Friday, September 29, 2006

My Statement on Alcohol

Yesterday I issued an apology to Wade Burleson (see my post “Joshua Convergence News Updated). The reason for my apology was because I accused him of implying that the Holy Spirit worked to bring a lady to Christ because he asked for a glass of wine. I assumed the purpose of the post as well as the title and content confirmed my accusations. However, Wade issued this statement: “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 alcohol, but rather, God saved her by His sovereign pleasure.” Moreover, he told me on the phone he felt that alcohol played “NO” role in her salvation.

By “NO role” I took him to mean she would have been saved had he not asked for the wine (which confused me, as to why he would have posted the story in the first place). In other words, I felt he was saying that his asking for wine did not, IN ANY WAY, cause her heart to be more open to hearing the gospel or to be more receptive.

And yet last night in my comment section he said:

“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 stereotype 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.”


I then queried Wade about his statement by asking: “Are you now saying that you feel had you not asked for wine that she would have "stumbled" and not been saved?” He did not respond…perhaps he had left already.

First let me state he and I will disagree on abstinence just being a cultural or preferential ethic…I think it is a Biblical Ethic!!!

However, I believe it is the Holy Spirit’s work that opens our hearts to hear the gospel (I think my Calvinist friends would agree here). And so, if Wade can honestly say he believes she would have been saved without his asking for alcohol (in other words alcohol played NO ROLE) I stand by my apology.

If however, he thinks his asking for wine caused her, in any way, to be open to hearing the gospel or IF HE THINKS SHE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SAVED, ON THAT OCCASION, UNLESS he had asked for wine, then I feel I have no need to apologize and stand by my original statement!
BR

99 comments:

Wade Burleson said...

Brad,

Please allow me to post a comment from my father.

"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 referring 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 you were saying in your story. Am I missing something?


Brad, I echo the question? Am I missing something.

As I told you over the phone, my offense was you that you stated that my view is that "the Holy Spirit of God is moved by the spirit of alcohol" and then said, "That is sacreligious."

As I have said repeatedly, the Holy Spirit moves by His Sovereign pleasure, using the shared gospel to convert the heart. My role was to share the gospel --- period.

Brad, as long as you think abstinence is the only Biblical ethic for holines, you will be hard pressed to work with other people in the SBC who may have a different view on this matter.

I have absolutely no problem working with you, cooperating with you, and calling you my brother --- and by the way, I have affirmed personal abstinence while I serve on the IMB Board. Your demand that every Christian (not just you, but everyone else) abstain in order to be holy, however, leads to strife. The Bible teaches that drunkenness is unholy and makes a mockery of Christ's work in our hearts. Since we both believe in the sufficiency of Scripture to tell us what sin is, then we are in agreement here.

However, until we recognize that Christians within and without the SBC can actually believe that drinking an alchoholic beverage, according to the inerrant Bible, is not necessarily an act of sin, (see R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Al Mohler, the man and wife in this story, etc . . . ), then we will be hard pressed to make this a third tier issue over which we will not divide, or criticize others.

Or, call them sacreligious.

Brad, I accepted your apology yesterday. If for reasons that you wrestle with in your own heart you choose to retract it, my love for you and my desire for your ministry, family and life to prosper will not change.

In His Grace,


Wade

Anonymous said...

Brad,

It is obvious that our actions can be barriers to people being open to the Gospel.
Paul said his goal is to become all things to all people. Obviously this is limited by an obedience to the will of God.
But to act as if our actions or attitudes cannot be a barrier to the reception of the gospel is really being short-sighted.

Did not Peter tell the women to act in certain ways as to postivily influence their husband towards the gospel? Are we not told to pray for and be at peace with those in authority for it is God's will that all come know Christ?

Our actions affect our witness! We know this, have been taught this, and the Bible teaches this.

Could it be that this woman, that is a chef and a collector of wine, whether rightly or wrongly, feels under the judgment or condemnation of those who assert you must abstain, and that if you do not you are not pleasing to God? Could our view on alcohol be an unnatural barrier in people's receptivity to the Gospel? Yes it can be.

The question is what will we allow to be offensive and what will we not allow to be unnatural barriers to our mission to preach the gospel.

We will certainly stand by our conviction that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Why? Because it is clearly stated in scripture!

Will we make alcohol an issue of fellowship? The Bible does not CLEARLY teach that one MUST abstain. Your interpretations say this, mine do not. But the Bible does not spell out, DO NOT DRINK or you are not holy.

Brad, IMHO not saying this to be offensive, but this is an issue of the Sufficiency of Scripture, and those who say, "You cannot really see it in Scripture, but let me explain it to you...." are like the Pharisees of old.

Stephen said...

Oh my word - Brad - have you beat this horse to death or what? Its like you knit pick apart and over-analyze every word the man says.

You guys disagree on alcohol - geniune believers, men who love the Lord and serve the Lord whole-heartedly disagree on alcohol. It is a fact. There are folks who will never agree over the alcohol issue. There are people in Baptist circles who will never agree over the alcohol issue. The world gets it! Move on!

I find it incredibly hard to believe that you an educated man of God would think that Burleson would believe that alcohol saved a woman. Surely you see how ridiculous your post sounds.

And no I am not a part of the Memphis group or the Winter Park group!

Anonymous said...

Brad,

I love the Lord and desire and seek holiness in my personal life and ministry. I have served the the nations near the ends of the earth for nearly ten years and have loved every minute of it. There is no greater joy than sharing the gospel with people whom have never heard the name of Jesus for the first time!

But before I arrived on the field, I clarified my position on alcohol with the IMB (which is the same as Wade's), sincerely stated that I would abstain from alcohol and have never touched a drop, nor desired to do so in my ten years of service.

Nearly all the men in the culture where I serve drink alcohol, most of them in moderation. I respectfully decline everytime I'm offered and it has not been a problem in my ministry. In fact, my abstinince has opened the door on many occasions to share the gospel.

You need to know that I also graduated from SEBTS in the middle of the Patterson years and know more than a few other students from that time who also hold the same view on alcohol as Wade and myself.

I agree with Stephen that you need to stop beating the alcohol issue like a dead horse. This is third tier issue.

I respect your position on alcohol and agree with you whole heartedly on just about every other position you hold.

Let's move on to more important topics.

tea drinkin M

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

Brad,

Could you please enlighten us as to what you agenda is and why your attacks on Bro Wade Burleson.

In His Name

Les Puryear said...

Wayne,

You've just fulfilled predictions #1 and #5. See my blog for details.

Les

Les Puryear said...

Brad,

Stand firm against the spiritual superficiality being presented to you. "I love you and I can work with you but here's the problem with you..." is about as disingenuous as anything I've ever heard.

Les

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Is there room in the SBC for people that drink in moderation? Is there room for preachers that teach against the abuse of alcohol but not the use?
Should these people go elsewhere?

