t have said anything more damaging to the reputations of SBC continualists than to say you are trying to influence this debate.
I know you meant the statement as a positive thing, but I assure you that your statement will be quoted as evidence that this is “bad Pentecostal theology” making its way into the SBC.
Jonathan K.
on Dec 21st, 2006
@ 1:41 pm:
Art,
I apologize, since you feel that way. That was not my intent.
However, look at J. Lee Grady, who is Editor-in-Chief at Charisma magazine, read by millions of charismatics, and even non-charismatics around the world. The month after Dr. McKissic’s sermon was removed from SWBTS’ website, Dr. Grady published an editorial criticizing the action in Charisma magazine, with the intent of influencing the debate, from the charismatic perspective. I didn’t see that as damaging anyone’s reputation, even SBC continualists.
Likewise, that’s all I’ve tried to do here, and anywhere else I go. If someone interpets what I did, or even what J. Lee Grady did, as evidence of bad Pentecostal theology making its way into the SBC, then why is that such a bad thing? I don’t understand how you view it as a negative, or something that even tarnishes people’s reputations. Would you care to please explain that?
Blessings,
Jonathan
jasonk
on Dec 21st, 2006
@ 2:08 pm:
I don’t want anyone to think that I am answering a question directed to Art because he needs me to defend his statement. I’ll leave that to him, since he is quite capable of dealing with it on his own. But this issue is important to me, so I’ll take a stab at it.
The vast majority of SBC pastors, from what I can tell, have no interest in seeing the SBC become charismatic in its theology. As Mel pointed out before, all denominations have had some nuts in the midst. That is really true. The difference is that the SBC does not tend to celebrate their nutty preachers, and elevate them to such a high level of importance, as happens within the Charismatic movement. To place men like Hagin, Copeland, Hinn, Crouch, etc., in places of importance in the movement is fine, if that’s what you want to do. But the fact is that these men believe and teach many things that are nowhere found in Scripture, and often border on the heretical at worst, and damaging to the body of Christ at best. Nevermind saying that they are not responsible for some of the things they have been quoted as saying, these men are not biblically sound much of the time. If an SBC pastor wants to take a theological stand on one issue that is near and dear to charismatics, it does not mean that the pastor has embraced the charismatic ideology lock, stock, and barrel. To mention Dwight and Wade’s names in the same breath as some charismatic pastors is doing just that, and that is not what anyone in this debate wants.
Jonathan, your presence in this issue is welcome, I’m sure, but I’m not sure that a pastor who has a continualist philosophy would be comfortable with you arguing on his behalf, since it would tend to lump him in with all that charismatics believe, good and bad. That damages his credibility in the debate, and ends up hurting his argument. It would be much the same if Hagin stood up and said, “this is my man. He knows what he is talking about.” It might seem to you that it would be a good thing, but in the overall scheme of things, it is not.
Geoff Baggett
on Dec 21st, 2006
@ 3:22 pm:
Just dropping in from Memphis … family Christmas abd stuff. Sorry, Art. Didn’t mean to stir all of this up. :) Pretty interesting stuff, though. Others have made the point (esp. Jasonk) that I was trying to make by placing that link in this thread. The mere association with Pentecostalism, which is already happening, will hurt the cause in the end.
No offense was intended, Bro. Mel. Your blogroll just reinforced a point of “association” that I have attempted to make in this overall discussion. I enjoyed reading your views on your blog, and will check back from time to time. I enjoy a hearty discussion about these subjects, just ask my bro Jonathan K! ;)
Mel Montgomery
on Dec 22nd, 2006
@ 12:40 am:
Dear Brother Geoff,
No offense taken at all.
Thanks for the kind words about my blog.
Sorry for misspelling your name.
It was the result of not getting my bi-focals adjusted to the right angle necessary to read clearly from my computer screen.
Kind Regards,
Mel
Geoff Baggett
on Dec 22nd, 2006
@ 8:40 am:
Mel,
My first name actially IS George … so I thought it was pretty strange that you knew it. :)
Merry Christmas All
Bryan Riley
on Dec 26th, 2006
@ 10:39 am:
Why in the world should Mel have to take people off of his blogroll, and shouldn’t those people be the ones who speak as to whether they care? I am utterly confused. I don’t see why it matters what one individual blogger puts on their blogroll. I, frankly, am excited about the sign that there may be some unity among brethren around the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sigh. And, I keep wishing that people would, when they attack charismatics, define what it is they are attacking rather than sounding like they are against a large group of Christian brothers and sisters who happen to have a more “excited” worship style. A lot of the most dour baptists are pretty charismatic about their sports teams. We shouldn’t be attacking people at all; rather, we should be attacking the enemy and conduct that is errant.
Alan, as it seems is always the case, I love it when you comment. I do have a question related to the comment, however, and that is how does one determine what is truly a disputable matter? I mean, can’t anyone “create” disputable matters by simply presenting an alternative view and then all the rest of us should suddenly be silent on them? Alcohol wasn’t a disputable matter at all until recent times (in the big picture of history). It really only became an issue after it became readily available cheaply and thus more easy to abuse by all in society. For some that alone may be enough to make it a bad thing, but why does that make it disputable? It clearly is a wisdom issue. I can see people saying it is clearly analogous to the issues discussed in Romans 14; however, I think those were only disputable at that time because of the immense cultural changes taking place because of the rise of Christianity, which was radically different from any previous movement (for lack of a better word). Clearly, the issue of meat and idols isn’t a hot topic of dispute today. Having said that, I also understand that the changes in today’s world around alcohol could arguably make it an issue of dispute (for if one can move from disputable to indisputable why not the opposite?). And I don’t disagree that such could happen. Nonetheless, my bottomline point is not about alcohol; it is how should we define what is disputable for the purposes of applying Romans 14:22 to our lives? I think the only sound answer is with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not simply because some present a contrary view.
For the Unity of the Body of Christ!
Bryan Riley
on Dec 26th, 2006
@ 10:42 am:
Art, why stop at Cooperation Among Baptists?? How about Cooperation Among the Body of Christ???
Art Rogers
on Dec 26th, 2006
@ 1:05 pm:
Jonathan,
Forgive me for not responding sooner. Jason did answer pretty well, though. The fact is, your perspective reveals a firm belief that Pentecostal theology is right about a good many things that most Baptists, including myself, think a gravely wrong. To say that Pentecostal theology is influencing the SBC says to many that “we are going down the wrong road.” That’s the way we feel about it.
As a continualist, but not one who speaks in tongues, I believe this is just strict exegesis of the texts.
No offense meant and I hope you don’t take any. Just answering your question.
Geoff,
What has been said by others has made your point better than you could have yourself.
Bryan,
Of course we want unity in the body. That is also among the issues being faced at the IMB. We need to be different in our beliefs, but not separate ourselves so far as to call each other “heretical,” which is the tacit implication by our M’s not being allowed to work with certain brothers.
