Wednesday, August 02, 2006

The Bloggers Who Cried Wolf!

There once was a shepherd boy tending his flock. One day he decided to cry, “Wolf” when there was no wolf. To his delight he received much attention. The town heard his cry and the people came to help him. However, they were frustrated when they realized it was a false alarm. Later, he cried wolf again when there was no wolf. And once more he received attention as the townspeople came to help. After they left the second time the boy really saw a wolf. With all of his energy he cried, “Wolf,” but this time no one came. He had lost his integrity and could not be believed.

I have always enjoyed the lessons contained in Aesop’s Fables. But the lesson of the boy who cried wolf is only a shadow of the tragedies that occur when one cries fowl erroneously. Let’s look deeper at these tragedies.

There once was a great town, which maintained a lighthouse for lost ships. A group in the town sought to extinguish the light. However, the townspeople rallied behind their leaders and rose victoriously through civil strife as they dismantled the heretical group of light-haters. The town lived in harmony for many years after this incident.

In time, a new generation of townspeople arose. This generation had not fought in the civil strife and yet they were preparing to be the next keepers of the light. One day a small group of bloggers within this generation decided to cry warnings of improprieties about the leadership of the town. “WOLF!” They cried. They received much attention. Their buddies applauded them, light-haters encouraged them, conspiracy theorists believed them and the townspeople listened. However, as their accusations were checked for validation they were found wanting.

For whatever reason the bloggers decided to cry wolf again. And again: applause from their buddies; encouragement from the light-haters; belief by the conspiracy theorists and; concern by the townspeople. However, like before, their cries were unsubstantiated.

Who knows what prompted these bloggers to continue to cry wolf…but they did. And their cries received the same reaction from many. However, in time their unfounded claims caused them to lose credibility with more and more townspeople. Furthermore, their legacy became one of tainting the town erroneously.



Obviously, this is a story of the SBC and yes this is about the bloggers who are crying fowl concerning our leadership. The unsubstantiated claims and implications continue to be voiced to the applause of buddies, the encouragement of liberals, and the belief by conspiracy theorists.

Those who are doing the crying would have us believe they are really concerned about the SBC and there are no more liberals amongst us. The validity of the first I cannot speak to, however, I assure you, there are liberals in our convention.

My grandparents were members of First Baptist Church of Richmond, Va. Their last shepherd before they passed was the current pastor Rev. Jim Flamming. I remember one weekend when I was a student at Southeastern I went to their house in the fan district of Richmond. My grandmother asked me if I really believed all the miracles in the Bible. Immediately, I replied yes. She said, “Do you really believe a fish swallowed a man, spat him up on a beach, and then, the man preached?” I said, “Yes.” She replied, “but that is scientifically impossible.” I said, “If God can create the universe by speaking it into existence, then I believe God can have a whale swallow a man, spit him up, and then, have the man preach.”

I truly believe my grandparents were saved and are now in heaven. They both believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and had professed him as Lord. While their erroneous beliefs about some of the miracles in the Bible concerned me deeply, I was more concerned with whoever was teaching them such heresy.

Fellow Southern Baptist to assume there are no liberals amongst us is a most naive and dangerous assumption. There are. And they would like nothing better than for us to lower the standard of inerrancy under the guise of widening the tent.

I am convinced our President Frank Page would never allow such a lowering. And I am grateful for him and his leadership. I also feel many of the bloggers would not lower the standard, but there are some amongst us who would, and they are enjoying the bloggers crying wolf.

Perhaps our wolf-crying brethren would be better off masticating on God’s Word (Proverbs 6:16-19) than castigating God’s children.

My great-grandmother used to say, “the more you stir manure, the more it stinks.” While some may enjoy such an aroma producing activity I do not, however, I do desire to scoop it out.

BR

101 comments:

Christopher Redman said...

I understand the fable and the moral of the story but I don't know who you claim cried wolf.

I know I'm out of the loop and not informed. Is there any light that can be shown to further clarify this post?

Blessings,
CR

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mom2 said...

It seems to me that we have some sheep that are straying from the shepherd. Instead of wanting to remain with the flock, prefer to go out and graze with other flocks.

I don't think SBC Pastor is straying.

Anonymous said...

The Struggle With Self
Charles Stanley
Do you know someone who is extremely critical? Regardless of what the situation may be, she always manufactures something negative to say. Seemingly oblivious to her own negativity, she lives with very little joy and peace, meandering through life with a "glass is half empty" mentality.
What is the source of such pessimism? Why can't negative people see beyond flaws and imperfection, and, instead, focus on the positive aspects of life?
Usually, this type of defeatist attitude results from a poor self-image. Overly critical, negative people will oftentimes project onto others the same feelings they have about themselves. Sadly, this attitude of inadequacy seeps into their spiritual lives, hindering healthy relationships with God by causing them to hold an erroneous view of Him.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul sets the model for self-image when he humbly states, "I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God, I am what I am" (15:9-10). On one hand, Paul realizes that he is a sinner, but, at the same time, he understands that the grace of God makes him a new creation-forgiven and in the process of being conformed to the image of Christ.
The question is-what are the characteristics of a positive self-image? A person with a positive view of himself is aware of his strengths and weaknesses, is open and honest, can say "I love you" without hesitation, can voice his opinion without fear of criticism or retaliation. Most importantly, though, he accepts himself-scars, blemishes, and all-because God first accepted him. (1 John 4:19)
On the other hand, someone with a negative self-image doesn't trust himself or others, questions his ability, suffers from a "persecution complex" (i.e., "Everyone is out to get me!"), is scared to open up, always wears a "mask"-so as not to let others in on his flaws-and usually feels as though God determines his worth by how much good he accomplishes, resulting in a "workaholic" mentality.
Now that we know the different outward displays of self-image, both good and bad, what are some of the reasons for having an unhealthy view of ourselves?
First on the list is, of course, sin. Many times, sin causes us to fall into a guilt trap. We look at our flaws and we ask, "How can God help me with this sin in my life?" Guilt begins a process of self-deterioration that will slowly wear on your mind over a long period of time.
Another reason for a negative self-image is the "overachievement trap." The person with this mindset believes that he must prove his worth to God through works. In order to feel worthy to God, he believes he needs to accomplish something "great." If, and when, he reaches that milestone, he sets the bar higher and higher until he eventually burns out.
Our unwillingness to accept criticism also hinders our ability to move toward a positive self-image. A man with a godly view of himself decides whose approval he wants-God's or the world's. From there he chooses to live for the Lord and the issue is settled. As long as we live, there will always be someone who criticizes us. We simply cannot be everything to everybody. (1 Corinthians 9:22)
Finally, one of the most harmful causes of a poor self-image is an erroneous view of Scripture. In Philippians 2, Paul's call of "death to self" doesn't mean that we are to no longer value or have worth within ourselves. Many times, this Scripture passage can be distorted, causing some Christians to view themselves as worthless.
Philippians 2 simply calls for us to view ourselves from God's point of view. Paul is asking us, as believers, not to use others as a stepping-stone for our own personal gain, while, also, striving to humble ourselves to the point that Christ humbled Himself. This is just one small example of how Scripture can be erroneously interpreted, resulting in a poor self-image.
So how do we develop a positive view of ourselves and leave behind all the extra baggage that weighs us down? Here are a few biblical pointers for overcoming a negative self-image:
--Salvation: Obviously, it all starts with accepting the forgiveness Jesus provided at the cross. Without this, we'll never view ourselves correctly because, from an eternal standpoint, we have nothing without Christ. (Ephesians 1:7)
--Saturate Yourself With Scripture: The more you read God's Word with purpose, the more you will fill your mind with God's attitude toward you-unconditional love, forgiveness, and acceptance. (Matthew 6:5-6)
--Secure Forgiveness: Ask the Lord for forgiveness for certain sins that have harbored within your soul. (John 3:16)
--Stop Bartering With God: Don't attempt to trade good works for God's approval. The truth is, you can't do anything to make Him love you any more or any less. Regardless of what you may have done, God can't love you any more than He already does-His love for you is already perfect. (Galatians 3:13-14)
--Share yourself: The man who is the happiest walks with his heart wide open. Allow others into your life; share your thoughts and feelings with those around you. (Proverbs 20:7)
--Stop Thinking About The Past: Focus on what God is doing in your life today, rather than your failures from yesterday. Live in the present, and let God guide you as you walk into the future. (Isaiah 65:17)
Until you develop a good self-image, you'll never realize the plans the Lord has for your life. If you've been struggling with this issue, if you find yourself in a persistent haze of criticism and negativity, take this month's article to heart and ask God to help release you from the burden of an unhealthy self-image.