Please answer this question.
Thank You.
Tim

brad reynolds said...

Wade

My response to your father was:

“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 receive 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.”


Now, concerning sacrilegious the term in my computer dictionary means “misuse of the sacred.”

Let me explain me reasoning for using such a term. If one believes that participation in an activity, which IMHO is wrong for us to participate in (ie - strong drink for recreational purposes), somehow causes others to be open to the gospel then I think he has misused the sacred.

Let me give an example…the Bible does not condemn the use of marijuana, in California it is legal. Let’s say that a pastor goes over to another individual’s house to share the gospel. The individual shares that he does not get high (drunk – which is sin) on marijuana but likes to take a puff from time to time and offers the pastor a drag. The pastor assumes that if he turns down the drag he will offend the person and lose his audience for the sharing of the gospel…therefore he takes a puff. I think the pastor has assumed that God would not have saved the individual unless he had partaken of marijuana and thus IMHO he believes the puff of marijuana somehow opened the individuals heart to be receptive – that very idea seems sacrilegious to me.

Alcohol is a barbiturate and a mind-altering drug (as marijuana is) and as Dr. Robert Stein makes clear, today’s alcohol is not equivalent to “wine” but rather “strong drink” which has negative connotations throughout the Bible – Please refer to my series on alcohol – I think I covered it very thoroughly in June/July – You may want to reference Dr. Land’s article (on my blog) which Ben Cole admitted is very convincing.

Therefore, my apology stands if you agree the woman would have been saved at that moment without your asking for wine…but if you assume wine played a role in her receptivity then I stand by my comment.


Furthermore, I do not think abstinence is the “only” biblical ethic for holiness. I believe there are many biblical ethics for holiness but abstinence is one of them.

Concerning my being hard-pressed to work with others, I usually do just fine with my brothers who disagree with me, here. This is my position, and I trust they have theirs, but I do not believe one who partakes of alcohol in moderation should be paid by CP funds!

Concerning “my demand that everyone abstain in order to be holy.” Let me first state I am nowhere near where I need to be in regard to being Holy as Christ is Holy. And thus, I encourage all (and myself foremost) to separate ourselves from the vices of this world and to Christ.

Concerning your reference to Dr. Mohler, he says he cannot at all times in all circumstances call it a sin (ie – perhaps for survival purposes in the NT and medicinal purposes) but he does not say in some instances (perhaps – recreational) it is not sin. He even makes the distinction as Robert Stein does between alcohol in NT times and alcohol today.

Wade, thank you for your kind words for me and my ministry. We shall disagree my brother, but as I said yesterday before I prayed with you I believe we are brothers in Christ and I believe you are seeking to honor Christ. May God bless you.

BR

brad reynolds said...

Stephen

I did not bring up the issue...it was brought up on Wade and Tome Ascoll's Blog. This post would never have occured had it not been brought up. Glad to move on but needed to clarify some things.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Tea Drinking M

Thank you for your kind spirit.

I think we will disagree here my brother...but that is ok.

God bless you
BR

brad reynolds said...

Tim

Yes there is room in the SBC...there has always been room and I think always will be room. But we have also always stood against its recreational consumption via our resolutions.
BR

brad reynolds said...

To ALL

Dr. Jerry Vines will be addressing some of our current issues in a series he will be doing on Sunday nights beginning this Sunday at FBC Woodstock.

The title of the series is: Baptist Battles. The four messages are: #1- LIBERALISM: A Baptist and his Bible; #2-CALVINISM: A Baptist and his election; #3-PENTECOSTALISM: A Baptist and his gifts; #4- LIBERTINISM: A Baptist and his Booze.

This may prove very interesting.
BR

Paul said...

Brad,

I figure that the number of Southern Baptists who drink, or at least the pastors who do, even in moderation, is quite small. In Greensboro the opposition to the alcohol resolution was 15% tops according to Bobby Welch.

On the other hand, recent studies indicate that obeisity is nearing epidimic proportions and is even higher among Baptists than the general population. One of our state convention empolyees recently told a local associational meeting of pastors that seven out of ten people who sit in the pews of our churches view pornography on a regular basis. Many of our churches struggle with inner strife and division. The number in ministry who are asked to leave because of conflict is way too high.

Your topic for the conference was holiness. It seems to me that to continue to re-hash an issue that affects so few in the SBC to the neglect of matters of holiness that affect the majority of our people on a daily basis is shortsighted. Would you agree? I'm not so much saddened by your statement on alcohol at the conference as I am your neglect of "the weightier matters." Will we be hearing more about these other things at future Joshua Conferences or are we going to have to protract this alcohol debate out into eternity?

brad reynolds said...

Paul

Good words and fair. Taking care of one's body is part of holiness IMHO. I have never backed down from speaking against gluttony. In fact nearly every revival I do I address the importance of exercise and taking care of our bodies. As far as stating it at the Joshua Convergence I would not have had a problem...there were many other issues I wished I could have addressed under holiness, however the 3 symptoms I chose (making worship comfortable for sinners; drinking; dress) were chosen because of my grave concerns about: what is happening to "worship services;" the temptations and unhealthy witness our dress bespeaks; and the first time alcohol was debated from the convention floor.

My main point, which seems to be neglected as usual was that we are not separating ourselves to Christ and loving Him with all our heart soul and mind.

I stayed within my alotted time...unlike some of ny brethren:) - but I would have no problem addressing gluttony at a conference like that.
BR

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Very well said!
Our Lord said we should deal with our beams.
The JC singularly pointed out a speck. I am not aware of an ongoing problem with Baptists and Booze. I do know of other issues that are more important concerning our personal sanctification.

What we see is an attempt to marginalize anybody that disagrees over third tier issues.

You ever been to many of the churches in NC an Virginia? Many of their Baptist structures were built on Tobacco money.

Brad, just curious, do you preach boldly against the Tobacco industry in the pulpit in Virginia?

Tim

Jonny V said...

Honest questions from the pew -

When does moderation slip into being drunk? When you have a buzz?

What is the point of drinking alcohol other than to get a buzz or get drunk? To relax? When are you actually relaxed? When you get that buzz?

The stuff really doesn't taste that good, anyway.

What if you've not eaten all day, you play a round of golf, have a beer afterwards and all of a sudden you feel light headed? Have you just sinned?

Would a Crown and Coke be "okay" in moderation?

What about a shot of Jagermeister?

If no, who differentiates what's right and wrong in ones use of alcohol?

brad reynolds said...

Johnny V

As I said in my series...Alcohol kills brain cells...it also shrinks the frontal lobe which is the place responsible for moral decision making (these were studies done at places such as Michigan State and others).