As for Mel and his blogroll, no one here asked him to remove them. Geoff mentioned them as evidence of his argument and I clarified what Geoff was talking about when asked by Mel. He removed them (I assume he did) of his own accord. You are right in that I certainly wouldn’t feel that I have the right to ask for such a thing, but only Dwight and Wade would.
Blessings to you all.
Art
Bryan Riley
on Dec 26th, 2006
@ 2:40 pm:
Here is a question I’d be interested in hearing theologians explain: what is the biblical basis for denominationalism?
Bryan Riley
on Dec 26th, 2006
@ 7:27 pm:
Please understand with my question about Mel’s blog I wasn’t addressing it at anyone above. I know no one asked him to remove the listings. I was actually questioning the whole discourse regarding the “fear” of an association with pentecostalism, particularly when the argument is being made on the basis of a bloglisting.
Geoff Baggett
on Dec 26th, 2006
@ 10:15 pm:
Bryan,
I don’t need to answer for Art on his blog, but since I am the one who brought up the entire aspect of “association” in this discussion, I will speak a few words.
But before I get into that, I want to briefly address your statement above about people “attacking charismatics” and stating this is simply a case where some people have “a more ‘excited’ worship style.” I think you know that there is much more to Pentecostal and/or charismatic theology than “excited worship.” The church that I pastor has “excited worship,” but we do not delve into the doctrinal or practical realm of Pentecostal or charismatic theology. And I really don’t think that any charismatics have been attacked here.
But to the issue of association … I have been trying to insert into this discussion the simple reminder that such a vocal embracing and defense of “private prayer languages” will be interpreted in Southern Baptist life, and elsewhere – even in charismatic circles, as an overall Southern Baptist movement toward acceptance of glossolalia in general. The obvious next mental (and emotional) step of the Southern Baptists in the pulpits and pews will be to interpret such an embracing as a movement in the direction of Pentecostalism. This will be vigorously rejected. So, if “private prayer languages” becomes the “battlefield” for inclusion in the SBC, then inclusion will be the loser because of the subject chosen. When I found Bro. Mel’s blog with a simple Google search and saw Burleson and McKissick listed as “Southern Baptist Reformation” blogs, alongside several charismatic figures, I felt that my analysis and “prognostication” had been proven true. It’s not about “fear” of association. My point was simply about the reality of perception in Southern Baptist life.
Hope that helps clarify. Glad you’re back on the mainland. God bless, my brother.
Art, sorry for my long-windedness. But I’m a Baptist preacher … it’s in my blood! ;)
Jonathan K.
on Dec 27th, 2006
@ 12:42 am:
Art,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your concern, and I waited to respond, because the question was directed towards you, and unfortunately, I haven’t seen a real, genuine response.
I understand that the vast majority of Baptists do not agree with Pentecostal theology (thus, the difference between them, doctrinally). However, I do not see the kind of harm you see, towards the reputation of continualists like yourself, that folks like J. Lee Grady and myself bring, as we enter the debate and seek to influence people with the charismatic position on these issues. I do not see anything wrong with influencing the debate. We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ, we’re all Christ followers. We had a difference of opinion, yes, on these issues, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with Grady publishing his editorial, or other charismatics like myself seeking to influence a debate amongst SBC folks. So long as we do not attack personalities, I do not see any Scripture that forbids me to express my opinions in the blog world as comments on others’ blogs.
Now, if you think that doing what I do, or what Grady did, says to those in the SBC that you are “going down the wrong path,” then we’re not responsible for that thought. My own pastor teaches that we are not responsible for what other people think of our actions, or our words. Rather, we are only responsible and accountable for ourselves to God. In other words, there is no such thing as being “politically correct.”
I believe Bryan Riley has expressed this in his comments above. He asked why people like Mel should be asked to remove others from the blogrol. Somehow, I believe Mel got the impression he should be “politically correct.” I disagree with that notion. I don’t think there should be that kind of censorship in the blog world.
But Bryan later clarified and said his question concerning Mel’s blogroll was about the “fear” with being associated with Pentecostalism. The only “fear” that is biblically justified is the fear (i.e. reverence) of the Lord. 1 John 4:18 says, “Perfect love casts out all fear.” So, I believe that any “fear” of association with pentecostals or charismatics is coming from a lack of love, and what a sad statement that is.
Geoff,
I think I agree with your assessment that any move in the SBC that embraces tongues or “private prayer language” or glossolalia (or whatever you wish to call it) will be seen as a Southern Baptist deal. That was the spin that Grady had in his editorial, that there is a move among some Southern Baptists in this direction (and we as charismatics see that as a good thing). That’s all it is, really. Unfortunately, many Southern Baptists will view it as a move towards Pentecostalism, and will vigorously reject it. I find that to be really sad, as well.
In closing, to everyone, this is why I think it is really sad that Southern Baptists would divide over this. I know a great many people who are 20-something years old, and who were raised Baptist, but left the denomination because they do not like such infighting, and many of them feel as I do, such infighting reflects a true lack of love among Christians. The fact “inclusion” would be the loser in the battle would be very, very sad.
Sorry for the length, Art, but I needed to catch up.
Art Rogers
on Dec 27th, 2006
@ 10:08 pm:
Jonathan,
I don’t know that I can respond to you without offending you.
In one sense you are inserting yourself into a conversation between people who didn’t ask you to join. Now the blogosphere is a place where there is the free exchange of ideas, so that the conversation happens here is, to some degree an open invitation to whomever happens to want to join.
Another thought is the practical idea, which Mel recognized, that your advocacy is counter-productive. In other words, your proclamation of intending to influence the SBC discussion with Pentecostal theology, on a practical level, causes backlash against those with whom you seek to align yourself.
You have every right to express your opinion in an open forum. Nothing you have said goes against my rules for commenting – far from it. You have been a Christian gentleman in all these discussions.
The practical outcome is that Geoff made the point and you proved it. If PPL has a high profile among the group of issues falling under the umbrella of cooperation, then all of it will be linked to “Pentecostalism” with the willing cooperation of Pentecostals.
Art Rogers
on Dec 27th, 2006
@ 10:20 pm:
Jonathan,
Let me also respond to this:
Now, if you think that doing what I do, or what Grady did, says to those in the SBC that you are “going down the wrong path,” then we’re not responsible for that thought. My own pastor teaches that we are not responsible for what other people think of our actions, or our words. Rather, we are only responsible and accountable for ourselves to God. In other words, there is no such thing as being “politically correct.”
This is a selfish expression. To me it says, “I want to get in this, even if it hurts those that I am trying to help. Nobody matters but my right to speak to the situation.”
More practically, let me just assure you that your posted position pretty much garuantees that most Southern Baptists will not be allowing you to influence them. My point is that because of they are discounting you, and you are vocally throwing in with SBC continualists, then they will discount them as well – at least to some degree.
To say that you are not responsible for this is convenient, but, as I said before, counterproductive. That just confuses me.
Jonathan K.
on Dec 27th, 2006
@ 11:30 pm:
Art,
Don’t worry about offending me. One thing that I have learned at my present church, for better or for worse, is to have a thick skin, and not worry or think about what others think… just to do and say what you know is right, etc. Please… I do not easily get offended. I have REALLY thick skin.