mom2 said...

A very good devotional, anonymous. I admire Dr. Stanley greatly. Adrain Rogers was probably my favorite, but both Godly men of wisdom.
Not quite sure about the presence of the post at this time, but wisdom is never out of taste or style. God's Word is unchanging and does not vary with times or cultures.
God bless all, as we are on a journey and His will and His way are best.

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous
Please read our new rules. You can submit a comment that abides by them.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Christopher
I have already aluded to one in another post. If you do not know, consider yourself blessed and just keep serving the Lord.
May the Lord bless you
BR

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,

Not sure what your comment has to do with this post...but since it is in good taste and wise words I did not want to remove it.
BR

IN HIS NAME said...

BRAD, I can see your back at it again. I'm trying to see you HEART.

A QUESTION FOR YOU! and each of us.

Scripture Reading: Genesis 4:2-12

The Lord said . . . “Where is your brother . . . ?” . . . [Cain] replied, “Am I my brother's keeper?” Gen. 4:9

What causes breakdown in conversations?

Blame and shame entered this world through Adam and Eve's sin. Breakdown within the family continued with their children, Cain and Abel. What should have brought two brothers together—their worship of God—became a setting for comparison and jealousy.

The smallness of Cain's heart for God contrasted starkly with Abel's devotion in his gift to God. Instead of looking to God for redirection, Cain looked to settle the score with Abel. Taking matters into his own hands, Cain killed Abel, and his blood cried out to God.

Comparison and jealousy still exist as root causes of family breakdown today. Maybe you know of someone who is part of your family but is currently “in exile.” How did it all begin? How will it end?

There's a moment in God's conversation with Cain that makes us wonder if there could have been a different ending to this story. Could forgiveness have won out over exile? God asked a question for which he already knew the answer, and instead of coming out of the shadows of death Cain shrouded himself with the defense that he was not now—and would not be—his brother's keeper. The conversation turned from the potential for confession to the pronouncement of judgment. Are you a brother or sister's keeper?


Prayer
Merciful Father, help us to know that loving you and loving one another are the most important things in life. In the name of our Brother, Jesus, we pray. Amen.



Today is a ministry of The Back to God Hour
http://www.BacktoGod.net/
email: btgh@crcna.org
800.879.6555;

posttinebraelux said...

Mom2,

Are you talking about members of your local church? If so, have you sat down with them to discuss why you believe it important not to 'graze with other flocks'? I'm not sure what grazing with other flocks means, but it sounds bad, doesn't it? At any rate, maybe God will use you to help guide them back into the right fold.

Grace and peace,

PTL

mom2 said...

posttinebraelux, No, I am not talking about my local church. I will tell you what I was referencing. Our SBC has had the same guidelines for years.
THIS YEAR, the issue that was brought up, seems to be the thing that brought division and I wonder why it was brought up. Why are our people NOW concerned with this? Who caused the discussion that we who have abided by the guidelines, still have no problem with?
Yet because of the ones that are in the minority on this, seem not to want to accept what the majority voted, then the majority seems to be the trouble makers. That is just the way it seems to me. Evidently, we have different views, but that does not mean we are not brother and sister. (or sheep)

sbc pastor said...

I think that Mom2 may be referring to wayward sheep within the SBC, such as those referenced in Brad’s fable: 1) a few bloggers that have falsely accused leaders within the SBC – apparently in order to draw attention to themselves, and 2) moderates and liberals that desire the SBC to take a “leftward” turn theologically. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

sbc pastor said...

Mom2,

Apparently you replied while I was in the process of typing my comment... sorry! God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

A perfect example of what you are saying is found on my post. Dr. Burleson has responded and he does not see anything wrong with his post to which I have linked my post.

Welcome back!
Tim

posttinebraelux said...

Mom2,
What issue are you talking about? The alcohol issue? Surely you're not inferring that those who hold a moderationist position are 'grazing with other flocks'? That's an awfully accusatory thing to say, don't you think?

SBCPastor,
I think you may have been mistaken. I think Mom2 was talking about those who encouraged a closer look at the abstentionist position of the SBC.

Sincerely,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

SBCPastor,
I just read a part of your post that I guess I overlooked. You might not be mistaken after all. I, too, think she was talking about those who would encourage another look at the Biblical accuracy of an abstentionist position - or as you would refer to them: 'those who would take a 'leftward' turn theologically.' It seems that you don't want to play nice either, my friend. Now what if I went about accusing you of taking 'leftward' turns theologically? That wouldn't be very Christlike, now would it?

Sincerely,

PTL

Jim said...

Brad,

I recently found an article concerning alcohol and the Bible by Daniel B. Wallace, NT and Greek scholar and prof at DTS.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=988

Have you read it? It would be interesting to see a blog post interacting with this article.

Jim

sbc pastor said...

PTL,

I suggest that you read my previous comment again. I did not reference the “debate” concerning alcoholic beverages whatsoever – nor did I infer it. However, there are some who have been very vocal in support of the moderationist position that are seemingly desirous of a “leftward” turn theologically (although certainly not all moderationists by any means). Thus, I forgive you for your comments:

PTL: “It seems that you don't want to play nice either, my friend. Now what if I went about accusing you of taking 'leftward' turns theologically? That wouldn't be very Christlike, now would it?”

I would however appreciate it if you would refrain from falsely accusing a fellow brother in Christ in the future. In your words, “That wouldn’t be very Christlike, now would it?” Please try and heed your own advice and “play nice.” Perhaps you should ask a clarifying question, such as, “Did you mean this?” God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

mom2 said...