Further, as you note the subjectiveness of drunkenness begs questions. Is it at .02 BAC or .03 or .031

Where is it?
Good points.

brad reynolds said...

Tim
I pastor a church in the heart of tobacco country. 2nd largest tobacco producing county in the state. And yes, when I am in a text which speaks of the body being the temple of God I do apply it to alcohol and tobacco as well as gluttony. Feel free to come by and listen or ask the congregation.
BR

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

By the way

For those who believe gluttony and obesity is a sin. Would you still have fellowship with a brother who struggled with gluttony and obesity or would you kick him out of the SBC?

If you would have fellowship with him then why is it so hard to imagine I would have fellowship with one who drinks a glass of wine?
BR

Anonymous said...

Brother Brad,

Thank you for having this forum. This is the first time I have posted here & will not use my name due to security issues (Level III). I prefer face to face discussion, but this will have to do. I believe everyone commenting here to be my brothers & sisters in Christ and would like to thank all of you who daily pray for us & those who support us financially out here at "the ends of the Earth."

You said:
For those who believe gluttony and obesity is a sin. Would you still have fellowship with a brother who struggled with gluttony and obesity or would you kick him out of the SBC?

My comment & question for you:
We are not talking about someone "struggling" with alcohol. A better question would be, "Would you continue to have fellowship with someone who made it clear that he did not consider obesity a sin?" This discussion is not about someone "struggling" with a sin, but a difference of opinion over what "sin" is. My question to you is whether or not you would continue in fellowship with someone who did not consider obesity a sin?

May His face shine upon you!

PS -- If there are typos or grammatical errors, please forgive me ... in a bit of a hurry.

SWBTS Underground said...

Dr. Reynolds,

I want to help you out in some of your logic, if I may.

First, Jesus didn't come eating and puffing. But He did have wine. That is the problem with the marijuana example- apples and oranges.

Second, on CP funds: are you opposed to CP funds being used to fly SBC professors out to Orlando for a pseudo-secret (i.e. non-promoted) conference railinga gainst other Southern Baptists? What if CP funds were used to get participants to the Memphis Declaration meeting?

Third, on CP funds: it is not hard for us to understand that you would fellowship with one who has a glass of wine. But, as you stated, you have a problem with CP funds supporting those who think it is ok to drink even in moderation. In equating obesity as a holiness issue and sin, as you stated, the logical conlcusion of your views has to lead you to deny those who are obese and unrepentant of obesity of any position funded by the CP. Is this correct? Carrying it further, even if one who is obese and views obesity as a sin, but has trouble controlling it, would you deny them a position. The same way, one who viewed alcohol as a sin yet continued to be drawn back to drinking, even in moderation, would you give them a CP-supported position?

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,

Yes...if they were sincerely searching and seeking God's will in that matter...then yes.
BR

brad reynolds said...

swbts underground

I don't know your implications...but I used my own funds!!!

Second no pseudo-secret at all. Joni Hannigan for Florida Baptist Witness was in every meeting and taped them. Unlike the Memphis group that had a meeting and then issued a statement we were totally open...we have nothing to hide!!!

Speaking of apples and oranges NT wine was nothing like modern wine. See Drs Mohler's Akins Pattersons, Lands, Vines, Roberts, Page's comments.

I did not say I had a problem with using CP funds to support those who believe moderation is a biblical position I said I had a problem using CP funds to support someone who practiced moderation!!!

Concerning obesity, I don't think it is always sin...but I do think gluttony is. And yes, if I felt one was a glutton and unrepentant I would not want CP funds going to him.

Now your turn...only when you answer lower the implicative rhetoric.

Do you believe gluttony is a sin? Is it worse than adultery? Would you use CP funds to pay one living in an adulteress affairs? How about one who is committing gluttony? If your answers differ please explain.
BR

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

Brad,

To be consistent, the question to IMB and other CP employees would be, "do you ever overeat?" "do you ever overdrink."

I have not problem with either of these questions.

But just as we do not say, "do you eat?" we should not say "do you drink."

Paul clearly stated in Colossians, "let not man judge you by what you eat or drink."

our Lord clearly taught, "it is not what enters man that defiles him..."

To imply otherwise is a contradiction to the Word.

But to say that you do so when the text calls for it, IMO is a cop-out. If I know my people have a false view about the atonement, I do not wait for a text, I preach to instruct them and correct them in the areas that need to be addressed. If Baptists in Va. and NC have blinked their eye at the evils of Tobacco, it is our job to face it squarely and not beat around the bush.

When Baptists in the South really deal with repentance over tobacco that has killed millions of people, then come talk to us about how drinking a glass of wine is a sin.

Tim

SWBTS Underground said...

yes, I meant gluttony by obesity, and you are right in that they are not the same. so you agree gluttony to prevent one from being in a position supported by CP funds. How are you going to know they are gluttons?

If CP funds were used for JC, is that something to be concerned about, considering it was a "pseudo-secret" meeting as far as advertising it. A reporter doesn't change that. But, I can understand that if Wade Burleson would have been able to make it, you would have had to change your sermon.

You made the point above that intoxication levels (or % alcohol/ blood volume) were subjective, i.e. can't draw line, why is alcohol content in wine (% alcohol/ liquid volume) not also subjective? Either way, Jesus drank oinos, did not puff potos.



Answers: gluttony a sin, check; yes, worse than adultery, check (because of wife and children that are crushed); Cp funds for adultress, by no means!; gluttony, by no means! if they are unrepentant and unaccountable.

Sins: gluttony= overeating, not just eating; adultery=over-fornicating (ha!), not just fornicating; drunkard= over drinking, not just drinking. This is the point everyone is trying to show you.


I don't drink, do not condone it, and do not want my professors doing it. But the fact remains that Scripture doesn't call drinking a sin, just dangerous. Kinda like riding a Harley.

SWBTS Underground said...

sorry, for all the typos, and this meant to be a question:

If CP funds were used for JC, is that something to be concerned about, considering it was a "pseudo-secret" meeting as far as advertising it?

Bro. Robin said...

Brad

I appreciate your post. When we have a conversation about alcohol, it always turns to gluttony in order to justify someone wanting alcohol in moderation.

Gluttony is a sin. I am also a big man. I realize my sin and for me it is a battle to eat right and exercise. I will say this, I can get on the floor and whip out 25 correct push-ups which would be more than some who engage in moderate drinking, but that doesn't justify my sin.

I will preach against alcohol and gluttony and I pray that I am an example of how God can work in the sinner to overcome the issue of gluttony. When I preach against alcohol I always try to practice humbleness, not because of my weight, but because I used to drink. I know how deceptive one or two glasses of wine can be. In college I picked up my best friend out of rage and threw him accross the room after I had a couple of drinks. As of yet, I have not ate at a Chinese buffet and reacted violently to someone.