That being said, I realize I am inserting myself in a discussion where some may say, “Jonathan does not have a dog in the fight,” so why is he here. Well, I am a Christian, and a fellow beiever. I have the “right” to influence the debate, just like Grady did. I know I keep bringing him up, but what he did is the best analogy I can consider here to what I do. I do not see anyone bashing his editorial.
Unfortunately, I disagree with Bro. Mel. I know he thinks what I am doing is counter-productive, but I just disagree with that. I’m not motivated by his pragmatic argument to change my approach. There are Southern Baptist pastors I could name and mention here (I am NOT referring to Dr. McKissic) that I believe would disgree with Bro. Mel, and instead say they wish to influence their own denomination to become more solidly charismatic and/or Pentecostal. I think J. Lee Grady would also disagree. I believe that charismatics have a general “right” to influence other Christians in that direction, and thus Charisma magazine covers the situation with Dr. McKissic, and similar events in generally speaking non-charismatic denominations. What Dr. McKissic has experienced is part and parcel of the charismatic renewal, and should be encouraged, not stifled.
I don’t think what I have to say would cause backlash with a lot of people in the SBC. It most likely would not with most continualists. It certainly would not with those in the Fresh Fire/New Wine network.
Next, I want to respond to your allegation that my statements are selfish. I’m sorry that you believe they are. I disagree with your interpretation of my statements, though, that’s not what I meant, clearly.
Also, I’m not in a position to really influence SBC pastors. I’m not a pastor myself, and I don’t have a M.Div., Th.D., or seminary degree behind my name, not even from Rhema in Tulsa. I’m just a fellow blogger (I operate my own blog, as well) who likes to discuss these issues, and it just so happens the community I blog in consists primarily of SBC pastors. I also do not see myself throwing myself in with the SBC continualists. I am a continualist, but I’m not SBC, as I am non-denominational charismatic. There are SBC continualists who I probably would align myself with (i.e. Fresh Fire/New Wine network), and there are SBC continualists who I would probably not align myself with as well. So, its more gray than black and white to me, in this area.
Again, sorry for the long post, but I hope all of that clarifies the confusion, for which I am sorry that I have caused.
cb5512
on Dec 28th, 2006
@ 3:39 am:
Art,
I have not read much of the comment thread over here lately. I wish I had been keeping up better.
Feel free to “zap” my comment if you wish, but I want to let you know that some of the people commenting here “posing” as Pentacostals and Charismatics are not really such. They are not even Neo-Pentacostals or Neo-Charismatics. They are of a group known as “Five-Fold Ministries”. Good mainline Pentacostal denominations such as A/G and the Church of God denounce Five-Fold groups.
In reality Five-Fold Ministries is a Neo-Montanist group which is raising up in mainline Pentacostalism, etc. They depend, greatly, on “experience” void of any real biblical foundation. Jonathan Kreams and Mel Montgomery are of Five-Fold ministries. You may have heard of Bill Hamon. He is one of the “poster boys” of this group.
I know you have a great gift as a researcher. Well, dive in and do some and you will find I am telling you the truth. I am not an enemy to JK or Mel. I am possibly the best friend they could have.
They both need to get out of this group. JK lives in Oklahoma. He would do well to visit with you , Wade or Wes and let one of you guys “walk” him through some sound doctrine of the faith. He is a sharp guy, but is walking blind now as do many.
Blogging has done many good things for many people. This may be an opportunity to bring these men to truth if they will seek it.
I am sorry for putting you on the spot, Art, but if I was going to put anyone on earth on the “spot” here I am glad it is you. For I know you are solid and if JK would visit with you I know you can help him as I know the other two mentioned could also, but you discern things fast. So I beseech you, brother, to check this out.
If you want to call me and yell at me you are free to do so. I put this out as a comment because I believe these men need to have oportunity to know that they can get the truth if they want it.
cb
cb
cb5512
on Dec 28th, 2006
@ 6:41 am:
Art,
Correction. I should have said Jonathan Krems IS and Mel Montgomery POSSIBLY IS of Five-Fold Ministries.
Mel Montgomery may be related to a Five-Fold Ministry church is what I should have said. He does speak of people that are but I do not have the right to say he is actually involved personally as is Jonathan Krems.
Please note my correction. When I read my comment after posting it I realized my error and I want to make the correction. My error does not, in any way, negate the problems with Five-Fold Ministry in the church catholic. It is real and growing.
cb
Jonathan K.
on Dec 28th, 2006
@ 2:18 pm:
CB,
You very well may be receiving a personal e-mail from me concerning this, but I have a huge issue with you characterizing me, and also Bro. Mel, as being a “five-fold ministries” person, and NOT a charismatic or Pentecostal. If you read my blog, CB, then you know that my theology is not “void of any real biblical foundation.”
CB, just so that you know, my church does not openly embrace Bill Hamon. I am familiar with him and his ministry, and have read several of his books. We do not agree with everything he says, and personally, I do not agree with everything he says. He is one of the authors where one must, “chew the meat and spit the bones,” so to speak.
So, CB, I’d like to know why you believe that I am a part of this group, and why you believe my theology is “neo-Montanist,” as you describe it. Thanks.
cb5512
on Dec 28th, 2006
@ 4:25 pm:
JK,
First please notice my correction in this same comment thread. I may have made an error relating to Mel Montgomery as a Five-Fold ministry person. If he is I am sure he will let me know if he wishes. I state you are due to the simple fact that you stated you were involved in a Five-Fold ministry church and that your pastor’s pastor was an apostle. You stated this on your blog.
I state that Five-Fold theology is Neo-Montanist simply because it is. Do the research and you will come to the same conclusion.
For you to say you do not embrace all Bill Hamon teaches is no surprise. Five-Fold leaders say that a major purpose for their ministry is to bring unity to the “church”. A problem in doing such is that Five-Fold leaders get their theology from their own “prophetic interpretations” rather than a true biblical theology, creating a great absence of unity, thus convoluting their purpose in a major way.
When you state that Bill Hamon is a author of which one “must chew the meat and spit the bone” proves the point. The teaching of Bill Hamon has no “meat” of which to chew. There is not even a “bone” of biblical substance on which even a skin of “chewable meat” could be stretched over, which brings me to the reason for calling your hand in the first place.
It is evident you are a sharp guy. You are simply blinded by this unbiblical theology. I beseech you to seek out a good mainline Pentacostal pastor or theologian and let him mentor you toward a proper and biblical theology.
For that matter, if you wish, you could seek out a sound Southern Baptist with proper theological training and also the spiritual gift of the pastor-teacher and ask him to teach you biblical theology. You live in Oklahoma. Call Art, Wes, or Wade. One of them may be able to help you or put you in contact with someone they trust to do so.
Contact Bill Randles. He is the Pentacostal pastor that wrote: “Weighed and Found Wanting”. I am sure he could help you find a good Pentacostal pastor in Okalahoma that would help you.