If you notice THIS YEAR & NOW in my post, you can see what puzzles me. Something has changed in our Convention and I think the change toward public endorsement is troubling. I have said in previous posts that I do not think it will keep us from going to heaven if we have trusted Christ as our Saviour, but I don't see the need to publicly endorse something that is known to be harmful to some people. As a denomination, I see nothing wrong with making our position of abstinence known and we all know that there will be no police going around checking houses. Why did this issue need to be raised at the convention? How helpful is it?

posttinebraelux said...

SBCPastor,
You are correct, my friend - and I offer you my sincerest apologies. I am humbled by your integrity. Allow me to rephrase; to whom, specifically, were you referring to as being 'leftward theologically'?

Mom2,
I guess I was right about your inference. 'tis sad.

Sincerely,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

SBCPastor,
Please allow me to offer a suggestion that may alleviate some of the confusion. When questions are directed toward Mom2 (or anyone else), it may be helpful to allow them to answer their own questions. Just a thought.....

Sincerely,

PTL

sbc pastor said...

PTL,

In regard to your question:

PTL: “To whom, specifically, were you referring to as being 'leftward theologically'?

I was referring to moderates and liberals within the SBC. Perhaps you have you already forgotten Brad’s post: “Fellow Southern Baptist to assume there are no liberals amongst us is a most naive and dangerous assumption. There are. And they would like nothing better than for us to lower the standard of inerrancy under the guise of widening the tent.”

I am sure that you too deem it necessary to guard the doctrinal integrity of our convention. However, if you are desirous that I mention specific names, then I must decline. I do not feel that doing such would be appropriate. Thus, in the words of our respected blog administrator (in his previous reply to CR), “If you do not know, consider yourself blessed and just keep serving the Lord.”

Furthermore, in regard to your most recent comment:

PTL: “When questions are directed toward Mom2 (or anyone else), it may be helpful to allow them to answer their own questions.”

In general, I agree with your suggestion. However, if you will reread her original post (the one to which you replied) you will note that she was responding to an anonymous comment (which has since been deleted) that was derogatory towards myself. Thanks and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

posttinebraelux said...

SBCPastor,
My question of Mom2 had nothing whatsoever to do with any comment that someone else had made about you - I sincerely apologize if you somehow got that impression, although I'm not sure how what would have been possible. Regarding 'moderates and liberals', however, how would you define 'moderates and liberals'. In other words, how would we know if we had a 'moderate' or 'liberal' in our presence? Would we know them by their stances on particular issues? If so, what issues and what would their stances be? I'm still not sure I'd call people names - even if they were moderates and liberals, but I'd really like to know who you think (not individuals) make up that group - the Lord knows I'd sure not want to be part of that group. Then someone might accuse me of having a leftward theology. :)

Sincerely,

PTL

IN HIS NAME said...

PTL,

I suggest you double click on the posters name like brad reynolds, which will take you to what their Blog Name and what their post looks like, if they have a Blog. Then one can see THY LOVING KINDNESS towards our Brothers and Sisters. You can also see the one's that like to STIR things up.

A Brother in CHRIST

sbc pastor said...

PTL,

My personal conviction is that Inerrancy is the heart of the matter. When someone denies that the Scripture is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, then they will undoubtedly begin to deny other fundamentals of the faith: the virgin birth of Christ, Christ’s substitutionary death, Christ’s bodily resurrection, the Second Coming of Christ, the exclusivity of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, etc., etc., etc.

I truly hope that you too believe in the fundamentals of the faith. However, if you (or anyone else) do not, then I would have no problem labeling you as a “moderate” or “liberal.” Please understand that although labels may be abused by some, a brown cow is truly a brown cow and a liberal is truly a liberal. It appears that you may feel that doing so is the equivalent of calling “people names.” However, it appears that the Word of God would disagree with you in that regard:

2 Tim 4:1-4, “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom; Preach the Word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

Titus 1:9-14, “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake… Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth”

Would you accuse the Apostle Paul of calling “people names?” The Scripture declares that it is both necessary to exhort believers to be “sound in the faith” and “by sound doctrine to convince the gainsayers.” Bad beliefs always result in bad behavior – false doctrine always leads to ungodliness and worldliness. Furthermore, this should only be done with the intention and the motivation to build up the body of Christ: “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Eph 4:15). God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

IN HIS NAME said...

JLG,

YOU GOTTA HAVE HEART.

A Brother in CHRIST

sbc pastor said...

In His Name,

In regard to your comment:

"YOU GOTTA HAVE HEART."

I am unsure as to what you mean. Is your remark one of encouragement, such as, "You've got a lot of heart," or is it a disparaging remark, such as, "You have no heart." If you will please explain your comment, then I would be more than happy to respond. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

posttinebraelux said...

SBCPastor,
Again, I have been gravely mistaken about your inferences. Your posts implied that your considered moderationists to have a 'leftward theology.' May I assume from your last post that this was an incorrect inference? I too believe in the inerrancy of scripture, so may I further assume that you'd not lump me in the category of those who have a 'leftward theology'? But thank you so much for the clarification. BTW, I'm sure you'll understand if I recognize a difference between Paul calling some 'gainsayers' under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in accordance with God's inspired, inerrante word, and Jeremy Green calling some 'leftward' - although if you were, in fact, in reference not to moderationists, but rather to those who do not hold to the inerrancy of scripture, I would most certainly join you in saying that they had a liberal philosophy. :)

Grace and peace,

PTL

volfan007 said...

it is very true that we still have many liberals in our sbc, and they would love to gain power once again. and, we have people in our sbc who would like to change us into some extreme theology and get us off the deep end. they would love for us to get on the tangent that they are on. they seem obsessed with everyone going thier direction.

my prayer is that we stay the course. that we will stay with the Word of God. that we keep out of the extremes and tangents and errors. things that will surely weaken us and take us down. that the Lord will calm the young zealots who want to control and make everyone believe in thier extremes and tangents and errors. but, on the other hand, that the Lord will give us the courage and the wisdom to stay true to His word and do whatever it takes to stay true.

now, i must go and cut my grass,

volfan007

tim rogers said...

volfan007,

I hear you concern and, my brother, that is my concern also. However, you need to understand that there are still some in the SBC that say the believe what you and I believe, but their practice proves different.

I went to seminary twice, the first time to get and Associate of Divinity Degree. In that first experience I had some of the "liberal", "moderate", "progressive", or ever how you classify them, professors. One in particular said he believed the Word of God was inspired but he used Bernhart Anderson for his text book. Anderson teaches JPED theory of the first 5 books of the Bible and he also advocates 4 Isaiah's. I was so green when I entered Seminary then that I thought JPED was just hebrew for Moses. I say this to let you know that as you sat in that class not many people could catch the difference.

During the heat of the Conservative Resurgence Professors were able to preach in local conservative churches and then preach the same sermon in local moderate churches and no one could tell the difference. They would use the term phrase; "I believe the Bible is the Word of God", or after reading the scripture they would say; "may this become the Word of God to you." These phrases sound harmless, but they are very much part of the issues that was the reason for the resurgence.

I do want to think that we have seen the SBC moved into the right direction, but I also am not naive enough to think the current "concerns" raised by a few are truly concerns.

