Thursday, September 28, 2006

Joshua Convergence News Updated

Florida Baptist Witness has a new article on the Joshua Convergence.

By the way, two bloggers (Wade Burleson and Tom Ascol) have now stated I misrepresented Wade in my address on holiness at the Joshua Convergence. I try to maintain a no-spin blog in a search for truth. And so without addressing the other remarks they made (we don't want to devolve into a tit-for-tat) let me state there appears to be some truth to their accusations based on a statement made by Wade Burleson today. But let us first recall the post I referenced.

The Title of the Post: "CONVERSION TO CHRIST OVER A GLASS OF WINE" - typically the title of an article carries with it the thesis. Let us also recall the section of the article I referred to, which was under the heading "Wine used in the conversion of a sinner" - again, typically the heading of a section contains the thesis of that section. Finally, let's quote the first paragraph of that section, "The following story is a beautiful narrative of reconciliation, conversion, and ultimate redemption --- all INITIATED because of a glass of wine.” (Caps - mine) Usually the first paragraph of a section contains the theme of the section.

Now, my assumptions were; 1) The Holy Spirit initiates ones conversion; 2) the idea that "conversion and ultimate redemption was initiated by a glass of wine" implies the glass of wine (which was an initiating factor in her conversion and redemption, according to the statement) somehow, in the mind of the blogger, contributed to her salvation which was a work of the Holy Spirit.

Now apparently my assumptions based on the phrases "conversion to Christ over a glass of wine," "wine used in the conversion of a sinner," and "conversion, redemption- initiated because of a glass of wine" were wrong because Wade stated today, "I believe that the movement of the Holy Spirit of God upon the wife of a man I had recently led to Christ had nothing to do with the use of alchohol, but rather, God saved her by His sovereign pleasure."

Nevertheless, I think an objective reader can see how logically and easily I arrived at my conclusion.

However,
Wade,
I made that statement in pubic, and therefore I apologize to you in public. Honestly, I am ecstatic to know you don't feel that a glass of wine contributed, in any way, to her conversion. May God bless you my brother.

I do have a difficult time reconciling the title and reason for the post with the above statement you made but that's not a big issue for me, because I have much more important theological issues I still haven't reconciled in my mind (man's choice...God's Sovreignty)


Some added notes:
1. I did believe Wade believed that wine played a role in the young woman coming to faith (his very title implied it, to me). I didn’t know if it was a minor role, such as her being open to hear what he had to say, or a more major role…but I did believe he thought it played a role. HE HAS MADE CLEAR HE BELIEVES IT PLAYED NO ROLE!!! For that I am truly grateful. I have sincerely apologized to Wade publicly and on the phone…he has graciously forgiven me.

I want to make clear I felt I was honestly portraying some thoughts of pastors when I spoke at the Joshua Convergence, in fact, I quoted word for word Ben Cole's comments from Wade's comment section where Ben said, "One of my deacon candidates makes a mean margarita. And it's not an issue. By the way, since we lifted that clause from our constitution and bylaws, our church visitation ministry has taken off, and people in our church are more excited than ever about reaching the lost." MOREOVER FOR THOSE WHO ASSUME I PURPOSELY MISREPRESENTED WADE FOR THE JOSHUA CONVERGENCE PLEASE REFER TO MY POST ON JULY 18TH "ALCOHOL ABSTINENCE: BIAS OR BIBLICAL" WHERE I SAID "The idea that the world will accept us and listen to the gospel if we drink with them verges on apostasy. One blogger implied a lady was saved as a result of his affirmation of wine. Such theological naiveté assumes that alcoholic spirits move the Holy Spirit…how sacrilegious!" - NO ONE corrected my misunderstanding then (see the comments), and until Wade made it clear today he did not mean that, I was certainly confused because of his title and post.

Further I want to be clear that I do feel strongly (and I mean strongly) that it is sad and wrong for any pastor to teach their congregations a Biblical position of moderation. For this I DO NOT APOLOGIZE!

2. I truly believe whether one believes I misrepresented him before he clarified depends on one's perspective. It appears moderationists, by in large, feel I misrepresented him, however, abstentionists, by in large, feel I didn't. Perspective is important. However, Wade has made clear where he stands and as far as I am concerned it’s over.

3. Concerning the comments about my making the statement for applause or any other supposed motive…I try not to defend myself. God knows my heart and I rest in that.

