Author: art rogers
Danny Akin stands apart
Wednesday, June 13th, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Danny Akin, just endorsed the motion adopting the BFM, separating himself from Mohler, Patterson and Kelley.
He also said that no issue would be adopted by SEBTS that would keep people from going to share the Gospel. Clearly, in context,
this is a statement that they would not go beyond the BFM with doctrinal issues.
When asked by Marty whether or not he was a cessationist or continualist, Danny said he was a continualist.
When asked by Ben whether or not the Abstract of Principles differed from the BFM, he replied that though there may be nuances, they are not significant. He has specifically separated himself from Al Mohler’s presentation distinctly.
This is an answer to my personal prayers for leaders to step out and deal with these issues.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Posts with related content
Live Blogging, SBC, San Antonio '07
June 13th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Art - thanks for your great reporting! I am missing being there.
Tad
June 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Art,
I can’t wait to see the spin on this one.
Les
June 13th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Hey guys,
This is a bit of a “victory” in itself. If even one of the leaders stands from the old guard it is remarkable considering the last 20 years. The hope is one leader speaking out will lead to another. I know from gathering with preachers etc over the last years that the hunger for reform is very real. As in the early 70s we will need various leaders to hold on despite the pressures. I know that I am reporting to my little association here in Texas on a regular basis. This isnt much but it is one way I can take the lead to spread reform. My blog is more devotional and church centered and doesnt have the readership of the “big 3.” I do what I can there when possible. Each of us has to find something we can do to assist these who are more public than us. Just my two cents worth again.
Trey
June 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Art,
Were the questions posed by Marty and Ben during the Q/A time for SEBTS, in the full audio and visual purview of the messengers? If so, this is a great report to hear.
“John” the Baptist
June 13th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Brother Art,
Did we listen to the same report? How did you see Dr. Aiken separate himself from Dr. Mohler?
Blessings,
Tim
June 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Great to hear Danny stepping up to the plate as a theological conservative leader toward Baptist cooperation and participation…
Dr. Mohler’s sharp criticism of the conventions actions concerning the BF&M were disappointing.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Brother Darren,
Dr. Aiken said the same thing that Dr. Mohler said. I told him at the SEBTS booth in the Exhibit Hall that I was going to ask him about his understanding of the motion. He responded to me that I needed to listen to what Dr. Al Mohler said. He did not say anything that contrasted what Dr. Mohler said. As a matter of fact he stated that the BF&M was the MINIMAL standard. He said in the Alumni Luncheon that everyone signed the BF&M with no caveats [my word]. He also stated that the BF&M was in no way in disagreement with the Abstracts. So to say that Dr. Aiken is in a separate position than Dr. Mohler is not being accurate.
Blessings,
Tim
June 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Brother Tim,
I really don’t believe that Dr. Akin nor Dr. Mohler really believes that the action taken by the convention Tuesday evening had anything to do with the Abstract of Principles. The convention would stand in the way of Southern profs being required to sign accordingly….
This was and is about NAMB and IMB trustees continually narrowing the parameters for cooperation and participation.
Dr. Akin and Dr. Mohler seemed to respond to this in two very different directions.
Sincerely,
dc
June 13th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Brother Darren,
Ask Dr. Akin if he is saying something different than Dr. Mohler.
Blessings,
Tim
June 13th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
It is ironic that the BF&M2K, which was so vitally important to Dr. Patterson and members of the CR in 1999, and which was used as a club on missionaries (it was sign it or resign), is now seen by Dr.’s Patterson, Kelley, Mohler, Barber, Yarnell, et.al. as entirely too wimpy, and in need of strengthening through additional, far narrower, interpretive positions. Only the Abstract’s positions are genuinely historically Southern Baptist. Cessationism and Landmarkism, while present in some Southern Baptists, have never been held by a majority of Southern Baptists.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Brother Tim,
Honestly bro, it’s time for me to get back to the work of doing mission… Dr. Akin and Dr. Mohler will return to theirs.
I just think that tonight, with regards to the conventions actions about the BF&M, San Antonio heard a different response from one of our seminary president than the one this morning.
Hey maybe I’m wrong…
Safe travels home… We’re on our way…
Sincerely,
dc
June 13th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I have to agree with Tim. I watched Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin, and there did not seem to be a grave difference in the content, just stated differently based on context and mission of seminaries. Mohler was applying the decision from last evening specifically to how it relates to hiring practices, which I don’t see would be different from what would happen at Southeastern.
Maybe I am a little weird, but Mohler via internet did not come across to me as being sharply critical of the Convention. I will go back and listen again, but I seem to pick up that Mohler placed great authority on what the Convention as a body decided, in essence saying that the Convention had entrusted the Trustees of each entity to help make decisions inline with the Convention’s desires - which are clearly guided by the BFM 2000. Also, I felt like Mohler raised the bar for Conventions of the future by setting the stage for more depth and discussion on theological issues if the Convention deems necessary for there to be changes. And as our seminaries produce men that are thoroughly educated beyond the single issue of the inerrancy of Scripture our Conventions of the future will be noticably different in depth and content, I believe.
In light of that, I do think there needs to be some more time alotted for discussion on motions, resolutions, etc. I was not there but from the comments of others it seems as though folks were left standing.
I believe it was a new day for our Convention and as the graduates of our seminaries begin to lead in our churches across the Convention, I believe the discussion on theological issues will prove healthy for our churches and our Convention.
I am proud to have men like Danny Akin, Al Mohler, Ed Stetzer, Thom Rainer, etc as leaders in key areas. We are not a perfect group of believers, but we have a tremendous opportunity with resources and a generation of called men and women willing to risk their lives to run to our future; which is cooperation in seeing the gospel and the glory of God spread to the nations through shared theologically conservative convictions married to creative well-thought out means of engaging the culture in every part of the world.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Tim,
It was good seeing you and I pray you have safe travels home.
I think you might have missed the difference. My perception was that Dr. Mohler took the stance that the convention had called them to use the BFM as a “guide” only, while Dr. Akin said clearly that the would never adopt restrictions that would keep folks from going on missions.
I also think that such a line of thinking as Dr. Mohler’s represents is displays a desire to willfully ignore the word “sufficient” before the word “guide.”
From Webster’s:
Pronunciation: s&-’fi-sh&nt b : being a sufficient condition
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sufficient-, sufficiens, from present participle of sufficere
1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end
2 archaic : QUALIFIED, COMPETENT
In other words, there need be nothing beyond this guide.
It is an interesting tact to interpret the statement this way, but reminds me of President Clinton defining the word “is.”