I have read your posts and you do use Scripture, but your hermeneutics of the Scripture you use is poor at best. I do not say these things to hurt you without reason. Iron sharpens iron and the wound of a friend is good. I seek to be your friend, but I seek to be one who tells you the truth.
That is one of the great benefits of being in Blog Town. Those that live here help each other to grow and become stronger. Heed this and flee from the trap of Five-Fold theology. Others have and you may also, if you are willing.
cb
Jonathan K.
on Dec 28th, 2006
@ 4:43 pm:
Bro. CB,
You make a lot of doctrinal assumptions based on the fact that I said (1) I go to a church that believes in five-fold ministry, and (2) my pastor’s pastor is an apostle. You need to re-evaluate the assumptions you’ve made in this blog, and Peter’s blog, because much of that isn’t true, and on the basis of my two statements, you just cannot say everything you have said.
That being said, if you believe my theology is neo-Montanist, you need to explain why, if you are going to do so publicly. You need to explain to everyone here what neo-Montanism is, and why my own theology fits the bill. I don’t need to do that research, you are the one making the claim, you present your own research, since you are the “expert” here on the matter.
To you, my pastor may be a “five-fold leader,” but he never says a major purpose of his ministry is to bring unity to the “church,” as you suggest. Yes, we believe in a biblical concept of unity, but we are more concerned with what is happening in our own congregation, and in families, than churches in the local area, etc. Also, this allegation of pastors using “prophetic interpretations,” is not true of my own pastor. He preaches based on what the Bible says, and that’s all. If you have never heard my pastor speak, how can you say that of him, Bro. CB?
We do not openly embrace Bill Hamon at my church. I’ve personally read several of his books… but I disagree with some of what he says. Also, my pastor disagrees with a lot of what he says. There are some general concepts where both my pastor and I do agree with him, but a lot of other people, without even knowing who Bill Hamon is, ALSO agree. For instance, a major concept presented in his most recent books is that pastors have a responsibility to equip the members of their church to do the works that Jesus did… to go out and win the lost, heal the sick, cast out demons, and even raise the dead. What in the world could be wrong with that, Bro. CB?
Bro. CB, I am not a theologian. I’m not seminary-trained. I’m not a pastor. I’ve never taken a course in hermeneutics from anywhere, even Rhema in Tulsa (through correspondence or something). Please contact me via e-mail (as I did e-mail you) to discuss all of this further.
Thanks,
Jonathan
cb5512
on Dec 28th, 2006
@ 5:31 pm:
JK,
It was your desire to “influence” Southern Baptist as to your theology was it not? You did “openly” state something to that effect on this comment thread, did you not? Now, that one of us “ignorant” Southern Baptists has engaged you, you want to make it private.
( You did say I was “ignorant” of Five-Fold theology on Peter Lumpkins blog, did you not?)
Well, in all truth it is wrong for us to “strike iron” like I envision us doing relating to the weaknesses of Five-Fold and Latter Rain theologies on the blogs of others, so if it is private you want, it is private you will get, but be assured I will be posting about Five-Fold theology on my blog without reference to you. To expose your emails “openly” I will not do, but it is not wrong of me to post on this issue unrelated to your emails.
Your blog, my blog, or private, let us begin to converse as brothers with a desire for truth to rule the day.
cb
Bryan Riley
on Dec 28th, 2006
@ 11:14 pm:
CB, I appreciate you.
Jonathan K.
on Dec 29th, 2006
@ 1:33 am:
Bro. CB,
I have sent you an e-mail concerning the “ignorant” issue, in which I include an apology. I will also openly apologize for that. I think and believe we have different definitions of “five-fold,” and I discuss that also in the e-mail.
Just so that everyone here knows, the term “five-fold” to me simply means that I believe God has modern-day apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in the Body of Christ, and the general purpose of each of these office gifts is to equip and prepare Christian believers for the work of the ministry. That’s ALL it means… it has nothing to do with “prophetic interpretations,” or anything like that.
Bro. CB, I will gladly relate to you as a brother, and discuss the issues as you see them on your blog (and you can come onto mine). But I think we need to define our terms, so that third parties can understand that which we are discussing, and more importantly, so that we can understand one another better. Thanks.
Blessings,
Jonathan
Bryan Riley
on Dec 29th, 2006
@ 8:28 am:
CB strikes again. :) In such a good way. I pray we all will welcome all other brothers and sisters of Christ to the discourse of what it means to follow Jesus because none of us have a monopoly on it and because we belong to one another. Romans 12…
Jonathan K.
on Dec 29th, 2006
@ 4:49 pm:
Bryan,
The link from your name to your blog is giving me a 403 message.
Thanks
Art Rogers
on Dec 29th, 2006
@ 11:17 pm:
Jonathan,
Montanism is easily found on wikipedia, as is Five Fold Ministry.
Let me hasten to say that I would think it extremely disingenuous of you to openly try to influence this discussion with your theology and then seek to discuss the details of it within the confines of private emails.
CB has raised quite a few important questions about what you believe. Again they are important because you have openly declared that you are seeking to share your theological insights in hopes of helping others to think more like you.
Here are a few thoughts about this and then some questions that must be answered:
You say that you are not theologically trained and don’t have the ability to do theological research.
You rely heavily on, and quote often, your pastor as a definitive source of authority.
You have declared that you are a Five Fold Ministry adherent, though you have now qualified this on CB’s Blog, and in so doing you have all but disowned Five Fold thoughts and leadership.
What you have said yourself in defining what you believe about Five Fold Ministry, within this comment thread, reveals a complete misunderstanding of the Ephesians text, which did not establish five offices, but described – not definitively – four actions that build up the church. Your given definition, by the way, is the exact, though simplified, definition given by the leading authors of Five Fold Ministry theology.
Questions:
Have you ever stated on a blog thread or elsewhere that your pastor’s pastor was a true “Set-Man?”
You said that your pastor does not use “prophetic interpretation.” How do you know that? Has he specifically told you that? How could you even evaluate such a thing, since you have no theological or, more importantly, hermeneutical training?
Have you ever seen anyone within your church or theological community raise the dead as you claim is part of the equipping and commission you receive from your church?
What Southern Baptist pastor do you think would welcome your leadership, particularly given your claim of no theological training? I ask this because you claimed that you knew some who would welcome it.
That will do for now.
I want to add that I bear you no ill will, but at this point, I feel absolutely compelled to challenge you at every level, since you say you have the “right” to influence this conversation.
This is happening among the Southern Baptists – we are challenging each other on these theological issues – and you must not be less than any of the rest of us, given your disposition to insert yourself here. Rather, I think you should face a much more rigorous standard, since you admit that you are not a Southern Baptist and are attempting to lead us where you are.
Jonathan K.
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 3:30 am:
Art,
I have read BOTH Wikipedia articles on five-fold ministry, and its article on Montanism as well.
Let me say a few things in repsonse to your post.