4. Allow me also to clarify some other things. Wade made clear in our conversation that Harvey the Rabbit’s information was wrong! He did not speak to Dr. McKissic within an hour after chapel because he listened to the tape first and then called Dr. McKissic and has only spoken to him once. He has no plan, nor has he even discussed a plan, to run Dr. McKissic next year (please see his comment to Harvey the Rabbit under my post Dr. Eitel's Second Paper...) He also told me that when he said “since (the BFM2K) is not inerrant and infallible then you can disagree with it in some areas, but still affirm it where it speaks to major, foundational issues of the faith --- which I do” What he meant was that he affirmed the BFM2K in EVERY and ALL parts but did not like it being used to remove others from the convention. I was and am honestly confused as to how he meant that in his first statement, but I trust him at his word.

Further, I don't think the BFM2K is being used to remove some from our convention...I think it should be used to remove employees of the convention if they don't agree.

5. He and I have some honest theological disagreements.

6. Holiness is just one of our affirmations. And alcohol was just a "symptom" of a lack of holiness, in my opinion. The issue was that we are not being good examples of separating ourselves from the world and to Christ. And I speak of myself first and foremost.

BR

55 comments:

Dull Iron said...

Well, that clip was very disappointing Dr. Reynolds. Although I disagree with much of what you have to say (regarding theology for example), you should take it as a compliment that I have still enjoyed reading here and perhaps even had a comment sprinkled in so as to sharpen and become sharp...but I am now compelled to rethink that. It would be deceitful of you to pretend you were not referencing Wade Burleson in your comments, so since that is settled because you and everyone else knows that you were, then there is no denying that you must have willfully and intentionally completely misrepresented that story regarding alcohol. You then proceeded to tell it in such a way that you could get the biggest EMOTIONAL reaction (which is a very popular preaching style these days.) What's more is that with the likely makeup of that audience, it is a safe assumption that everyone spouting the "Amens" when you finished were also familiar with the story and knew you didn't represent it correctly. I am sincerely...make that disturbingly disappointed. You don't know me so this all may be meaningless to you...but it shouldn't be. Pray...and then just think about it. In the quietness of this room as I write this post, can I humbly ask you to search your heart? What was the motive here? Here's hoping for a "Joshua Convergeance" focus on the real enemy. To help you get started, it's not Calvinism, it's not prayer languages, and it's not even alcohol.

volfan007 said...

brad,

as you can see you are really being attacked by some people right now. the founders and wade's bloggers are really letting you have it right now.

hang in there, bro. we love you, and we are praying for you. may the Lord give you extra grace and wisdom to deal with this onslaught.

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

Dull iron,
Reread my latest post, my friend and then you may want to re-word your comment.
BR

brad reynolds said...

volfan
Truth never runs. Thanks for your words.
BR

Jim Champion said...

Brad,

I really do like your blog, you challenge me, and that is good. I listened to your talk at the JC online, and I fear that you took Pastor Burleson out of context, the following is copied directly from his blog. this does not seem to me to be the way that you related it in your talk.

IN that same blog entry, Pastor Burleson committed that as long as he is on the board of the IMB that he would not taste beverage alcohol, and that he does not drink - although if the same opportunity presented itself, I would hope that any of us would see the salvation and reconciliation of a family is more important than a second or third tier issue.

Wine Used in the Conversion of a Sinner

The following story is a beautiful narrative of reconciliation, conversion, and ultimate redemption --- all initiated because of a glass of wine.

Years ago a man came into our services and sat through the preaching time weeping. He was a wealthy, high profile business man who had just gone through a heartwrenching divorce because of his own indiscretions.

After the service he introduced himself to me and set up an appointment to see me for some counseling. This began a six month pastoral relationship with this man that evenutally led him to an understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ultimate experience of Divine forgiveness.

All that was now needed was reconciliation with his wife. He asked if I would counsel them. I said I would, but when he requested his wife to come with him to see me, she said, "No. He's a Baptist preacher. All he will do is condemn me."

The businessman was crushed. I asked him why his wife was so hostile about Baptist preachers. He told me she grew up Roman Catholic and the only time she ever attended a Baptist Church the preacher yelled and screamed about the sins of the people in the pews including drinking, going to movies, wearing short skirts and long hair, etc . . . and it turned her off from "the Baptist religion."

I suggested that rather than have her come to my office that the man might want to see if his ex-wife (a divorce had since occurred)would have my wife and I over for dinner, just to get acquainted. To his surprise, she agreed.