Some have said, how can that person preach against alcohol when he looks like that? I ask them, "Well, how can anyone preach against sin when they engage in sin on a daily basis?"

I am convicted of my gluttony and will strive daily to repent of it. I will humbly preach against it and tell of my struggles and I will preach against the use of alcohol even in moderation.

BTW, Dr. Mc Kissic is a big man and I have not heard anyone complain about his preaching because of his size. Should his message on PPL and tongues be discounted because he is overweight?

Again Brad, Thanks for your post. I don't feel you did anything that was wrong. I hope you, Wade, and others will work with this sinner who strives to repent of his gluttony on a daily basis.

God Bless

Bro. Robin

SWBTS Underground said...

Robin:

We would not rail against you for preaching against drinking because you are a big man. We approach this with a humble attitude. You're right, we are all in sin, where the dividing line is repentant vs unrepentant sin. but again, drinking is not said by Dr. Reynolds to be a sin in itself, and no one is saying not to preach against it.

Bro. Robin said...

Brad

One final thought. I am not in disagreement with you and support your post. This question is meant to those who want to squash our view on alcohol by throwing the gluttony card into the mix.

I know of people who are skinny but can eat a gob of food and not gain weight. There are some I know that eat twice as much as me and don't hardly have any fat on them. One question, is me being overweight the criteria for gluttony or just eating too much? If it is eating too much or even the wrong types of food, then should the skinny person who eats a lot be deemed a glutton also.

Just food for tho.... uh. Just thinking about it.

Bro. Robin :0)

Anonymous said...

Robin,

The point we are trying to make is that the sin is in the overindulgence and that it is hypocritical to say that one who drinks alcohol is unholy but to now put the same emphasis on overeating (whether you are fat or skinny).

If at the convention next year the convention passed a resolution against gluttony and alcohol, of those that are voting int he building which resolution would hit home the most?

This is why I decry preachers being more upset over moderate drinking (I ahve not heard a preacher yet defend drunkenness) then overeating! We are hypocrites! We are grabbing specks and ignoring beams.

Tim

Bro. Robin said...

Tim

Thanks for your comments.

Again, my comments were meant to be food for tho.... Oooops! I did it again.

I hope that makes someone smile and ease the tension of the comments.

Hey, Cici's pizza, my treat. Let's go!

Trying to be humble

Bro. Robin

brad reynolds said...

Tim
We have been here sooo often. Please reference my articles from July. Paul was not speaking of intoxicating drink in Colossians rather he was dealing with drink and meat offered to gods – that which Daniel would not partake of (King’s Wine). It was Judaism Paul was dealing with in Colossia.

Concerning what goes in the body defiling it I shall assume you don’t think any mind-altering drugs are sin unless they produce drunkenness. We will disagree here.

Go ahead and nail tobacco I’m ok with that, but to give the #1 drug in America a pass because you misunderstand NT Oinos and today’s wine is unacceptable for me.

The sin is in altering your mind with intoxicating drink.

SWBTS UNDERGROUND

I told you to lower the rhetoric. I don’t like anonymous comments anyway, except for missionaries, if someone really feels strongly about something they will attach their name!

Concerning Wade being there…let me be clear…I would not have changed my sermon one iota! you obviously don't know me well.

As Stein makes clear about Jesus Wine it would have affected the bladder before the mind…in other words it was more like root beer than the mind-altering drug of California Chardonnay. If we want to traverse this again I’ll be glad to bring out the articles again:)

The point Drs Land, Patterson, Page, Vines, Mohler, Akin, Iorg, Roberts, and others is trying to make to you is that it is a mind-altering drug and not the same as NT oinos.

Please read my article Alcohol Abstinence: Bibilical or Bias on July 18th so I don't have to repeat myself.

Thank you and hope this helps
BR

brad reynolds said...

To All

Florida Baptist Witness has posted a new article this afternoon on the Joshua Convergence

Thought ya'll would be interested.
BR

Tim said...

Brad,

If this is the case, and NT wine is more like Root Beer, then why are deacons told not to drink too much of it? Why are there so many warnings against drunkenness. Is it not enough to stand against drunkenness?

Tim

johnMark said...

For those who have not seen the Robert Stein article in Christianity Today I sent it to my good friend Frank. He posted about it here: http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2006/08/research-and-methods.html

Or you can go directly to the article here: http://kingdomboundbooks.com/tmp/Article.pdf

This article seems to assume what it's trying to prove. Anyways, read it for yourself if you haven't already.

Mark

Ps. BR, if there is another article by Stein that you or MacArthur were referencing please let me know.

brad reynolds said...

Tim

As Stein notes "liquid wine was stored in large jugs called amphorae. The pure, unmixed wine would be drawn out of these jugs and poured into large bowls called kraters, where it was mixed with water. From these kraters, it would then be poured into kylix, or cups. Wine would never be served directly from the amphora without first being mixed. And according to other historical data on this period, the mixture could be as high as a 20:1 ratio"

Your question of deacons is revealing. Notice pastors are not to drink but deacons can as long as they weren't drinking much. Thus, there seemed to be a negative connotation even in NT times of "oinos" which was even diluted wine.

Please see MacArthur's article at http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1937.htm

Please read these articles I keep repeating myself and really don't have time to do so...I leave for El Salvador at 6 AM

Anonymous said...

Brad,

This will be quick, I'm not trying to be short or anything like that. Just don't have a lot of time today.

I asked:
My question to you is whether or not you would continue in fellowship with someone who did not consider obesity a sin?

You responded:
Yes...if they were sincerely searching and seeking God's will in that matter...then yes.

Clarification & follow-up question:
The comparison is between the situation of those who have done the exegesis, studied the different views & come to the conclusion that alcohol, in & of itself, is not a sin ... but that drunkness is. They are not "searching & seeking" rather they have searched & sought & come to a conclusion (just as you have done & come to a different conclusion). Thus, my clarified question is:
Would you continue in fellowship with someone who, inspite of you & others going to them according to biblical principles, denies that obesity/gluttony is a sin & continues to participate? Why or why not?

Again, I don't like this medium of communication, but doubt you'll be traveling to where I live anytime soon & we're not due back in the States for almost another year.

May His face shine upon you!

brad reynolds said...

anonymous

The spirit in which you post is evident...thank you and fair questions.

My answer - To use CP funds to support the alcohol industry is IMHO different than using CP funds to support the Cheesecake Factory:)

I'm not trying to be light (well actually I was) I'm just trying to help others see the difference as I see it.

If someone is paid by CP funds and the majority of SB see recreational drinking as wrong and have so passed the resolution then to use their paycheck to go out and buy a drink I think is wrong.

Wherever you stand on this SB have never altered their stand here. Nor did we this year.

Hope this helps
BR

Paul said...

Robin,

Since I'm the one who brought up gluttony I'll assume your comments are directed toward me.

