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
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 b : being a sufficient condition
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.”

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.

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

Ask Dr. Akin if he is saying something different than Dr. Mohler.

Blessings,
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

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

Dr. Mohler’s sharp criticism of the conventions actions concerning the BF&M were disappointing.

Did we listen to the same report? How did you see Dr. Aiken separate himself from Dr. Mohler?

Blessings,
Tim

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