To our surprise she was a gourmet chef. We entered the lovely home with the smell of French bread wafting in the air, and sat at the table meticulously crafted for a true dining experience.

Unfortunately, though the introductions were cordial, I could tell the evening might be a long one because of the chill toward this "Baptist preacher."

As we sat down, I noticed the brilliant table settings, the scrumptiously prepared French gourmet meal, and the solemn expression on the woman's face.

I also noticed there was tea and water on the table.

So this Baptist pastor said, "You can't have a meal like this without wine. Where is the wine?"

I wish you could have seen her expression. She smiled and warmly said, "But I thought you were a Baptist preacher."

"I am," was my response, "And this Baptist preacher knows a great chef when he sees one, and no chef worth her salt would prepare a meal like this without wine."

She asked my wife and I to follow her as she took us down to the cellar. She was a wine collector and she proudly showed us her collection, passed down to her by her grandfather. She meticulously chose a bottle of wine for the occasion and we made our way back to the table.

I led us in prayer and we thanked God for the food and the drink and His provision for us. We ate a wonderful meal and I enjoyed a glass of wine. Nobody around the table had more than two glasses.

To make a long story short, the walls that had hindered the relationship came down. We enjoyed the evening with the couple and as a result five things happened:

(1). I was able to lead this woman to faith in Jesus Christ, showing her that Christ alone provided the righteousness she needed, and she trusted Him and was baptized shortly thereafter.
(2). It was my privilege to perform the private ceremony where wedding vows were exchanged again and this man and woman were reunited in marriage.
(3). The couple became very active in our church and have led out in our outreach of the lost in our community through Sunday School.
(4). They have personally given tens of thousands of dollars to the Lord's work through our church and Christian school, and have personally been able to lead several of their own family members to faith in Christ.
(5). They still have their wine collection, but have never been drunk since giving their lives to Christ as Lord.

Now, I ask this simple question to my Southern Baptist friends. What, if anything, is wrong with the events just described to you?

Mopheos said...

Good afternoon Dr. Reynolds,

Like Dull Iron, I think this issue - the conversion over a glass of wine as it was first reported by Wade and then taken as grist for the mill in various settings, including the most recent Joshua Convergence - is well, well beneath your normal fair, sensible, reasonable and accurate handling of things.

Though it is really of little consequence what I think, I have thought of you as an honorable man who is not easily swayed off course from the pursuit of truth. I still think you are an honorable man, but the assertions and conclusions made on this issue stretch credulity beyond recognition. Both the assertions made and the response to those assertions is not a little disconcerting.

Please do not feel any need to respond to me - you've responded on the blog already. As I stated, what I think is ultimately inconsequential, and I still have a great deal of respect for you. I suppose that is why I was so blind-sided to read about this and to know that many others heard and responded favorably. I hope this serves to put us all on notice once again, that even in the cause of defending mere conviction, the heart is not as unswayable as we men imagine or hope.

I wish you grace and peace,

Timotheos

Jim Champion said...

Brad

Sorry for the long post - your new one came up as I was typing my previous - cheers to you - I appreciate your quick and public correction (wish all would do the same)

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

Brad,

I haven't posted on your Blog for a while as I thought I was starting to see a Heart. But I guess the old saying a leopard never changes his spot is true.
I pray the Holy Spirit convicts your Heart before Jesus returns.
You should be pleasing God, not a man who thinks he is God.


In His Name

Wade Burleson said...

Brad,

I accept your apology.

I do wish that you would call me at your convenience.

I left my private cell number on your voice mail the other day.

Tim said...

Brad,

I took time to listen to your message. The pejorative rhetoric of the meeting was alarming. You always seem to call people down when they get out of line. Brother, your willful misrepresentation of this story to get the Amen, was simply the wrong use of the pulpit. Shame on you.

You and all the JC group ought to read DA Carson's book, "Exegetical Fallacies" before your next sword-sharpening rally. The section on "logical fallacies" talks aobut emotive appeals, appeals to selective evidence, improper syllogisms, unwarranted associative jumps, the abuse of obviously and similiar expressions, and SIMPLISTIC APPEALS TO AUTHORITY.

I am thankful.
I am conservative.
I am an inerrantist.
I want to be holy.

But it is not what goes into a man that defiles them, but what comes out of the man's heart. Remember that?

Timotheo

Dull Iron said...