Let me first say that gluttony was only one of the things I mentioned in a list of things, which included pornography, internal strife within our churches and ministerial/congregational conflict. I realize Brad feels like I missed the main point of his message - a point with which I am in full agreement, by the way. But surely my main point was missed as well.

You wrote: "When we have a conversation about alcohol, it always turns to gluttony in order to justify someone wanting alcohol in moderation." First, nowhere on this thread have I argued for moderation (though I both could and would). That was not my point and that is why I never mentioned it. My point, as Tim has noted, is not to use gluttony as a means of arguing for moderation, but to use gluttony, pornography, church conflict and the epidemic of ministerial firings as examples of things which occur with much more frequency in the SBC than pastors drinking in moderation.

If I were given a limited amount of time to speak on holiness to a group of SBC pastors I would think that I would want to deal with some of the main issues that we are really facing, not just to make a statement that I stood with the majority in Greensboro on a matter that affects so few. I am all for holiness, to be sure. But I think we will make very little progress in holiness if we spend our precious limited time debating issues that affect so few to the neglect of issues that affect so many.

By now I have beaten this horse beyond reason, so I'll stop there. I'm simply asking that you not misrepresent what I'm saying. I don't believe it was intentional, but it was a misrepresentation nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

Brother Brad,

I appreciate your concern for holiness & that CP funds not support the alcohol industry. I personally do not drink, nor would I if I didn't work for our organization and hadn't signed the paper. I also am now angry at you & need to repent because you have me craving cheescake factory cheescake & that ain't gonna happen anytime soon! (Pathetic attempt at a joke at 1:30am during Ramadan) ;)

But ... the question I am asking concerns whether or not you would have fellowship with "someone who, inspite of you & others going to them according to biblical principles, denies that obesity/gluttony is a sin & continues to participate?" And then why or why not? I do appreciate the answer that you provided, but it didn't really answer my question. If you are not comfortable answering, that is fine as well.

May His face shine upon you!

PS -- What does "IMHO" mean?

SWBTS Underground said...

I do not know what you mean about rhetoric. In my mind, I am making valid points worthy of scholarly defense. Why? Because I want to defend them. Yet, like the other side, I feel as if I get marginalized when my questions are no longer fun. Sorry if I have offended you or hurt your feelings, etc. I am truly seeking a biblical defense for EVERYTHING. I pray you will see that.

Grosey's Messages said...

Friends, you may feel that at this time your contention over alcohol is a fairly innocuous one because most pastors supported the abstinance vote at the SBC.
Here in Australia where the charismatics and liberals have become friends within our Baptist Union, a conservative pastor complained to me of a recent Baptist Pastors retreat he attended with 12 other pastors. He and one other were the only ones who did not take away slabs of beer ( a slab is a lot of beer, enough to put you on a slab) and other drinks to consume over the weekend. He said the retreat was very interesting for him, the others were drunk so all he could do was read his bible on his own.
Then earlier in theyear I had to help a church with the problem of an alcoholic and abusive pastor who had chased his wife and children away through drunken physical and emotional abuse. His church was intimidated and was scared to sack him because of his threats of legal action.
Alcoholism is a threat to society and evangelical churches.
Bye the way, its interesting how some people get stuck on this issue. I remember having dinner with an Oklahoman pastor out with the Singing (not sinning)Churchmen who raised the issue with me of drinking. He asked me what I thought about drinking wine over dinner. He was pushing me to agree that drinking wine over dinner was biblically correct and therefore I ought to drink with him. He was not pleased with me and declared me a legalist because I said I had a personal conviction against drinking.
I said I wouldn't drink with him because the witness would be bad for my children.
I said I wouldn't drink with him because the local population have a higher standard for christians than christians do, and to drink would be a stumbling block to them.
I said I wouldn't drink with him because my family had a history of alcoholism, and I didn't trust myself.
I said I wouldn't drink because the recent Australian Bureau of Statistics 2000 year book indicated that 1 in 3 Australian adults drank to a dangerous level each week and as Jean Lenane (head of WHO on alcoholism) indicates Australia has the greatest problem with alcoholism of any nation on earth.
I said I wouldn't drink with him because the raising of the issue was actually an issue of bullying rather than of respect for an individuals personal preferences (i.e. because rather than just order for himself and his wife, he felt he had to make it an issue with me, when for me it wasn't an issue whether he drank, but whether I drank).
I am more concerned that the last reason was a breach of Galatians 2 concerns over legalism than my reasons for not drinking.
I remember once sitting with a reformed pastor who wanted to test the depths of my reformedness by drinking a whiskey in front of me, smoking a cigar, and having his wife breastfeed right under my nose. I was a young man of 21.
Well to tell the truth, I am reformed, but I thought that what he was doing stank more of a phoney and abusive personality than it did of true christian liberty. Christian liberty has the ability to let others have and hold their own convictions without feeling the need to continually have a go at others. The test of a true understanding of grace is a gracious character, not a legalistic insistence on drinking alcohol.

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,

Good questions.
I think local church discipline is reserved for the local church. So, if such an individual was in my church and refused to repent I would follow through with Matt. 18 and hopefully the church would invite them to not participate in the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, I would hope they still came to church and I would be gracious to them every time I saw them.

SWBTS
That’s fair. Now, the implication that I used CP funds to get to Orlando is plain wrong. If you have evidence someone else did…the proper thing to do would be to go talk to them and not blog about it. That implication bothered.

Concerning the idea the meeting was secretive is just not the case. I know Ben Cole knew about a week before because he blogged about it on his blog. Yes, it was a small group of us who started this JC back in a hotel ballroom in Greensboro (5 of us to be exact). We invited some of our friends and asked them to invite like-minded individuals but it was no secret. Did we want BP or APB publicizing it? No. I think it would have been viewed as political rather than what we wanted – a group of like-minded people speaking of concerns we saw in the convention OPENLY.

The very idea I would change my sermon because anyone showed up is wacked! Now, had Wade told me beforehand what he said on his blog yesterday I surely would have quoted his words more directly rather than making logical assumptions…but I still would have quoted Ben word for word and I think Ben would tell you I would have done it with him in the audience.

This is what I meant for rhetoric.

Thanks for asking and you are very welcome to post and I am glad to talk through these things that is what this blog is for…but and let me address this to ALL…

Let’s continue to be careful and keep a Christlike spirit in our disagreements.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Grosey

Thanks for the wisdom from Aussie land. By the way, the study I found about moderate drinking shrinking the frontal lobe (which is where moral decision-making takes place) was done by an Australian Doctor I believe...I'd have to look it up...but I think so
BR

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

I stay silent for some extended time and you fall into it.:>)

You now have the bullseye. Well, here goes.