Keep the faith and do not allow the stench of the squirmish to make you lose your focus. God has called us to win the lost whether the SBC is Moderate, Liberal, Conservative, Fundamentalist, Arminian, or Calvinist.

Blessings,
Tim

sbc pastor said...

I hope and pray that conservative Southern Baptists will heed this warning:

Tim: "...there are still some in the SBC that say [they] believe what you and I believe, but their practice proves different."

Amen. Amen. Amen. Thanks and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

sbc pastor said...

PTL,

I would encourage you to read my post again more closely. I stated that I believed those referenced in Brad’s fable to be “1) a few bloggers that have falsely accused leaders within the SBC – apparently in order to draw attention to themselves, and 2) moderates and liberals that desire the SBC to take a “leftward” turn theologically.” Although there are definitely some, and maybe even many, moderationists that fit into category #2, just the fact that someone is a moderationist does not necessitate that they are in that category. Thus, your comment…

PTL: “Your posts implied that [you] considered moderationists to have a ‘leftward theology.’”

… is completely false. If I understand Brad’s post correctly, it is not even referring to the issue of beverage alcohol – at least not directly (if I am wrong, maybe he will offer correction). It is referring to the “Bloggers who cried “Wolf!” – A reference that I believe refers to those within our convention that have falsely accused leaders within the SBC. Does everything have to be about alcohol with you? :0)

Furthermore, although I did not accuse moderationists of having a leftward theology, I can assure you that they have an errant theology - but that is another discussion. :0)

God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

sbc pastor said...

All,

I encourage everyone to read Tim's latest post - I think that it may be very relevant to this issue. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

IN HIS NAME said...

PTL,

Me thinks this is the Bogger SBC PASTOR is commenting about and this POST was about.
A Brother in CHRIST

http://baptistblogger.blogspot.com/2006/08/church-planting-movements-and-crisis.html

Anonymous said...

hhow about this one-

http://www.sbcwitness.com/?q=node/46

IN HIS NAME said...

This is what BRAD'A POST is about

Pro 6:16-19 -
Solomon here gives us,
I. The characters of one that is mischievous to man and dangerous to be dealt with.
Pro_6:16. Those things which God hates it is no thanks to us to hate in others, but we must hate them in ourselves.

1. Haughtiness, conceitedness of ourselves, and contempt of others - a proud look. There are seven things that God hates, and pride is the first, because it is at the bottom of much sin and gives rise to it. God sees the pride in the heart and hates it there; but, when it prevails to that degree that the show of men's countenance witnesses against them that they overvalue themselves and undervalue all about them, this is in a special manner hateful to him, for then pride is proud of itself and sets shame at defiance.

2. Falsehood, and fraud, and dissimulation. Next to a proud look nothing is more an abomination to God than a lying tongue; nothing more sacred than truth, nor more necessary to conversation than speaking truth. God and all good men hate and abhor lying.

3. Cruelty and blood-thirstiness. The devil was, from the beginning, a liar and a murderer (Joh_8:44), and therefore, as a lying tongue, so hands that shed innocent blood are hateful to God, because they have in them the devil's image and do him service.

4. Subtlety in the contrivance of sin, wisdom to do evil, a heart that designs and a head that devises wicked imaginations, that is acquainted with the depths of Satan and knows how to carry on a covetous, envious, revengeful plot, most effectually. The more there is of craft and management in sin the more it is an abomination to God.

5. Vigour and diligence in the prosecution of sin - feet that are swift in running to mischief, as if they were afraid of losing time or were impatient of delay in a thing they are so greedy of. The policy and vigilance, the eagerness and industry, of sinners, in their sinful pursuits, may shame us who go about that which is good so awkwardly and so coldly.

6. False-witness bearing, which is one of the greatest mischiefs that the wicked imagination can devise, and against which there is least fence. There cannot be a greater affront to God (to whom in an oath appeal is made) nor a greater injury to our neighbour (all whose interests in this world, even the dearest, lie open to an attack of this kind) than knowingly to give in a false testimony. There are seven things which God hates, and lying involves two of them; he hates it, and doubly hates it.

7. Making mischief between relations and neighbours, and using all wicked means possible, not only to alienate their affections one from another, but to irritate their passions one against another. The God of love and peace hates him that sows discord among brethren, for he delights in concord. Those that by tale-bearing and slandering, by carrying ill-natured stories, aggravating every thing that is said and done, and suggesting jealousies and evil surmises, blow the coals of contention, are but preparing for themselves a fire of the same nature.

A Brother in CHRIST

posttinebraelux said...

SBCPastor,
Thanks again for the re-clarification. I will say again, I have been gravely mistaken about your inferences. Please accept my humble apologies. It is comforting to know that even though you wouldn't let moderationists join your congregation, you still consider them conservatives. :)

Grace and peace,

PTL

Anonymous said...

it looks like SBC pastor has blogged about this to-

http://sbcpastor.blogspot.com/2006/07/theological-convergence-towards.html

brad reynolds said...

Jim
I have read the article. It is a good article, however, Dr. Wallace fails to address the wine/water mixture of OT/NT. To miss this is to fail to understand the discussion. Please see my post Can Abstentionists and Moderationists find common ground.

brad reynolds said...

Tim
Excellent article at your site.
BR

Ben the Baptist Cat said...

Brad,

You should not use such language. As a seminary prof you should use better wisdom. I am referring to:

"My great-grandmother used to say, the more you stir manure, the more it stinks.” While some may enjoy such an aroma producing activity I do not, however, I do desire to scoop it out."

Jim said...

Brad,

I have read that post. It seems, though, that your position fails to take into account the prohibitions against being drunk. A person, as has been said, would be affected in their bladder before their brain if they drank the mixture.

Further, it seems very convenient that when the text speaks of wine in a negative light, it must mean that it was not mixed and when viewed positively, it must refer to a mixture.

Let it be known that I do not drink, nor do I intend to.

I feel that the two sides are talking past each other. I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. It doesn't appear as if the abstentionists will do this.

Thank you for your hard work on this issue. May the Scriptures (and therefore God) be proven true even if it means I am proven wrong. His Word will stand.

Jim

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad

I have to agree with Ben the Baptist Cat's post. You sure do like to stir it up

volfan007 said...

yall need to leave brad alone about his grandma's saying concerning manure. was it not the apostle paul who said that he counted all his honors as dung...manure....that he may know Christ??????


was it not the Lord thru isaiah who said that our righteousness is as filthy rags in the sight of the Lord????? filthy rags being what the women used for feminine products. what about that?

so, leave brad alone about using such a clear, enlightening illustration that drives the truth home.


not offended by manure,

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

Jim

Your second paragraph addresses how one could be drunk. It would be much easier to discuss this if we neglected the fact that water and wine was mixed but such negligence is not worthy of seeking truth.

I agree one should understand "oinos" as a mixture unless the texts demands a different understanding. I do not think this is convenient...I think it is good hermeneutics. Nevertheless, I understand how moderationist believe I am being convenient. I believe it is convenient for the moderationist to say "Oinos" MUST ALWAYS be interpreted as an intoxicating drink.