Brad - You had not posted the following before my comments were made:

Wade,
I made that statement in pubic, and therefore I apologize to you in public. Honestly, I am ecstatic to know you don't feel that a glass of wine contributed, in any way, to her conversion. May God bless you my brother.

I still stand by my comments as they are accurate in context. I am glad for your humility, but isn't the damage done? Please don't let the opportunity to learn something pass you by. Please pray for me as well, for now I am also left with a questioning spirit. For example, in your comment above to Wade, did you really think for a moment that Wade felt a glass of wine played a role in her conversion? Sincerely? You are smarter than this my friend. Please stop covering and maintain a humble spirit and learn from your mistakes. I have a lot of experience at this as I continue to work out my own "dullness".

On a side note, please don't let volfan muddy the waters with a bunch of "five pointers are off the deep end" off topic commments as he so often does. Perhaps you (and I) can grow because of this unfortunate mischaracterization you have made.

brad reynolds said...

To All

I have posted an update. Please see the post.
BR

Wade Burleson said...

Brad,

Thanks for the updates.

I personally affirm all of the BFM 2000, but find it tragic that some were fired or terminated who felt strongly that the BFM 1963 more accurately reflected their views --- particularly after they were told they would not be.

The lack of integrity in dismissing missionaries, people who were told initially that they could remain employed if they affirmed the BFM 1963, should bother us all.

brad reynolds said...

Wade
I agree, if they were told they would not be let go that was WRONG. I would like to know who told them.

I have no problem with them being released if they can't affirm the BFM2K. I have a major problem with someone telling them they would not be. And an added problem of that someone then not keeping their word.
BR

Jerry Corbaley said...

Brother Brad,

We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check. James 3:2

Thanks you for your effort toward modeling humility. May humility spread far and wide. Please forgive the brothers and sisters for their condemnations.

Those who admit their sin earn trust with me.

Wade Burleson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wade Burleson said...

He who admits to sin where there is none is a coward

Tim Batchelor said...

Brad,

If it makes you feel any better I must confess that I read Wade's post on his witnessing encounter as you did. I don't not why he brought the subject up in the first place unless he was trying to say in the midst of a convention wide discussion on alcohol that in his experience he found that in once case wine actually opened the door for a witness therefore could not be all bad. I still take the post that way and choose to believe that is the way it was intended originally. The only other possibility would be that he was intending to say that he was able to win someone to Christ in spite of the wine. Either way, I guess I really don't care. Just wanted to say that you weren't alone in the way you took the post.

Tim

brad reynolds said...

Jerry
Thank You. You have encouraged me. As God is my witness (and by the way He is really all that matters) I truly felt that was what Wade was implying…I told him that. In fact, I said that on my post on July 18th entitled “Alcohol Abstinence: Biblical or Bias” – no one corrected me then (by e-mail or in the comment section). So the idea I said it for the benefit of TJC is wrong. Nevertheless, Wade has made clear that I did misunderstand him and therefore I am glad that he does not hold such a position and therefore glad to apologize. Some (not Wade) have obviously stated wrong motives concerning me but I assure you I’m ok with that, I have gotten use to the blogging world.

If Wade in his post was implying that I was trying to give a “distorted portrayal of him” he is wrong. I don’t desire to distort anyone. Let us all boldly state (as Wade and I both did while we chatted today) where we stand on all issues and let the chips fall where they may.
BR

Debbie said...

Amen Wade!

brad reynolds said...

Tim
Thanks. I felt the title and the post, as well as the reason to even post it, implied that alcohol opened the door somehow for him to share the gospel...obviously some disagree with our take on the issue - I think it has to do with perspective as I said in the post.

And Wade has made clear that alcohol played NO PART. While I too have a difficult time reconciling that with the post...WE MUST TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD and trust him. He knows his heart and we do not.

But thanks for the comment
BR

brad reynolds said...

To All

Please note Wade has responded to the Rabbit on my post "Dr. Eitel's Second Paper w Drs Patterson and Hadaway."

Wade I have also mentioned your comment on my updated updated post here:)
BR

Wade Burleson said...

Brad,

It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could conclude that I even remotely implied that alcohol played a part in the regeneration of the woman's soul. God alone regenerates the soul and to say that that I communicated the Spirit was moved by spirits is really confusing.

Brad, you said in your message, and I quote "To say the Holy Spirit of God is moved by the spirit of alcohol is contrary to the Word of God and sacreligious."