First, I do not think it is disingenuous to discuss certain issues privately. There are two main reasons why I wish to discuss these issues privately with CB. One reason deals with the fact that it is not the current topic of your blog. It is what is called a “tangent,” and so I am doing this out of respect to you and other blog authors currently not discussing this issue. The other reason is because of the nature of the beast… “five-fold ministry” is a technical issue, doctrinally, and I do not believe that CB and I (let alone the other readers of your blog) have a common definition for “five-fold ministry.” We are discussing this on CB’s blog. Clearly, I have one definition for this concept, and CB has another. Add to that, Wikipedia has two articles on the subject, and there is more online that I could discuss.
You are correct that I have not been trained in biblical hermeneutics. Neither has my pastor, who I often quote as a source (although not authoritative) of wisdom and understanding. I believe that my pastor and I agree on probably 95% of our theology (I recognize there are areas where we disagree, which are minor, and not ‘big picture’ issues). I believe that when he says something, then I can refer to it. That doesn’t make him or what he says authoritative. But it does provide good examples of what I believe.
That being said, both my pastor and I believe in “five-fold ministry,” and I believe the two of us would articulate similar definitions of what that means. Yes, it is a GREATLY simplified definition that CB uses on his blog. I believe, and this does NOT come from my pastor, in the old cliche, “KISS: Keep it simple, stupid.” Sorry for the sarcasm, but it is better to keep it simple, so people can gain understanding of what you believe. Now, you mention that this is a misunderstanding of Eph. 4:11ff, that there are really four actions in constructing the church, not five offices. The Wikipedia article bases this argument on “rules of Hellenistic Greek grammar.” I disagree with that interpretation. There are other places in Scriptures that lists these gifts. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 12:28, “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers (not pastor-teachers),then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.” So, while this passage does not mention the pastor and the evangelist, it does not say pastor-teacher, and it does say apostles and prophets. So, I really do believe that these are office-gifts, and I’ve yet to see another Scripture verse or passage that suggests there are no longer any apostles, prophets, etc. in the church today.
Now I will attempt to answer your questions:
(1) I have never used the term “set-man” anywhere, personally, in a blog thread, or a comment, or anywhere. We do not use that term in my church, and my pastor’s pastor does not use that term. I’ve never heard my pastor use that word, although I am somewhat familiar with its meaning.
(2) The reason why I used “prophetic interpretation” as a phrase, is because CB brought it up. CB has articulated elsewhere in blog land that a part of five-fold ministry is “prophetic interpretation.” I really do not know what CB means by that. My pastor preaches the Word of God. He does so in a blended expositional/topical manner. I do not know what it means to prophetically interpet the Scriptures, but I do know what it means to preach the Scriptures in an expositional, topical, or combined way, and my pastor does so in a combined way.
(3) No, I have never seen anyone in my church or theological community effectively raise the dead. I know in at least one instance, back at my church in St. Louis there was an attempt to do this. When I say that raising the dead is part of the equipping and commissioning I receive at my church, I am claiming it as aspriational and ideal. Jesus DID raise the dead (i.e. Lazarus), and has likewise given us as Christian believers the authority and power to do the same. He has also given us the authority and the power to heal the sick and to win the lost. Does everyone get healed? No. Does everyone become born again? No. Likewise, not everyone gets raised from the dead, even when we attempt to do so in Jesus’ name.
(4) I’m not sure how to answer this question. Given the fact that I have not been to Bible school, even Rhema, that is a disadvantage outside my own theological community. However, I will say this. The theology that I agree with is shared by a group of Southern Baptists known as the Fresh Fire/New Wine network of churches. They are led by Pastor Ron Phillips of Abba’s House Church in Chattanooga, TN. Before changing the name of his church to “Abba’s House,” they were known as Central Baptist Church of Chattanooga. There is a church in Arlington, Texas area that is also affiliated with this group, which is the “Church at Trophy Lakes.” Another church in the DFW area that has affiliated is the “Fellowship of Joy,” which is pastored by Scott Camp, the former dean of students at Criswell College in Dallas.
I hope that those 4 paragraphs are sufficient to answer your questions. Please let me know if they are not. Thanks.
Art Rogers
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 8:08 am:
Jonathan,
Let me divide my answer two ways: letters for the first part of your last comment (unnumbered) and numbers to correspond to your numbers.
a) It most certainly is disingenuous to hold out your theology as something which you wish to impute to Southern Baptists and then seek to do anything but be anything but forthright in declaring the substance and source of your beliefs when asked. Saying it isn’t doesn’t make it not so
Also, it is nothing like a tangent, but is the very heart of this comment string and it is you who made it so. Technical issues are all we are dealing with, and so to hide behind this qualifier is duplicitous. My readers are fully capable of theological research on any given topic. Wikipedia actually has more articles than one would care to read on this and related subjects (the second one on Five Fold Ministries is pretty light, actually). I merely pointed to these two particular articles on that site as evidence that CB doesn’t have to define terms that are easily accessed for everyone who is reading this blog, as they are clearly connected to the internet. You seem to make out that because you have read the two articles linked you have done something exhaustive. You certainly haven’t.
b) That neither you or your pastor are trained in hermeneutics greatly devalues almost everything you say on this subject. It also lends great light to the mishandling of Ephesians and other Scriptures to say that they establish an ongoing office of “apostle” within the church today. Which leads us to…
c) Your definition of “Five Fold Ministry” (the core belief of which is the establishment of the office of apostle) is more than adequate to expose that you are outside the realm of theology of virtually all Southern Baptists, and, for that matter, a good many mainline Pentecostal denominations – the Assemblies of God, for example.
The point here is not that you may be right or wrong – there is no need to defend your position. The point is that we are so far apart on this eisegesis of Scripture as to make your thoughts on the subject of our discussion moot.
Beyond that, though, I will explain to you why we consider what you have already said you believe to be far beyond orthodoxy. The idea that there exists the modern day office of apostle is an issue of authority. The theology you have espoused here calls for a continued authority – one that allows men to claim further revelation beyond Scripture. In Scripture, the Apostles ran the church and had authority to say what was divine revelation. Note Paul saying that a certain command is direct revelation from the Lord, 1 Cor 7:10. Within the Latter Rain, Five Fold Ministry groups, “new revelation” abounds.
Without going into greater detail, as it is irrelevant, Southern Baptists have unequivocally settled the issue that the canon of Scripture is closed. Our sole authority is in the Word. The so-called “office of apostle” runs counter to that, and you have affirmed it.
1. The term “Set-Man” is old to this line of thinking. It is a term used to refer to men, “true apostles,” who have the ability to discern the prophetic revelation from God in the modern church. CB remembers you referring to your pastor’s pastor as a “set-man,” which is why he started paying attention to your comments. Turns out, CB has been dealing with this theology for decades. You don’t have to use the term in your church for it to be relevant, though. You have already affirmed the theology behind it.
2. If you don’t know what “prophetic interpretation” is, then how can you categorically deny its use by your pastor or anyone else? Moreover, there is no such thing as a blend of topical and expositional preaching. It’s one or the other. That you claim a blend to these two contradictory styles reveals how little you understand all that is at play here. I’m sorry for that statement, but it must be said.