I believe you are right that many times the two speak past each other. Thanks for your spirit in this.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Ben
I am truly at a loss as to what offends you.
BR

brad reynolds said...

sbc is baptist
If by "stir it up" you mean "address the issues"...thank you
BR

Jim said...

Brad,

You said, "I believe it is convenient for the moderationist to say "Oinos" MUST ALWAYS be interpreted as an intoxicating drink."

I agree. I am willing to concede that "oinos" can refer to either. But your statement that, "one should understand "oinos" as a mixture unless the texts demands a different understanding" seems to be based on a presupposition and not the text itself.

Here's the logic:
1)Drinking alcohol is wrong.
2)The Bible speaks of wine in positive and negative ways.
3)Because drinking alcohol is wrong, the positive statements must refer to mixed wine, while the negative statements refer to unmixed.

The logic just doesn't flow for me. Now, I'm sure I have a blind spot somewhere in this argument. Help me to see what I'm missing.

For God's Glory,

Jim

volfan007 said...

what's so hard with understanding things according to the context...in fact, in context of the whole bible? proverbs says that it's foolish to drink strong drink...the fermented, unmixed stuff. i dont think that Jesus was foolish....do you? what He made and what He drank was grape juice mixed with three parts water. to drink it unmixed...where it might be fermented...is foolish according to the bible.

to get high on alcohol is sin...according to ephesians 5:18. we, as christians, are to be high on Jesus...filled with the Holy Spirit...not with jack daniels.

where are we going with all of this next? smoking weed is ok? gambling is ok? those are not even mentioned in the bible...is it ok to smoke weed and gamble? what about puffing on cigs? while some things are not specifically mentioned as sin...they are foolish to do...they could lead to big trouble and sin. like, admiring the beauty of a good looking woman is not sin...lusting is sin. but, to look at that good looking woman too long will put 99% of men in a very tempting position. it's foolish. admire the beauty and move on...dont linger.


well, i have said too much. i gotta tell granpappy to not fire back up the still yet. the church is stilll against alcohol.

with no liquor on his breath,

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

Jim

I think you are missing something in your rationale. I do not begin with the assumption that drinking alcohol is sin. I begin with the Bible.

1. Drunkenness is wrong.
2. Intoxicating drink leads to drunkenness.
3. Oinos could refer to intoxicating drink or fermented drink diluted or grape juice.
4. The normal use of oinos is fermented drink diluted with water.
5. Always interpret oinos with its normal use unless the text demands otherwise (ie - they were getting drunk, thus intoxicating drink).
6. It is always better trying to get as close to Jesus rather than trying to get as close to sin (drunkenness). There seems to be a heart issue if someone desires to get as close to sin without sinning.

Hope this helps
BR

Anonymous said...

Legalism is attractive, but destructive. To the Colossians, the discipline demanded by the false teachers seemed good, and legalism still attracts many people today. Following a long list of religious rules requires strong self-discipline and can make a person appear moral, but religious rules cannot change a person's heart. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

volfan007 said...

it's not legalism to live according to the commands of Jesus. Jesus said if you love Him then you will keep His commands. the entire book of james is about people who claim to know the Lord ought to show it by the life they live. the apostle john...in 1 john...said that those who claim to love the Lord yet they live in sin are liars.

it's not legalism to live a holy life based on the clear teachings of the bible. and besides, i have to wonder why yall wanna drink alcohol so bad? why is this so important to yall?

listen, brad nailed it on the head with his last post. what he is saying is true, and true to the context. thank you, brad, for trying to keep the body of Christ on the right track with your biblical, sensible posts.

aint drankin' no more,
volfan007

Ben the Baptist Cat said...

Brad,

You know what offends me! As you know, I have been told that I am the most intelligent person in most intellectual discussions, and I cannot disagree. You refuse to post intelligent material for my viewing pleasure. It is all kitty litter. That offends me!

IN HIS NAME said...

If you want to see Some Truth visit this BLOG. This gentleman was there at the time.

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2006/07/when-attack-is-different-from-truth.html

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
While you may say that the 'normal' use of oinos is to describe wine diluted with water, you must also say that the normal use of the word oinos incorporated the connotation of a drink that would make someone drunk. That's the 'normal' use of the word. It is against the 'normal' use of the word to imply that it was not an intoxicating drink. So, while it may have been 'normal' to refer to wine which had been diluted as oinos, it was also normal for that diluted drink to have intoxicating ability. So say otherwise (and you haven't yet) would be speaking against scripture.

Sincerely,

PTL

volfan007 said...

context...context...context....the context should determine if oinos was fermented or not.

good gracious.

still not firing up the still,

volfan007

IN HIS NAME said...

If the shoe fits, wear it!!!

Deu 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.
Deu 12:32 "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

A Brother in CHRIST

Jim said...

Brad, Thanks for your Christ-like attitude in discussing this with me. You said,

"1. Drunkenness is wrong."

I agree.

"2. Intoxicating drink leads to drunkenness."

Not always.

"3. Oinos could refer to intoxicating drink or fermented drink diluted or grape juice."

Ok.

"4. The normal use of oinos is fermented drink diluted with water."

Not universally agreed to (Kittel in TDNT, pg. 163-166, treats wine as intoxicating drink). Also, even diluted drink would cause intoxication, though it would affect the bladder first.

"5. Always interpret oinos with its normal use unless the text demands otherwise (ie - they were getting drunk, thus intoxicating drink)."

See above.

"6. It is always better trying to get as close to Jesus rather than trying to get as close to sin (drunkenness). There seems to be a heart issue if someone desires to get as close to sin without sinning.

I agree we should not try to get as close to sin without sinning. However, you can see the unintended consequences if you try to apply this accross the board. Don't get into heated debates... you might hate. Don't go to the beach/swimming pool... you might lust. Don't eat any food you enjoy... you might commit gluttony. All of these behaviors can lead directly to sin, but not necessarily.

Drinking alcohol may not be the wisest decision (why I don't), but it is a jump to go from unwise to sin. There are many things that some consider unwise or unhelpful that aren't sin in themselves (e.g. drinking soda, taking a shower in a thunderstorm, smoking (gasp), eating fast food, etc.).

Granted, the previously mentioned issues have not caused as much harm as alcohol abuse, which is why it is not, in my opinion, the wisest thing to drink alcohol (which is why, again, I don't).

Thank you for dealing with my arguments, weak though they may be.

For God's Glory,

Jim

Cliff4JC said...

Vol,

It's sad to see how you have God and his word in such a simple little box. I'm glad that I however, do not do such a thing and leave the extremes to people like you. Oh wait...those are all the things you previously acussed me of! I almost got that mixed up this time. Sorry. I guess you are right...context, context, context.

Cliff

Cliff4JC said...

Man, isn't this alcohol drinking horse dead yet? LOL

BTW...did anyone see Bobby Welch's comments about alcohol in SBC Life? LOL...WOW.