Again, there is nowhere in my post that your statement can even come close to being supported. This is why you apologized and this is why I accepted it.

Blessings, and I would urge everyone to let this matter rest.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Reynolds
Why is it that you insinuate whatever in your apologies and that is not what a Holy Man would do? I don't believe you are a man of integrity, that's two of the principals for our meeting this week in our church.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Reynolds,

It was quite obvious to me as well what Dr. Burleson meant when he wrote the post concerning the witnessing opportunity and the glass of wine. For anyone to even argue that Dr. Burleson (himself included)was not implying that the wine opened the door to share the Gospel, is absolutley preposterous. Not only did he mean just that, but he also implied that because he was willing to have a drink with this family, she ultimately placed her faith in Christ as Savior. It is an insult of the highest nature for him and others to try and convince the blog world that he has been misrepresented. Why write it if he was not trying to make this point?

It is a shame and a disgrace that we live in a day when ANY person would be villified as you have been, for: 1. preaching the truth 2. stating the obvious and 3. contending for the faith.

Bless you Dr. Reynolds, and may you mold young minds at SEBTS to be staunch defenders of The Truth.

J Stuart Houston

Wade Burleson said...

Brad,

One of the reasons I took anonymous comments off my blog is because people were coming on attacking my opponents in a very ungodly manner ---

I then discovered that the people doing it were actually those who opposed me --- making it look as if those in support of me were really ungodly people.

I would encourage you to remove the ability to post anonymously like the two posts above.

Les Puryear said...

Brad,

I don't think you misunderstood Wade's comments at all. Now that he has "graciously" forgiven you your great transgression of stating your viewpoint, he's trying to tell you whom to delete comments from on YOUR blog. I tell you, the lengths this guy will go is unbelievable.

Hang in there, Brad. Many more of us support you than do not.

Let them attack me. I'm used to it.

Regards,

Les

Anonymous said...

You err Dr. Burleson. My post is not anonymous. My name is posted. I stand by what I have stated, and no amount of rhetoric or word-smithing from you will change the fact that your post is what it is. Quite frankly, it is ironic that you have chosen to back off the original intent of your post. You seem to take such pride in 'integrity, truth,...' Backtracking does not become you Dr. Burleson.

J Stuart Houston

Wade Burleson said...

J Stuart,

I was referring to content to the post above yours, but should have made it clearer.

No backtracking here Mr. Stuart.

I stand by everything I have written.

Also, it is not Dr. Burleson. Mr. Burleson is fine.

brad reynolds said...

Wade,
Again...I misunderstood you but I think it is obvious, as I told you, that I felt you implied that her heart was more open to recieve the gospel because you asked for wine...you have dispelled that thought and I am glad.

J Stuart Houston,
Thank you for your encouragement of my teaching. I appreciate that very much. However, concerning Wade we must trust him at his word. If he says that is not what he was saying then we should and are compelled to trust him.

Anonymous,
I have asked if you post anonymously to at least post your name. Concerning your insinuations, as I stated I try not to defend myself...Christ is my judge and for that I am both grateful and reverent.

Les
Thank you my friend...but Wade knows what he was trying to communicate better than we, and even if we can't reconcile it in our minds, let's trust his word.
BR

Wade Burleson said...

Les,

I only wish the best to you and your ministry.

Good night everyone and have a great weekend.

Thanks Brad for the conversation.

Have a safe trip.

Les Puryear said...

Brad,

I think you know better than that.

Wade,

How disingenuous of you.

J. Stuart,

"Wordsmithing" is a great description. I like that!

Regards,

Les

brad reynolds said...

Les
I admit I have a very difficult time reconciling the purpose for the post and the tenor with his latest statements but I know I can't judge his motives and I can't show that he is being less than honest...therefore in my mind I have no choice but to Trust him. Furthermore, other moderationists also fail to see how I could arrive at my conclusion, so he is not alone here.

Whatever the case is...he has stated he believes alcohol played no role in her conversion. For that we can all be grateful. No matter what he meant before or what we felt he meant before (in other words no matter if he expressed it poorly, changed his mind, or if we were wrong to make that assumption) the point is: he states that alcohol played NO PART in her coming to Christ. To me that's all that matters. I don't care what he said earlier, if he states he believes it played "no part" then that's the end of it, for me.