3. If God has commissioned us to raise the dead, and it is your church’s expressed commission, then why isn’t happening? Never mind. I don’t need an answer. What you have said about this above is entirely enough to define you so far from Southern Baptist theology that you can’t even see us from where you are, which is my point.
4. This group of churches, the Fresh Fire/New Wine folks, are best exemplified by Scott Camp and his church. Glad you brought him up. He is the one who called Dwight an “apostle” (sound familiar?) at the Roundtable. He has, BECAUSE OF HIS THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES WITH SOUTHERN BAPTISTS, left the SBC. You see, this theology is not a part of who we are and those who would welcome it are moving away from us. You’ve made my point on this quite well.
In summary, Jonathan, I wish you well, but I, and I daresay I speak for almost all Southern Baptists on this issue, am not about to allow you to influence my thoughts on theology. You have made it clear that you are unqualified and adhere to beliefs that stem from what we consider to be heretical teaching. Frankly, we think you need to be influenced by us, hence CB’s constant offer to you that you sit down with one of us and let us talk through the details of what you believe and have been taught.
You cannot help us. You are not qualified to do so. I hope that you would let someone help you, though.
Along these lines, though, Rhema is no help but to further the poor theology you already have received. You need more orthodox education, if it is education that you desire.
Jonathan K.
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 5:21 pm:
Art,
a) I’m sorry that you believe I am disingeuous. That was not the reason why CB and I decided to have a private e-mail exchange. Since you do not believe this issue is a “tangent” as I do, then I’ll gladly become more open about my beliefs here, since that is what you are asking for.
b) So far as my pastor and I’s lack of training in hermeneutics, I’m sorry if that puts me at a disadvantage here. I’m not sure how to respond otherwise to that claim.
c) I disagree with the mootness claim, but I’ve yet to see someone in blog land adequately define the term “orthodox Christianity,” or simply “orthodoxy.” You are correct to say that the issue of whether there are modern-day apostles is an issue of authority. I strongly DISAGREE that my theology allows men to claim further revelation beyond Scripture. I think even those in my theological community would agree that the Bible is the final authority on all matters off faith and practice. The way we define an “apostle” or “apostolic leader” does not allow for such a person to claim revelation beyond Scripture. Regardless of how you interpret 1 Cor. 7:10, Paul was not giving “new revelation.” He was reiterating something Jesus said during His earthly ministry. Likewise, all modern-day apostles cannot give “new revelation” that is beyond the scope of the Scriptures. It must line up with what the Bible says, or forget it. While I agree that the canon of Scripture is closed, I disagree that the notion of a modern-day apostle runs counter to that, and I have yet to see why Baptists believe such a notion runs counter to it, as well.
(1) I don’t recall referring to my pastor’s pastor ever a set-man. I could be mistaken, but he is appropriately referred to as an “apostle” in our church, or simply “our pastor’s pastor.” Like I said, we do not use the term “set man” at all, although I am somewhat familiar with the meaning.
(2) CB is the one who came up with the term “prophetic interpretation,” and he needs to define it HERE, and everywhere else he uses the term, so that I can really respond to that. Regarding what my pastor does do, I do not see expositional and topical preaching as opposites. This is an example of what my pastor does. Maybe you, Pastor Art, or somebody else can say whether this is expositional, topical, or something else. My pastor will say, “Today we’re talking about “Being One With God,” (or something like that), so please open up your Bible to Romans 7, and then he will preach expositionally through Romans 7, which is the “central text,” and drawing in other Bible passages to further illustrate points. Is this not expositional teaching? It does not sound purely a topical approach to me.
(3) Is this a concession on this point?
(4) I did not know that Scott Camp had left the SBC. I only used his name because he is a speaker at Pastor Ron Phillips’ meetings. So far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, that Pastor Ron Phillips is STILL a Southern Baptist, and so is the “Church at Trophy Lakes” in Ft. Worth. I do find it strange that Pastor Camp would call Rev. Dwight McKissic an “apostle.” I can see Pastor Ron Phillips MAYBE that way, but not Dr. McKissic.
Finally, what saddens me through this whole thing is no one has defined “heresy,” and no one has defined “orthodoxy.” One Baptist Bible teacher, Beth Moore, has even come out and said that these kind of issues are NOT heresy. What do you all think of that?
Blessings,
Jonathan
cb5512
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 7:49 pm:
Jonathan,
Heresy is that which is not Orthodox. What more can we say?
cb
Bryan Riley
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 7:52 pm:
Jonathan, the link should work now.
Bryan Riley
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 7:58 pm:
“conforming to established doctrine especially in religion” is a definition of “orthodox” from Merriam Webster online as found through http://www.onelook.com, my favorite online dictionary resource. And here is a definition of “heresy” from the same source: “dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice.” So, on that basis I understand what you are saying CB, but I’m not sure I would go so far. I don’t find it heretical to believe that there are modern day apostles or that the apostolic gift isn’t given today. I don’t believe you have claimed that, but one could deduce that from the above comment string. On the other hand, Art may well be saying that.
Bryan Riley
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 8:05 pm:
OK, I’m trying not to create an issue here at all, and I am not taking sides, BUT, Art, whether you are correct on your doctrine here or not you are coming across very condescendingly, not just to Jonathan, but to every reader who hasn’t studied hermeneutics. Now, here is a definition of hermeneutics: “science of interpreting texts: the science and methodology of interpreting texts, especially the books of the Bible.” Personally, I think we endanger ourselves as a people of faith when we boil down biblical interpretation to a “science or a methodology.” Don’t get me wrong, it is important to approach the texts in a sound way, but that sound way may be little more than a humble and pure heart, saved by grace through faith, filled with the Holy Spirit, seeking His word completely. Given the Holy Spirit in every believer, I don’t think we all need hermeneutics to interpret the scriptures soundly or to enter the discourse. But, we do need humility. And we do need love.
cb5512
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 9:30 pm:
Bryan,
I know you are knowledgeable to that of which I am about to speak so please do not think I am in a mode of condescension here.
Just as there are boundaries of conduct we must not cross, there are boundaries within Orthodoxy we must not abuse.
The particular theological system several of us have been debating for the last couple of days is one wherein much is abusive to the limits of Orthodoxy. Therefore, those that hold fast to the truth of our faith must speak to the error of the afore mentioned theology, especially when it is cast upon us as a perfect solution to our problems as Southern Baptists.
It was for that purpose and one ofa personal nature that I engaged this debate.
cb
Jonathan K.
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 10:09 pm:
Bryan,
I am still getting the 403 error with the link.
CB,
I agree with Bryan on this one. I think Beth Moore also agrees, that there is some gray area between that which is “orthodoxy” and that which is “heresy.” It is not all black and white. I also agree with Bryan that we do not need to resort to hermeneutics, as Bryan has suggested in his awesome post.