Joy,
Cliff

volfan007 said...

cliff,

God bless you, bro. drinking alcohol is unwise...foolish. it can lead you to a host of bad things. proverbs talks about how foolish it is to drink strong drink...the undiluted, fermented stuff.

believe me, bro. when i say that i know the evil power of alcohol. i used to be a party animal before i got saved. i know what alcohol can do to a person. also, every drunk began drinking thinking that they could handle it. that they would not be a drunk. every drunk began with just a little social drinking. alcohol is very addictive.

i would encourage everyone to read peter lumpkins blog today....it's excellent. sbctomorrow.com.

love and peace,
volfan007

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,
It is not unusual to confuse legalism with holiness, but they are different.

Ben the cat
There is a solution to your dilemma that does not involve me.

PTL
Your assertion that it intoxicates is misleading since the scholar who has done the most work in this area said clearly “it would affect your bladder before your mind.” Could it have intoxicated someone, yes, very possibly but 22 glasses of wine is a lot.

Jim
Agreed for the most part, however, I would not equate drinking alcohol with eating food. One is needed the other is not…and yes I would avoid beaches with topless women, even though seeing a topless woman is not sin in and of itself, and I would avoid heated discussions as much as possible (thus my new rules).

I certainly understand the NT culture of drinking for survival, but I am confused with Vol as to why any Christian would defend it in our culture.

Cliff
Haven’t seen his comments yet…on vacation still:)
BR

Jim said...

"I would not equate drinking alcohol with eating food. One is needed the other is not…"

Eating is necessary and drinking is necessary. The comparison is unequal... like saying drinking vs. chocolate cake. Drinking is necessary for survival, but eating chocolate cake is not. Food and drink are equal comparisons, food and alcohol are not.

"and yes I would avoid beaches with topless women, even though seeing a topless woman is not sin in and of itself"

I was referring to women wearing bathing suits, which can also cause a person to lust. Also, does that mean you believe it not to be a sin, in and of itself, to drink alcohol.

Also, Fausset's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary indicate that references to wine in the Bible are references to intoxicating drink (again, disagreeing with conclusions made by scholars to which you've referenced).

Sorry to keep giving you comments to respond to. I'll take a break for a while. Thanks for your patience.

Jim

Cliff4JC said...

Brad,

Apparently, Welch's comments are all over the blogs today. Wade posted about it. I guess I was ahead of the curve. LOL I hope you are having a great vacation.

Vol...I would hate to confuse you with the facts since you already have your mind made up...but I don't drink and think it would be a sin for me to do so. I also believe (with Spurgeon and many others) that there is a divine mystery to the atonement. It is a miraculous, marvelous mind blowing mystery of God's incredible grace! I heard Piper once say that he makes biblical statements and lives with the tension. Such as; God is sovereign in salvation: Man is responsible to Choose to follow Christ. Both are biblical, but their is a logical tension. It is shame that people like me are so extreme and are threatening to ruin the SBC with our "boxy" theology.

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

I posted a response to the bloggers calling Dr. Welch a liar and purposely misrepresenting those that spoke against the alcohol resolution.

It appears that some bloggers state guidelines to keep people from attacking one's character, but see nothing wrong with it themselves.

Tim

sbc pastor said...

I too agree that several of the bloggers that are crying "wolf," by saying that some SBC leaders during the Conservative Resurgence are guilty of character assassination, are practicing that which they decry. Their claims are unsubstantiated and their practice is deplorable. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

IN HIS NAME said...

SBC PASTOR,

Speaking of your BLOG, what did you POST, and not allow comments.

IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT!!!

I too agree that several of the bloggers that are crying "wolf," by saying that some SBC leaders during the Conservative Resurgence are guilty of character assassination, are practicing that which they decry. Their claims are unsubstantiated and their practice is deplorable.


ONE FOR TRUTH

IN HIS NAME said...

SBC PASTOR.

WHY DID YOU POST THIS???

Ben,

In regard to your comment:

BSC: "Retired Texas Appeals Court Judge Paul Pressler, who along with fellow Texan Paige Patterson engineered the denominational takeover"

Is this a claim that you can, and will, substantiate with evidence or is it merely accusatory and inflammatory rhetoric? God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

ONE FOR TRUTH

sbc pastor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sbc pastor said...

IHN,

In regard to your first comment:

It appears that you are accusing me of something. Is that true? If so, please specify what it is so that I can address your comment. If not, please clarify your previous statement.

BTW, I do not allow comments on my blog at this time. I have found that it has relieved much unneeded stress and it is far less time consuming – I got the idea from Dr. Mohler’s blog, which I highly recommend :0).

In regard to your second comment:

I recently submitted a question to Ben Cole in regard to a comment of his in his essay entitled, “Church Planting Movements and the Crisis of Power in the Southern Baptist Convention, Pt. 3.” Ben stated that “Retired Texas Appeals Court Judge Paul Pressler, who along with fellow Texan Paige Patterson engineered the denominational takeover.”

Thus, I responded with this question: “Is this a claim that you can, and will, substantiate with evidence or is it merely accusatory and inflammatory rhetoric?” Since Ben didn't allow the question to be published, I posted it on my blog.

Ironically, in my estimation, it appears that Ben’s comments are entirely relevant to this particular discussion: “The Bloggers who cried ‘wolf!’”

Thanks for your genuine interest in my thoughts and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

volfan007 said...

tim,

i too read that blog and it is deplorable. they call dr. welch a liar, and they ridicule this man of God. it's sad. this same blog is wayward on many things.

to everyone,

so what if pressler and patterson did plan the takeover of the sbc? thank God for them. i was around back in the day when the liberal controlled it. thank God for these men and for dr. rogers and others who led the charge.


volfan007

IN HIS NAME said...

Jeremy Green (SBC PASTOR) SAID on his BLOG
MONDAY, AUGUST 07, 2006
Ben Cole vs. The Conservative Resurgence
I recently submitted a question to Ben Cole in regard to a comment of his in his essay entitled, "Church Planting Movements and the Crisis of Power in the Southern Baptist Convention, Pt. 3." Since Ben didn't allow the question to be published, I have posted it here:
Ben,

In regard to your comment:

BSC: "Retired Texas Appeals Court Judge Paul Pressler, who along with fellow Texan Paige Patterson engineered the denominational takeover"

Is this a claim that you can, and will, substantiate with evidence or is it merely accusatory and inflammatory rhetoric? God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG


IN HIS NAME SAYS,

Jeremy Green (SBC PASTOR, YOU DON]T KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST BEFORE BEING LED BY OTHERS. GOD'S HOLY WORD SAY'S TEST ALL THINGS.

The Baptist Press says

FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--The announcement that Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and conservative resurgence architect, was being considered for the presidency of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary drew reactions from both seminaries June 24

A Brother for TRUTH

C. T. Lillies said...

I am appalled that so many are this morning discussing Bobby Welch’s article in SBC Life: A Word From Our Former President . And not Frank Page's--who is currently the President of the SBC-- clear cry for unity in A Word From Our New President.

In it he says:
“Let us commit to pull together in support of our great Cooperative Program and even more than that in a cooperative mission work. We need to pull together. Instead of breaking into groups and factions, let us affirm in word and deed that we are a family of faith, committed to missions.”

Is it a great stretch to hope for something like what the SBC President is asking for or are we going to shatter the convention by continuing to snap at each other? I would like to see all these folks get together in person and be reconciled.

Much Grace
Josh

IN HIS NAME said...