I know a person that applied for missionary service through the IMB. I was placed on that persons reference list and was contacted for a confidential interview. That person was denied service from the IMB. I do not know if this was the reason, but I did report to the IMB that this person did drink in moderation and I personally would have a hard time recommending them for service. Some time passed by and this person began attending another Evangelical Seminary. This seminary required people to sign a statement about various scriptural issues that are not clearly spelled out in the Word. One of these issues was alcohol. I asked mr friend about signing the statement because it clearly spelled out that students agreed with the Scriptural admonition of abstainance. This friend told me that they were no longer viewing Scripture in that light. I have never made this a fellowship issue between us. However, I openly spoke to this friend about my understanding of Scripture.

Some years later this friend again applied for a position with the IMB. I once again was listed as a reference. I presented a reference that was without hesitation for this person to serve as a Missionary. This friend is now serving as a career missionary with the IMB.

Many times we are told it is a cultural issue. I beg you all, read Grosey's comment.

Blessings
Tim

SWBTS Underground said...

Dr. Reynolds,

Really, I wouldn't have a problem if CP funds were used. I was meaning to correct your logic about using CP funds, but it came across as an implication that here would be an ethical concern. It shouldn't have been mentioned, and I ask for your forgiveness on this matter.

FURTHER, I don't mean to call into question your integrity by intimating that you would have tempered your sermon. You may well have not changed a thing, and that is better. I was prideful in the matter as well.

Lastly, I stand with you on all but the implication that someone of this generation who disagrees on whether drinking is always wrong is by default in bad conscience, or "not in good conscience." I am sharpening my own iron, and by default, you get the brunt of my arrogance. Sorry for that, but I hope you have come away with this sharpened as well.

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,

I’m sorry for overlooking your question.

IMHO means “in my humble opinion”


SWBTS Underground

Thank you my brother…please know I did take offense but also know you were forgiven before you asked. Thanks for your exemplary spirit. Many times blogging (and type in general) fails to communicate our thoughts – I know I have failed often.

I would never presume to be another man’s judge. However, if I am confident that slavery is wrong or mind altering drugs or intoxicating drink then I would be unfaithful to fail to communicate it. Nevertheless, I have VERY VERY close friends who have searched Scripture thoroughly and feel moderation is Scriptural. I think they are wrong and have told them so…they think I am wrong…we live with it, and I would trust them with my soon to be born son.

What concerns me is, any pastor who gives his congregation an out with moderation…now while I decry it, I have NO authority…their church has the authority…not the SBC, not the Pope – but their church.

Finally, my point in my message was that we do have some symptoms that reveal a lack of holiness (and yes I think drinking alcohol is one of them although I know many disagree) but these are symptoms not the issue!!! For me the issue is I am not as close to Christ as I can be. The solution to any vice is not to stop doing it but to fall in love with Christ…my point was we all need to spend more time with Christ.

BR

sbc pastor said...

Brad,

I have been quite busy the past few days and haven’t had much time to check up on current happenings in the blogosphere. However, it looks like your blog has been quite busy the past few days :0). I will now try to do some catching up. Congratulations to both you and April on the baby boy. I will be praying that he looks like his mother :0) and has a spiritual backbone like his father! Thanks for your uncompromising convictions based upon the Word of God and your desire to bring glory to Christ. You are truly a great example to others. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Anonymous said...

Dr. Reynolds,

Dr. Ben Cole has posted his theories concerning a supposed upcoming meeting at Criswell College. He states:

“Of course, I would want to keep it quiet that the Criswell College was hosting such a meeting because any such meeting would be judged immediately as “politically partisan.” In the same article he claims that the ones officiating the meeting would not want to invite the current SBC president Dr. Frank Page.


After reading this article I have finally realized that Wade and Ben are great at speculating but poor at answering the really hard questions. Watch and see.

I was in a meeting a few evenings ago and was told that the reason Wade was preparing to run McKissic was that Dr. Page was going to be offered the South Carolina Executive Directors position. I was told that Wade and Ben were the two kingmakers behind the proposed McKissic run.

Wade is this true?
Ben is this true?

Bill Dickson

sbc pastor said...

Brad,

Interestingly, Tom Ascol seems to be implying on his blog that you signed the Abstract of Principles without being in complete agreement with them. However, I personally have read some of your previous discussions with Ascol and you made it very clear that you most certainly do agree with them in their entirety. Furthermore, Drs. Akin and Patterson, both the current President and most previous President of SEBTS respectively, have interpreted the Abstract of Principles in like manner as you – which is contrary to Acsol’s stated interpretation.

His apparent implications are seemingly hypocritical as I have not read of any concern on his behalf in regard to the many worrisome comments made by Wade Burleson. Thus, it would be interesting to note whether or not Ascol, as well as the other signers of the Memphis Declaration, are in agreement with Burleson on several very important issues:

1) Do the signers of the MD believe that it is completely acceptable for a Trustee (as is Burleson) or an employee of an SBC entity (missionaries, seminary professors, administrators, etc.) to sign and affirm the BF&M “with a couple of written caveats” as Wade Burleson has admittedly done?

NOTE: A caveat is a modifying detail; a stipulation or a provision which clearly denotes that ones affirmation is conditional and therefore not in complete agreement with as written. Interestingly, the Latin “cavere” means “warning” or more literally “let him beware.” This is an appropriate word of warning for conservative Southern Baptists which have historically believed in, and practiced, doctrinal accountability.

2) Do the signers of the MD consider other individuals which do not affirm the inerrancy of the Bible to be theological “conservatives” as Burleson admittedly does?

3) Do the other signers of the MD believe that there were only “about four or five people in leadership positions at our seminaries that needed to be dealt with” prior to, and during the early stages of, the Conservative Resurgence as Burleson admittedly does?

Burleson’s comments are very troubling for both me and many other conservative Southern Baptists. It would be interesting to know whether Ascol, as well as the other signers of the MD, is in agreement with Burleson on these very important issues.

Thanks and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Anonymous said...

SBC Pastor,

You asked several questions concerning the signers of the MD and their beliefs. From reading the thousands of words spilled on these blogs, it is evident that they are only interested in defending the use of alcohol. I wonder if homosexuality is next on thier agenda?

What say ye Wade? If homosexual activity permissible as long as it is done in moderation?

Terrence from Oak Park

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

What say ye about the homosexual issue?

Terrence

Bro. Robin said...

Bro. Paul

Sorry I haven't responded quickly.

I hate to disappoint you, but you weren't even thought of when I was typing. I hope you don't feel I take pot shots at you for pleasure.

I read your blog from time to time, but I don't think I have responded to anything you have said in quite a while.

Frankly, with all do respect, you weren't on my radar screen when I wrote my comment.

For this being my day off, it has been real busy ministry wise and I was in a rush to type what I did. Just thoughts off the top of my head to let everyone know how this pastor deals with being big.