I also agree that there are boundaries of orthodoxy that are not to be abused. I think that orthodoxy is more of a “big tent” for Christians than a small one. Take eschatology, for instance, I think there are a multitude of views allowed for under orthodoxy, and we do not all have to be pre-mill and pre-trib as R.A. Torrey believes. The same can be said regarding spiritual gifts (which is being discussed here), and other issues as well. I would not even place eternal security (or not) as being a question of orthodoxy.
Hope that helps.
Blessings,
Jonathan
Bryan Riley
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 10:33 pm:
CB, I understand that, and that I do not challenge, but only because I am ignorant of the issues being discussed. I challenged the method of debate used by Art. This is his blog and I called that into question only.
Bryan Riley
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 10:35 pm:
When I click on my name, Jonathan, it takes me right there. It is http://missionsconnexion.com/cs if you would like to just type it in to your browser.
cb5512
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 11:04 pm:
Jonathan,
I agree that you do not see things as a question of Orthodoxy, but, we who are Orthodox do.
cb
Jonathan K.
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 11:26 pm:
Bryan,
I entered the link into my browser, and still get the 403 Error message. I really don’t know why. Maybe John Stickley can say why?
CB,
You claim to be Orthodox? Is there such a thing as Baptist Orthodox, LOL? Sorry for the pun.
Jonathan
Art Rogers
on Dec 30th, 2006
@ 11:54 pm:
First, let me say to Bryan that the reason I answered Jonathan K thusly is threefold: 1) He claims a right to influence our discussion, 2) He is espousing beliefs that are heretical, 3) Those beliefs are based on something people have told him that are based on what they have been told, but not based on an Orthodox interpretation of the Bible. Hermeneutics is a method that does its best to not make a mistake in interpreting the Bible. We want to make sure not to get it wrong. They have not been trained and it is costing them in the issue of authority beyond Scripture, something Jonathan has affirmed and IS HERETICAL – you would do well to research it diligently. I am truly sorry to any and everyone who thinks this is condescending, but I think it merits the strongest of responses. If you don’t like this, though, stay away from Triablogue. ;)
Coming back to Jonathan now,
a) Good. I am glad that you will be forthcoming.
b) It doesn’t put you at a disadvantage. It disqualifies you.
c) Your opinion concerning the “mootness” (this is not a word, btw, but I use it since you did) is just that: your opinion. It is not based on reason, either. The salient point here is that your theology is light years from ours and that makes your opinions on our theology irrelevant. That is a fact on which your opinion has no bearing.
Just because you think something is true, doesn’t make it true. Stand on top of a cliff and believe in your mind that you will fly if you cast yourself off. Thinking you will soar will not keep you from falling.
1) Calling him an Apostle is good enough. It doesn’t matter what term you use, you have an extra Biblical authority – that’s heretical.
2) CB doesn’t have to define anything. I’m coming back to this, but you need to understand that when you demand a definition of terms, you are saying that you don’t even know what we all are talking about. I know we have to be sure that we are misunderstanding one another, but this is not a court of law. Bullying people by demanding they define terms to your satisfaction doesn’t win you the argument before a jury. Rather, it tells us that you can’t answer his question and therefore, you attack the question. This action only hurts you.
3) A concession? You should reread what I wrote. What I said was that this is yet another area where you reveal that your theology is so far separate from ours, it makes your opinion irrelevant. Whether or not you raise the dead is not relevant. That you think it is your commission is the point.
4) None of that changes my point, which is still true: that people who hold to this theology are moving away from the SBC because we are so different in our beliefs. This means that the denomination is not moving toward your position.
5) Going back to my point about definitions, if you need someone to define heresy, what makes you think that you will be able to speak to this, or any, issue? This is basic stuff, and if you are not readily conversant on it, then, again, it proves that you are not qualified to speak here.
Further, Beth Moore has NEVER said that the establishment of an authority beyond Scripture, WHICH IS THE ISSUE, is not a matter of heresy. You are very wrong to lump this into her statement. You should, by the way, cite it or link to it if you are going to reference it as you do.
You can’t. She didn’t say that.
She did say that the PPL issue and others are not a matter of heresy, and she is right there. This is not where I said you were being heretical, and therefore is a false claim on your part. (though I assume it was unintentional)
I know the value Beth puts on God’s Word, and I am quite sure she would never say that the setting up of an authority beyond Scripture was anything but heretical. Again, cite it and prove me wrong. I will call her myself, if you can show me where she makes the claim that extra Biblical authority is not an issue of heresy.
There are things that are not a matter of Orthodoxy in this discussion. However, since you are outside the bounds of Orthodoxy on the grounds of authority, your opinions on these other things are disqualified.
Beth won’t help you, here, either. And you cited her twice as authoritative, but gave no quote or link to her words to verify that she is actually backing you up.
Let me say this again, plainly, so that there is no misunderstanding:
You must cite Beth saying that the establishment of an office within the modern church, called “apostle,” to which God gives the holder authority over the church and divine revelation is not an issue of heresy for you to use her words in your favor in this argument.
Again, I say that you will never find such a thing.
Not that it matters. IF she had said such a thing, I would say that she were heretical as well. This point, however – like the one above – is moot, since I am absolutely positive that she never said it.
Jonathan K.
on Dec 31st, 2006
@ 1:13 am:
Pastor Art,
I’m going to respond to your comments, in order.
(a) I won’t be afraid to tackle the technical issues here, so long as CB will also openly discuss this stuff. Pastor Art, I’d like to know where you’d like me to start in explaining what I believe.
(b) I don’t think that disqualifies me. I’d sure like to see your unwritten rules that says it does disqualify me.
(c) Mootness is a legal term I learned in the first semester of Constitutional Law in law school. It actually is a doctrine that the Supreme Court has invented. Regardless, I do not believe my theology is “light years” from yours. We both agree that Jesus is the Savior. We both believe in the Trinity. We both believe in a lot of issues, so I think if we took a poll on our theology, there would be more shared than disagreed upon.
Now for the numbers…
(1) Calling my pastor’s pastor is NOT heretical, and we do not claim extra-biblical authority here. Paul was Timothy’s pastor, and thus was an apostle, and this is a similar relation. Even Beth Moore says this is not heretical, and is more of a “gray area.” Why do you keep on insisting the calling of a pastor’s pastor an apostle as heretical. Where in the Bible does it say this is forbidden? Where in the Bible does it say apostles have ceased their function?
(2) If CB is going to throw out a term, he needs to explain what he means. And that goes for everyone else. I cannot really respond to something that is not defined sufficiently for me to respond to. Again, no one has really defined “heresy” for me, or “orthodoxy” as well, according to a Bible standard. That’s what I’m looking for, so I can respond to that. I’d sure like to offer Beth Moore’s definition of these terms, but I do not think anyone here would agree to that.
(3) If Jesus was able to raise the dead, why do you think it is wrong for Christian believers to attempt to do so today? If you do not believe that Christians have the authority and power to raise the dead, then you also do not believe we should go out and the lost. I thought Southern Baptists believed in being an “Acts 1:8 church.”