Jeremy Green (SBC PASTOR,

I think you owe BROTHER BEN COLE AN APOLOGIZE!!!

A Brother for TRUTH

mom2 said...

In His name, I see no reason for Jeremy Green to apologize to Ben Cole. Evidently BC had some reason for not wanting to publish JG's question and if we are going to start drawing conclusions about everyone, then I wonder why BC would publish such articles and not want to answer JG's question.
It seems to me that our conclusions are drawn by the side we want to be on and I too am older, retired and I don't find myself agreeing with you some of the time.

Cliff4JC said...

Patterson and Pressler have never denied working to save our convention from liberalism. So; what is the beef here with that? I don't get it. I thank God they worked together for this cause. I've talked personally to both men about it in the past; they don't deny it. Honestly, I think they are rightfully proud of the results.

Vol; it is laughable that you cry foul about someone ridiculing anyone while all over the blogs comment sections you have been doing the same thing to others. Brother, check yourself.

I hate to bring attention to another blog like this; especially one I don't like much...but did you see Ben Cole's response to Welch's letter in SBC Life? I thought it was pretty classy. Also, Tim; I just read your follow up post where you mentioned BSC's...good for you my brother. That took Godly humility and character! Bravo.

Joy,
Cliff

IN HIS NAME said...

MOM2,

This the answer to the QUESTION what Jeremy Green (SBC PASTOR) asked Ben.

Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and conservative resurgence architect.

Pray this anwsers your Question.

volfan007 said...

cliff,

i dont call people liars...unless they are liars. and, i have the same take on the sbc as dr. welch. so, for those on other blogs to call dr. welch a liar is deplorable. he wasnt lying. now, they may not have the same spin on what happened in greensboro, nc, but to call a good, godly man like dr. welch a liar, and then for them to run him down like a stray dog....well, that was pitiful.

anyway, cliff, why are you constantly attacking me and everything i say? are you that mad at me for speaking the truth in love? well, i love you in the Lord, and i told hold it against you.


volfan007

mom2 said...

I thank God for those who preserved our Conservatism. If we want to be a watered down denomination without the power of the Holy Spirit, we can go liberal and agree with the world on everything. I am not a person that wants to go around offending people, but I want to stand for what is right and I do not want to be guilty of calling "right - wrong and wrong - right". I think there is more accusing going on than is necessary, but we can have a discerning Spirit and if we over-ride that long enough, wrong may begin to look right to us.

volfan007 said...

that's supposed to be i dont hold it against you...my fingers got ahead of my mind.

volfan007

Cliff4JC said...

Vol,

Yeah...ok...you’re probably right. You are not my favorite poster right now and I am probably taking more shots at you than I should. For that I apologize. I won't do it anymore.

I do however think that you have a very subjective view of what is "truth" and what is not. You never used the word liar in describing me; but you might as well done so. No matter what I tried to tell you about what I did and didn't believe; you simply made up your mind and dismissed me with a super arrogant statement about me being extreme and you being delivered by God from my extremism. I offered to speak to you privately so we could try and understand each other better and you rejected that as well. I have had many experiences with people that have a mentality that says don't confuse me with the facts about you because I have my mind made up. Tim is very passionate about the alcohol debate because he has had negative personal experiences. I guess I've done the same with you but to a fault. I apologize. I will no longer respond to you in any blog forum. I will simply let your words speak for themselves.

Joy,
Cliff

sbc pastor said...

IHN,

Thanks for your comments and your concern. However, your conclusion appears to be thoroughly lacking.

Ben stated that Pressler and Patterson “engineered the denominational takeover,” not that they were the “architects of the conservative resurgence.” There is a tremendous difference between the two phrases.

Praise God, it is most certainly true that these two men were leaders in the Conservative Resurgence. However, Ben’s comment says nothing of the sort. Instead, his comment is a derogatory remark with the apparent attempt to portray both Patterson and Pressler in an extremely negative light.

BTW, the term that Ben employed, “denominational takeover,” is the rallying cry of the moderates and liberals that desire the SBC to take a “leftward” turn theologically. Thus, my post: “Ben Cole vs. The Conservative Resurgence?”

It appears that Ben’s antagonism towards conservatives and the Conservative Resurgence may have given evidence as to his own personal theological stance.

Furthermore, your defense of such derogatory remarks towards conservatives and the Conservative Resurgence may very well be indicative of your theological stance as well. What are your thoughts on the matter? Were Patterson and Pressler “leaders in the Conservative Resurgence” or 2) did they “engineer a denominational takeover?” God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Cliff4JC said...

Dr. B,

Did you see the joint statement released by the Drs Canner and Ascol/White? My heart rejoiced at their repentance and committment to conduct themselves in a Christlike manner in the future. I thought Tom's personal confession afterward was particularly helpful as well. My faith is restored! LOL

JLG...oh...now I understand what the debate is about!

brad reynolds said...

Cliff

I haven't read the statement yet, but I did talk to Dr. Emir Caner and he told me about it. I will try and be at the debate myself...if my schedule allows.

Maybe I'll see you there:)
BR

sbc pastor said...

Cliff,

Congratulations! I am glad that you have seen the light, and hopefully it is revealing. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

volfan007 said...

again, thank God for men like patterson and pressler and dr. rogers and the others who led the conservative resurgence. thank God for these men who led our sbc out of the deadness of liberalism.

cliff,

God bless you, bro. my view of truth is based solely on what the bible teaches....not on someone's commentary. and, calling someone's theology extreme is not calling someone a liar. and, i am thankful that the Lord kept from the extreme's and tangents that ae out there....what's arrogant about that. i am thankful to God that i didnt go off on the charismatic extreme when i was being encouraged to do so in college....and i didnt go off into the five pointer extreme when i was being encouraged to do so in seminary...halelujah! the Lord led me away from such extreme's ....i am thankful to God.

cliff,

honestly, i hope the best for you. i pray that the Lord will bless you real good.

only love in my heart,

volfan007

Cliff4JC said...

JLG,

Actually, it wasn't "revealing" in the sense that I learned anything new; I just missed what you guys were talking about earlier! LOL I kinda thought what you were brining to light was painfully obvious already! hehehe

Joy,
Cliff

Cliff4JC said...

Dr R,

(hey...I like that..."Dr R"....we could just call you DER for short! LOL Just kidding)

I'm a youth and families pastor. I can't afford to go to Liberty for any debate. I will look forward to seeing it on DVD or something like that. It would be neat if they could find a way to do a web cast. Honestly, I wasn't interested in watching before I saw the joint statement. If it was going to be a shouting match; I wasn't interested. Since it would appear that Godly men are going to attempt to highlight their differences in a scholarly and gentlemanly way...yeah...that could be profitable. I saw somewhere else that Dr. White may be asking people not to come because Liberty wants to reserve spots for their own students etc.

You know what would be a good idea! You could suggest it to a former roommate or something...Why not charge admission to non-students and give the proceeds to the IMB?!?! It would be a nice gesture...

Joy,
Cliff

brad reynolds said...

Cliff

Great idea...but Liberty isn't associated with SBC although Thomas Road is. I think it will be made available on DVD.

BR

brad reynolds said...