I hope I'm making sense...sometimes I don't do a great job of expressing in type my thoughts.
BR

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

Brad,

A long time ago I accrued you of bring jealous of Wade Burleson because of your constant attacks on anything Wade did. I told you I could not see your Heart.

Now I see the total picture as I listened to your preaching and reading your recent posts. Wade did not attend a Seminary, yet God gave Wade the Gifts that he gave Paul (Saul). I shared that Wade was full of Grace and Truth as his Blog is named and now I see. May God have mercy on you and convict your Heart

In His Name.

Jim said...

Rhetoric and insults stink.

Wade Burleson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wade Burleson said...

Brad,

For the final time.

The Spirit of God changes the heart as He pleases, when He pleases and in whom He pleases.

He uses the gospel of Christ Jesus as the tool of conversion, as Paul stated, conversion is by "the Spirit and the truth."

The woman was saved by the grace of God, but she listened to me intently and patiently as I shared the gospel in all its fullness.

She gave me an audience because of who I was (a pastor who had helped her husband and did not fit the sterotype she had of Baptist preachers), how I treated her (with love and respect), and how I behaved (with gentleness and kindness rather than condemnation and superficial spirituality).

There is no confusion here. The Spirit of God and the gospel of Christ were the instruments of conversion.

Yet the Bible states, "But how shall they hear if one is not sent?"

The point of my post is that I did not let my cultural or preferential ethic regarding alcohol (abstinence) become a stumbling block to a woman who needed a Savior and happened to be a collector of wine.

That's all I'm saying.

Honestly Brad, the more you post about this the more confused I am about that for which you apologized.

Maybe I'm just naive

:)

brad reynolds said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
brad reynolds said...

Wade
I apologized because I felt you implied that alcohol played a part in her salvation, EVEN IF IT WAS HER BEING OPEN TO HEAR YOU - WHICH IN MY OPINION IS A WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and you claimed it played NO PART, (When you said no part, I assumed that to mean she would have been saved even had you not asked for the wine. Which is why I couldn't understand your reason for posting it in the first place. If I am wrong in that assumption let me know) and therefore I apologized.

Are you now saying that you feel had you not asked for wine that she would have "stumbled" and not been saved? That was my original confusion and now I am confused again.

I told you on the phone I was confused about your earlier statement concerning the BFM2K and your current one but I trusted your word and therefore believe you when you say you "affirm each and every part" (which includes the pastorate being reserved for men only).

Perhaps it is me...but I am having a tough time following my brother.

I would like to ask you if in your post today you were implying that I was trying to give a “distorted portrayal" of you?
BR

Bro. Robin said...

Brad

How you preached it is how I read his post.

Keep up the good work

God Bless

Bro. Robin

Bro. Robin said...

Brad

Out of respect and fairness to you, I did comment about your conversation with Wade on my blog. Thanks for your thoughts.

God Bless

Bro. Robin
www.fromthehill.wordpress.com

brad reynolds said...

Bro Robin

Excellent thoughts and excellent post.

Thank You,
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

I listened to your sermon four times. I saw one major fault all four times although I tried to ignore it each time I listened.

You were taught better than to leave your coat unbuttoned when you preach. Shame on you:-)

Report to Dr. McDill for a refresher course.

cb

brad reynolds said...

CB
You know me...you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy:)
BR

volfan007 said...

brad,

you did read wade's post right, and i see no need for you to apologize for what you said at the jc. i read wade's post and felt like it strongly implied that the woman came to Christ because wade was willing to drank. he may not believe that drinking alcohol played a part in the actual saving of the woman, but he did strongly imply that the woman was willing to be saved due to his dranking.

also, i agree with les. dealing with wade is a little confusing. he will say something, then he will turn around and say different. he will say that he wont allow something to be said on his blogsight, but then, if it's one of his pals....its ok to say it to someone who does not agree with him.

i have faced many experiences like this on wade's blog until i quit commenting. and, wade never did apologize to me for ridiculing me, and for putting words in my mouth..saying that i said something tht i didnt...instead, he just deleted his post where he had done that.

brad, keep standing strong for truth and commoon sense. the crowd at wade's blog is full of liberals and near liberals(moderates) and charismatics who would love for their theology to be accepted and considered the norm for the sbc.

we have already been down that road.

volfan007

volfan007 said...

anonymous,

you asked a question in another posting about women teaching in our seminaries. if they are teaching english...then thats fine. if they are teaching theology...then thats wrong.

volfan007

Paul Burleson said...