(4) So, your point is that “people who hold to this theology are moving away from the SBC because we are so different in our beliefs. This means that the denomination is not moving toward your position.” Maybe yes and maybe no. Even if the SBC is not moving towards “my position,” all the more why there needs to be a greater influence to reach SBC people.
(5) If someone offered a valid definition of heresy, then I would be able to respond to it, because such a valid definition would show what heresy is NOT. A former pastor of mine said heresy is any doctrine that would “shatter one’s faith.” Thus, believing in modalism and not the Trinity is heretical, denying the atonement or the efficacy of the blood of Jesus is likewise heretical. These are clearly tenets outside the Christian faith. I AM conversant about that.
As regards to Beth Moore, there are two things I should say. First, I cannot link to it, because I heard her say what she said on James Robison’s TV show, “Life Today.” She did a teaching about the backbone of Christianity, and one of her points was that if the doctrine was not a part of the backbone, then it could NOT be considered heresy. Beth Moore lumped the “spiritual gifts” question as not being heretical, which includes BOTH the PPL issue, AND the issue of whether there is still a gift of apostle today. It is the latter issue that was brought up here. Please clarify if this is not accurate.
The other thing I must say is that I have never, ever claimed to establish any authority besides Scripture. You, and perhaps others, have insinuated that I have, and I really have not. You think that because my pastor’s pastor is called an “apostle” in our theological community, that somehow that automatically establsihes an extra-biblical authority. That certainly is not true. The relation is much more similar to Paul-Timothy, which I do not see you denounce at all.
There is one more thing. You stated, “You must cite Beth saying that the establishment of an office within the modern church, called “apostle,” to which God gives the holder authority over the church and divine revelation is not an issue of heresy.” This statement IMPLIES two things that I do NOT believe:
(1) This statement IMPLIES that I believe that God gives the holder of the office of “apostle” authority over the church, and
(2) This statement IMPLIES that I believe God gives the holder of the office of “apostle” divine revelation (I’m going to assume this would be revelation on the same level of Scripture).
Neither of these implications are correct. I do believe that God has established an office within the modern church called “apostle.” What I do not believe is that holders of this office have authority over the church (universal or local), OR that God has given them some kind of divine revelation on the same level of Scripture.
I would like to offer an alternative, functional definition of someone who is a holder of the office of “apostle.”
Such a person would be a pastor of pastors, and would oversee local congregations that relationally (but not hiearchially) relate to that apostle as a “sent one,” (that’s what apostolos means) to establish them in the faith, and to EQUIP THE SAINTS FOR THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY. That is the general purpose of the office of “apostle,” to equip the saints (Christian believers) for the work of the ministry (train them for ministry, perfect them, etc.) The office of “apostle” is listed at least 3 places in the Bible. It is listed in Eph. 4:11ff, it is listed in 1 Cor. 12:28, and it is listed in Eph. 2:20. There is no verse in the Bible that expressly and explicitly says God has ceased dispensing this gift to His Body. This issue is completely within the germane of “spiritual gifts,” and not an issue of extra-biblical authority.
That should be sufficient now to discuss. Art, if you have additional questions, or others do as well, please ask and I’ll respond as openly as I can. Thanks.
Blessings,
Jonathan
Art Rogers
on Dec 31st, 2006
@ 4:28 am:
Jonathan,
I now feel like I am talking to a fence post. At the end of your last comment, you said that your answer would be enough to discuss.
I have already discussed everything so far as need be discussed. My frustration comes from the fact that you seem to fail in comprehending anything and when faced with something you don’t’ like, you say you don’t believe it – as if that refutes everything.
Somethings you have written on here I have finished with. If you can’t get it, I can’t help you. Circular arguments are not worth my time.
This is the last comment on this thread. I’m done talking with you after this, since you don’t hear anything you don’t want to hear and think that denying something is enough to refute it.
Here goes:
a) You’ve already explained everything you need to explain sufficiently.
b) Don’t think you fall off the cliff? I can’t help you. You seek to influence me. I think you have heretical theology, don’t know what you are talking about and won’t listen to anyone else. I won’t listen to you. That’s what disqualifies you.
c) Turns out mootness is a legal term, just as you say. I concede that the term exists and apologize for saying it doesn’t. I have never heard of it before now.
It doesn’t matter that you don’t think you are light years away from me. I think you are. That’s all that matters in this. See “b” above.
1) *sigh* See this is where you just say, “Nuh-uh!” as loud and as often as you can and think that is the same as a convincing argument.
Assigning the Office of Apostle to a modern day churchman is heretical. If you don’t believe it, I don’t care. It is you who is seeking to influence me, here.
The Bible doesn’t forbid it. It just doesn’t establish it. You bring this up again in more detail in a moment so I will finish this thought later.
2) No. We don’t have to define everything for you just because you demand we jump through your hoops. It doesn’t matter. You aren’t listening anyway. Heresy was defined twice for you earlier and you could easily look it up. Being stubborn about us conforming to your standards for discussion doesn’t change our perception of you, but affirms you want to argue us into submission.
Again, this discussion is over as you are not listening, but no one would have objected to Beth Moore defining anything. You never offered any quotation or citation of her that could be verified. More on this in just a moment.
3) Again, you aren’t listening. That you think that this is your commission shows how far away you are from Southern Baptists. We’re not listening to this stuff, no matter how much you insist you have the right to make us.
4) “Maybe yes, maybe no?” *sigh* Again, you don’t want to hear what you don’t want to hear.
You just don’t get this. Do your proselytizing elsewhere. We aren’t buying what you are selling.
5) Heresy, twice offered, twice ignored.
This is hearsay and spurious. I deny she said what you say she said. I think you are hearing what you want to hear. You would have had to cite it definitively to use it with validity and you know that. I am sure you are mistaken about her affirming the “office of apostle” as not heretical.
You did say earlier that the office of apostle was about authority. It is used as extra Biblical authority by those with whom you worship. I now think you don’t even know what your own church believes, but seek to impute it on others anyway.
You have already affirmed the two things you say I am implying and are now denying.
I know full well what apostolos means. You do not. You have added to the definition “sent ones” to be the role of a bishop. Those Scriptures do not establish an office. It is not a spiritual gift. Ephesians 4 does not list it as one. I know the argument. I reject the argument. It is a spurious hermeneutic.
Also, I have already explained my point on this a long time ago, but, again, you weren’t listening.
We are done discussing. In fact, we never began. To have a discussion, you have to have two people who are willing to listen to one another.
You will not listen to me. Having read what you have written here, I don’t care to lend you my ear.
Jonathan, saying that you think we should all listen to you, while admitting you don’t have any theological training and believe things that we think are heretical, just isn’t enough to insinuate yourself into the conversation.
You are no ally of mine. You can not help me and I don’t want your help.
I know this sounds harsh, but I have tried to be subtle and have increasingly become more and more blunt.
We’re through talking. You don’t listen and I don’t want to hear what you have to say about any of this.
Goodbye.