I did talk to one of my church members about what I said today, and he didn't think I was a glutton as if I eat large quantities all the time, just someone who had a large frame. How kind. I believe I will preach on how it is a sin to bear false witness, this next Sunday. :0)

Paul, hope you can see that you were not on my hit list when I wrote the comment. Really nobody in particular was.

If you want to respond, that is fine, but nothing was there in the first place. I won't be able to respond back since our church will be in the middle of a block party.

God Bless

Bro. Robin

CB Scott said...

Mr. Terrence,

I signed the M.D. I was in Memphis for the whole meeting.

For you to say that our only interest was to "defend the use of alcohol" is not only a lie but a very stupid statement. Not one second was spent in Memphis defending the use of alcohol. You were not there. You have made yourself nothing more than a rumor monger.

Deal with it. You should apoligize for your lie and rude behavior.

As for your question to Wade about homosexuality Let me take a shot at it since on any day of the week I am equal to or surpassing Wade as a theologian and scholar.

I do not have his modesty:-)

To equate the issue of alcohol with the issue of homosexuality, theologically or biblically, betrays gross ignorance of both the Bible and Christian theology.

The Bible is very plain in presenting homosexuality as an abomination before Holy God.

Not one person that met in Memphis would say otherwise. You insult all that were there by even bringing up such trashey talk.

You can fight about whiskey all you want, but do not speak thusly about anything I was part of again as even coming close to even being open to such an ungodly thing as to condone the life-style of a Sodomite in moderation or otherwise.

cb

CB Scott said...

Mr. Green,

I have not read Tom's statement relating to Brad and the Abstract of Principles (which Brad and I both hold dear).

I do know Brad. You also know that Brad and I go "full contact" with each other often about various things. When I "left" SEBTS he took over my class and did a fine job as was testified to me by my former students.

Let me say there is no one at SEBTS who holds the Abstract of Principles with more tenacious committment than Brad Reynolds.

Anything Brad is in, he is in. If he were not that way I would not spend so much time fighting with him. Who wants to fight with a sissy?:-)

cb

Wade Burleson said...

Terrence from Oak Park,

The Scripture says homosexual behavior is a sin.

But remember, Terrence, so is lying and slander.

All homosexuals, adulterers and liars shall have their place in the lake of fire.

My prayers are with you.

Wade

CB Scott said...

See, Terrence.

I told you I could answer better than Wade and ,of course, you see, he is much more modest than me:-)

cb

sbc pastor said...

Wade,

In regard to your statement:

WB: “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 find it interesting that you employed the words “the caveat for me is” (emphasis on the singular “the caveat”) when you have previously stated that you had “a couple of written caveats” and in fact listed three caveats (please note my post entitled, “A Conversation with Wade Burleson about Inerrancy and the BF&M 2000). Here is the quote that I am referencing:

WB: "Trustees must sign the BFM 2000, which I did, with a couple of written caveats.

First, I explained that I thought it was a mistake to make the women in ministry prohibition an "essential" of the faith. Though I am sympathetic with the prohibition, and would not be in a church with a woman who is the Senior Pastor, I do not believe it is not an essential of the faith, and to put it in a Baptist Confession was unwise.

Second, to take out the "priesthood of the believer" (as stated in the 1963 BFM), an essential doctrine of Baptists for 400 years, and substitute it with "the priesthood of believers" (read "majority rules" as stated in the 2000 BFM), was also unwise.

Third, I quoted Isaac Backus, the great Baptist thinker on religious liberty who had an interesting quote about signing creeds. I said it was unconscionable that were were having people sign a confession as if it were a creed (by the way, those employed by the SBC at Seminaries, Institutions, and Agencies are required to sign Abstracts, Contracts, and other particular documents that are different from general confession; I see nothing wrong with that practice)."

In regard to your statement:

WB: “I personally affirm the BFM 2000”

It does not appear to be possible to “personally affirm the BFM” while at the same time having either intellectual or written “caveats – that appears to be nonsensical. Please understand that a “caveat” is a modifying detail; a stipulation or a provision which clearly denotes that ones affirmation is conditional and therefore not in complete agreement with as written. Interestingly, the Latin “cavere” means “warning” or more literally “let him beware.” This is an appropriate word of caution for many conservative Southern Baptists because Baptists have historically believed in, and practiced, doctrinal accountability (please see my post entitled, “Baptist Confessional Accountability”). Thus, it is seemingly impossible to truly affirm that for which one must offer a “caveat,” whether it is a written or an unwritten one.

In regard to your statement:

WB: “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.”

The messengers of the SBC, an autonomous body, overwhelmingly voted to adopt the BF&M during the 2000 Annual Meeting as its official statement of faith to serve as an “instrument of doctrinal accountability” because “these are doctrines we hold precious and as ESSENTIAL to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice” (BF&M, 5) (emphasis mine). Southern Baptists recognize the contents of the BF&M to be those doctrines which are ESSENTIALS. Thus, all trustees and employees of SBC entities are to affirm the BF&M – not just parts of it, some of it, or even most of it – in its entirety without reservation, stipulation, caveat or condition. Southern Baptists do not have to agree with everything in the BF&M in order to cooperate with one another. However, Southern Baptists have already stated which beliefs are ESSENTIALS for those who will serve our convention as a Trustee or as an employee. Wouldn’t you agree?

Thanks for the discussion and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Paul said...

Robin,

I apologize if I misunderstood your comments as directed toward me. I was the one who brought gluttony into the discussion in this thread and I hope you can see how I might have drawn that conclusion since your statement was directed towards those who bring gluttony into the alcohol discussion.

brad reynolds said...

CB

Thanks my friend. Tom has consistently misquoted and mischaracterized me…but that is the nature of some blogs…we don’t want it to be the nature here.

With that in mind…let’s lay some things to rest (again).
1. Some at the Memphis Signing were and are staunch abstentionists – CB is one of these.
2. Wade has made clear there is NO PLAN to run Dr. McKissic and he has not even spoken of such…furthermore, he shared with me on the phone he and Ben are two different people and thus he would appreciate if they not always be placed in the same boat.

Now, I have some serious concerns about giving anyone an out with the BFM2K because any out, will open the door, IMHO to liberalism in the seminaries and the mission field again. Let’s recall the profs teaching in the 70s-80s DID SIGN the ’63 BFM. Wade and I will continue to disagree here and I think it is wrong of him as a Trustee to even imply such a position is legitimate.

Wade, as a Trustee you have no right to claim they should be allowed to not sign the BFM2K...the BFM2K is our statement of faith now for our agencies - not the BFM '63. SB have spoken overwhelmingly here and it's a done deal. If you can't sign it (I'm speaking to any Trustee or Employee of the SBC) and affirm it in all parts then integrity demands you step down!