Cliff
BTW - A youth and family pastor is the place of most influence:)

Cliff4JC said...

Well of course it is silly! That's why I am one! LOL

I have some strong feelings about youth ministry. They have changed over the years. I considered getting out before moving to my current church but decided to stay and be an agent of change rather than abandon the battle. Hence, I had them rename my position to youth & FAMILIES. I preached a sermon this year to our church called "The State of the Family Address" where I exposed some of our unbiblical practices in youth ministry and in our families. It was well received and our people are slowly adjusting. So; the pay isn't to good...but the retirement in out of this world! LOL

Joy,
Cliff

PS: they could still do the charge and find another missions agency to give it to that both would approve of. Or maybe; we could hold a vote after…winning side gets to choose where to send the proceeds! LOL Seriously though…it would be a good gesture if nothing else.

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

It is time for vacation to be over. You should be back in the saddle getting ready for classes.:>)

Seriously, I want to ask a question. What is your understanding on the rules of interpretation? I am planning a post on my blog because I keep hearing the terms "sufficiency of Scripture" as being different in the SBC. As a matter of fact, I have been told by a fellow blogger that he and I differ on our belief's about the sufficiency of Scripture. I believe it comes back to an understanding of the rules of interpretation.

You do not have to be long in your response, just what you need to cover the subject. I am looking for basic rules of interpretation that everyone would agree on as we establish principles from scripture. I knowt he Chicago Statement deals some with this subject along with the BFM2K

Thanks in advance,
Tim

ps. You can email me if you would like.

volfan007 said...

you know, whenever you are making too much sense with truth and common sense...then those who dont wanna hear it start name calling. i have been called a fool by someone who keeps quoting prov. 26:4 when referring to me. i have been called an ignoramous. i have been slandered by people for my southern heritage...which i am proud of btw. oh well, they persecuted the prophets and Jesus for the truth also. i guess i am in good company. so are you, brad. God bless you, bro. for trying to help these people to the truth.

God bless yall real gooooood,

volfan007

Jim said...

Volfan,

You are correct. Calling someone names is not legitimate argumentation. I am sorry you have been at the receiving end of such attacks.

However, just because someone opposing your view uses ad hominem attacks does not mean the view they hold is wrong.

For instance, you said, "whenever you are making too much sense with truth and common sense...then those who dont wanna hear it start name calling."

Perhaps they name-call because they think Brad is not teaching the truth. Granted, this tactic is unhelpful and even hurtful. But just because a person calls someone else a name doesn't mean the latter person's claims are true.

I have attempted to be charitable and kind while giving reasons for what I believe. But you do not say that I am right simply because I have displayed a Christ-like attitude (as you shouldn't).

I agree that name-calling should be pointed out and squelched, but so should errors in logic.

With no liquor on his breath,

Jim

Jim said...

Volfan,

You also said, "oh well, they persecuted the prophets and Jesus for the truth also. i guess i am in good company. so are you, brad."

Exactly to whom does "they" refer? Unbelievers? Pagans? The world? Those who hate Jesus and the Father (John 15)?

Thanks for clarification.

Jim

volfan007 said...

jim,

howdy bro. i am glad that you have no liquor on your breath. it smells nicer.
i am talking about whoever persecuted them....and whoever is calling me names is who i meant by "them." do you know the old saying....if the shoe fits, wear it? or, when you throw a rock into a hog pen, the hog that gets it will squeal?

well, anyway, they know who "they" are. i love them, and i hold no grudges in my heart agin 'em. but, i am sure that "they" will throw sticks and stones at brad and me and anyone that does not agree with them again. i just hope that one day they will learn better.


God bless you, jim,

volfan007

Charles Henry said...

Dr. Reynolds,

I am curious about your hermenutic. You said that "the normal use of oinos is fermented drink diluted with water" and that we should translated it as such unless the text demands otherwise. Could you tell me which resources you used to come to this knowledge?

Also, could you tell how how you would interpret the wisdom found in Proverbs 31:4-7?

The Septuagint translates yayin in these verses as oinos. Verses 4-5 say that "it is not for kings to drink wine (yayin/oinos)" so they do not "forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted." I have to assume this is the negative use of wine (ie. intoxicating drink) that you mentioned.

Then verses 6-7 say that we should give wine (yayin/oinos) to him whose "life is bitter" so that he might "forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." This is clearly talking about intoxicating drink, but it is in a positive context.

So, if "oinos" is used here as both an intoxicating drink and in a positive context, how do we discern when someone is drinking "diluted wine" in a positive context or "intoxicating drink" in a positive context.

Thank you,
Charles Henry

brad reynolds said...

Charles
Great questions. The main resource is that which has been quoted by Dr. Mohler, Dr. Akin, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Land and others...which is the work of NT scholar Robert Stein. As Dr. Roberts made clear, however, in his article posted on this blog...there are other resources.

I would say Proverbs 31:4-7 is a wonderful illustration of intoxicating drink, I agree with you the context is clear. Thus it is not for leaders or royalty, however, for those who are dying or mourning, it is appropriate for governmants to allow it's use. We still do this today, giving dying or mourning victims mind-altering drugs (morphine or valium) to ease their pain. Granted these are not alcohol but the mind-altering relief is similar.

Hope this helps
BR

Jim said...

Has everyone seen the article on Ethicsdaily.com about Dr. Mohler speaking on the subject on his radio program?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=7746

I heard the program and thought he did a good job of stating his position with graciousness and tact. My position is similar to Dr. Mohler's, but I am not as fond of the Resolution #5 as he is.

Here are a couple of quotes from the article and show that resonated with me:

"intellectual honesty" demands him to say there is no single proof text that says, "Thou shalt not ever drink an alcoholic beverage."

"And yet I will tell you up front that I know there are believing, faithful Christians who enjoy a glass of wine or do drink some beverage alcohol," he said. "And I cannot say in all persons in all circumstances it is sin for them as Christians to do that."

"Now there are those who are going to come back and say, 'Now my Christian liberty means that I have the right to drink,'" Mohler said. "Well if you're part of a church that holds to that understanding, and you are very careful, monitored in mutual accountability, that you do not drink into drunkenness or into excess, then I'm not going to say that you're not a Christian and you're not faithful.

"I'm going to say I couldn't be in that circumstance, and I belong to a church and denomination, and I serve as president of an institution that before God believes that the best position to hold is a total-abstinence position, in accountability to other Christians, and in accountability to the churches."

Cliff4JC said...

Dr. Brad,

Have you heard Dr Mohler's comments from his radio show? I am a regular listener to his podcast but must admit I missed this until I saw it transcribed at BSC's house. I immediate opened my ITunes software and listened. He made the comments off the cuff, so I am careful not to over analyze; I'd love to hear your "take" on what he said about the alcohol issue to one of his listeners.

BTW...how's your nephews thumb doing? I was thinking about him the other day.

Joy,
Cliff

brad reynolds said...

Jim and Cliff

I have read Dr. Mohler's statements, transcribed. I think he did a good job and we must not forget his bottom line...He believes the best biblical position is abstinence.

Cliff
Thanks for asking about my nephew...his thumb is better...I went kayaking with him last week:)

BR