Brad,

First time to comment. But I said this on another blog and thought I would say it here for what it's worth.


Since Paul the Apostle thought it wise to recommend to one that he be circumcised so he could relate to a group, [knowing full well being circumcised didn't open another's heart] and since Paul desired to become all things to all people in order to win some, [knowing full well his being anything didn't win another] do you suppose Paul was refering to what he was and what he did impacting an openness to him as a person on the part of another? Could it be that there is a difference between the heart being opened which is the work of the Word and the Spirit and our being adaptable a bit so as not to turn people off? That seems pretty clear to me. It seems pretty clear that's what was said in the story. Am I missing something? Thanks for allowing a comment.

Paul Burleson

brad reynolds said...

Paul

Everyone is welcome to post here. Please stop by any time.

I agree whole-heartedly with your statement.

However, its application to the use of "strong drink" (wine) or any other barbiturates, I feel is wrong!!!

Paul would never ask us to compromise standards of holiness or biblical ethics in order to recieve a hearing from others.

Now we may disagree on whether Abstinence is a biblical ethic and that is the whole point!!!

Those who feel it is not, cannot grasp how I could make such a statement; those who feel it is, see quite clearly how I could make such a statement.

I hope this helps.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I'm having trouble trying to grasp why some people would believe that: (a) a sovereigntist (which is what I perceive Mr. Burleson to be based on commentary of his that I've read) would believe that anything BUT God could regenerate a person (i.e. 'spirits' as you called it), and (b) regardless of your doctrinal position regarding sovereignty vs. free-will, 'earning' an audience (i.e. becoming all things to all men) is not an effective ministry tool. Do you not think it reasonable that to think that God uses our 'living' part of the gospel to open peoples' hearts. In fact, as I've said before, the Gospel is duo-faceted. Our lives 'reflect' Christ and our mouths 'profess' Christ. Any other gospel is distorted. If our lives don't reflect Christ, then our mouths will present a distorted Gospel. If our mouths don't profess Christ, then our lives present a distorted Gospel. Remember Paul's words? "How beautiful are the FEET of those who bring the Gospel"?From what I've read, it seems easy to see that Mr. Burleson's life reflected what his mouth professed. That of graciousness and humility - not one of condemnation over a 'third tier' issue (to steal Mr. Burleson's description of the alcohol debate).

Grace and peace to you my friend,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL

Please see my response to Paul above.

Hope all is well with SMU
BR

Paul Burleson said...

Brad,

While I respectfully disagree with your presuposition as you indicated you thought I might, I do appreciate your prompt response.

I think [without knowing for certain] there might have been some, [had there been bloggers we would have known it] who would have disagreed with Paul's decision to not ask Timothy to refrain from circumcision but, rather, to embrace it, on the very grounds you have chosen to challenge Wade's decision. I guess we'll just have to wait and let the Lord sort it all out at His coming and, in the meantime, live faithful to what light we have.

Respectfully,

Paul B.

Tony K. said...

A Message for "Some" Young Preachers from the Joshua Convergence!Brad, do you think this comment by Rev. Crook went too far? This is one video “highlight” from the event.

Wade Burleson said...

Bill Dickson,

Frank Page is an excellent President and will be reelected in San Antonio.

For the umpteenth time, I have never met Dr. McKissic and the idea that I (or for that matter Ben Cole) are kingmakers and desire him to be President of the SBC is absoltutely funny to me.

Whatever meetings you attend where these false and ludicrous discussions take place should be broken up with an encouragement to do things more edifying for the kingdom of Christ.

SBC Pastor, I personally affirm the BFM 2000, but the caveat for me is that I believe we should give freedom and flexibility for people in the SBC to affirm whichever BFM they wish in order to participate in missions and evangelism (25, 63, or 2000), and I think you can simply ask somebody rather than put a signature on anything.

I don't sign my Bible and believe every word of it. And of course, the BFM, unlike the Bible, is not inerrant and infallible, don't you agree SBC Pastor?

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Smooth Move. I never said you met McKissic. I clearly stated that you and he had a phone conversation the same day of his Southwestern address.

Deny that and watch for a posting of your phone records!

Bill

Wade Burleson said...

Bill,

You watch to many espionage movies.

I did not speak with Dr. McKissic the day he spoke in chapel.

You may post anything you desire, but if I were you, I would stop with one lie and not build on it.