Jeremy,
Thanks so much concerning my soon to be born baby boy. I hope he looks like his mother also:) and my greater desire is he be a man of God. It was great meeting you in Orlando my brother. Keep up the work in the Promise-land – TEXAS:)

I don’t know when I will get to check this again…so please maintain a Christlike spirit in our discussion.
BR

Anonymous said...

Brother Brad,

Thanks for both of the answers.

May His face shine upon you!

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

Cb Scott.

I would recommend all Bloggers check out your latest Post on your Blog. I also pray that all their names are recorded.

http://cbscottreport.blogspot.com/

In His Name

Anonymous said...

I tried to respond to CB's site, but I am not a blogger. CB open up your site.

CB,

You said you were more knowledgable on scriptural issues than Wade. I agree. After all, how do you gain theological knowlege in technical school. Please encourage Wade to take a class in Bible and/or theology and maybe he will not continue to blunder his way through important scriptural issues.

Also, I noticed that Wade has not answered your question on losing your salvation.

My reply is No Way! There are too many references to the contrary.

Bill Dickson

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

Bill Dickson,

Come out of your closet and open a Blog, its FREE.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wayne Smith In His Name said...

Ben Trammel,

I never met Bro Ben or Bro Wade and I don't know anthing about a local bar in Oak Lawn or Cole Park. I'm 71 yrs old and I don't drink anything that would be served in a Bar. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to what I am accused of or where I've been seen.

In His Name

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

Ben Trammel,

I will make you the same offer I made Bill Dickson,

Come out of your closet and open a Blog, its FREE.

In His Name

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

Bill Dickson

Something you need to learn.
Profound Theology
The theological student was playing "Stump the Professor." He asked his instructor, a widely recognized scholar and author, to state in a few words his most profound theology.
The academician thought a moment, then replied, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."
Centuries earlier a similar scene took place in Jerusalem. A theological "hot shot" approached a country preacher with the toughest question of the day: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
In this case the theologian was playing "Stump the Bumpkin." After all, how could a backwoods itinerant possibly answer the question that the finest religious minds in the country couldn't?
That the preacher answered was a surprise; but what he answered was the real shocker. "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment...."
The answer Jesus gave in Mat_22:34-40 was not at all unlike the answer of the modern theologian. Just as children in Bible class today learn to sing "Jesus Loves Me" from the earliest age, children in first century Palestine learned to recite "Love the Lord your God" from infancy. In fact, that was what Deu_6:4-9 was all about-parents teaching their children to give God all the love they have.
The study of theology is fine if it is kept in perspective. But we must never allow our research to obscure God's revelation. The most profound theological truths are these: God loves me and I must love God.

Strength from Depth
The iceberg is steadied because the great mass of its bulk is beneath the surface.
So the life of the strong man must go deep. Underneath the surface lie the great principles that endure-truth and justice and rectitude and the things that make for wholesome life and character.

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

Lt. Ross,

Wade is the only one that was specifically asked that ungodly question.

(The comments are above in this comment thread)

The question was from Terrence and it was to the whole MD group in general and then to Wade specifically.

Terrence stated:

"It is evident that they (MD) are only interested in defending the use of alcohol. I wonder if homosexuality is next on their agenda?"

I answered Terrence due to the fact that I signed the MD. If you read my answer to Terrence I think you will see the answer to your question.

Wade answered quite strongly after I did.

There should be no confusion as to how the two of us stand on this subject.

LT. Ross if you want to tell me something my email is cb5512@charter.net. Send me your phone number and I will call you.

cb

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

Dr. Reynolds,
I have just recently watched portions of the video and a part of yours is garbled at the point you are talking about wine and the Holy Spirit. I do not want to rehash the alcohol debate and have admittedly not read all the comments above, but I would like some clarification. Here is my question:

Do you believe that God either could not or would not act through the means of alcohol (or through one using alcohol)? If so, I find it odd, considering that in Scripture we find God working/speaking through slavery (Josheph), lying (Rahab), Satan or a messenger of Satan (Paul's thorn), betrayal (Judas), and murder (Jewish and Roman leaders who crucified Christ)--that last of which, God used to bring salvation to us. I do not consider Wade's openness to wine on par with these acts. And I do not hold as negative a view of alcohol as you do, but if I did, I still would not consider it unusable by God (even in evangelism) considering the instruments he has used in the past.

This does not have to do with what Wade said in his post or how you have interpreted it. It is a question about God's work through human actions (whether neutral, imperfect, or sinful).

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

Paul,

In your comment to Wayne Smith you said that I was implying two individuals were homosexual. That was not my intent. Thank you for bringing this to my intention. I do not know the area of Dallas of which you speak.

Brad,

Please delete my earlier comment. I can not do so from here.

Ben Trammel

Paul said...

Ben, if you do not know the area of Dallas that you referenced yourself - in the context of "coming out of the closet," then I am at a loss as to your intent, other than the obvious charge that they were all in a bar together.

I am glad that you desire your comment to be deleted. If you'll go back to your own comment you will notice a little trash can symbol underneath the time stamp at the bottom of your comment. Click on the trash can and you can delete your own comment. After you've done that I'll delete mine as well.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

There is no trash can when you post under anonymous. Sorry.

Ben

Wade Burleson said...

Ben Trammel said Wayne,

"Interesting that you should use the phrase "come out of the closet" Were you not with Ben and Wade at a local bar in Oak Lawn a few months back? I thought I saw you recently at Cole Park also."

Mr. Trammel, I am praying for your soul. I mean that. These are not just words. Whoever you are, whatever purpose you have, I want you to know I am asking God for His intervention in your life.

Brad, until you can get a handle on the comments on your blog I would strongly suggest comment moderation.

irreverend fox said...

this is unbelievable, I can not believe the outrageous remarks on this blog, unreal. I'm with Wade, I'll be praying for your depraved soul, Ben, and like Wade, I'm serious.

I can only assume that Brad has not seen these things.

brad reynolds said...

wovGuys, I have a new rule – no attacking the person…PERIOD. That includes stating that you will pray for their “depraved” souls!

Ben your comment has been removed…thank you.


Wade,
I appreciate your concern for my blog…but I will administrate my blog. Thank you though.


James
Do I believe God can use something that is not wholesome…you bet!!! Do I believe God would rather use something wholesome…you bet!!!

God used the Canaanites to speak to Israel…that does not mean it was His will that the Canaanites be unholy. The issue for me is the assumption that God would not have saved her unless Wade asked for wine. I feel very confident God would have saved her anyway and the asking for wine had nothing to do with God saving her…in fact, had Wade not asked for wine she would have been saved and he would have maintained his abstinence from “strong drink.”

Hope this helps
BR

Wade Burleson said...

Brad,

I sure didn't mean to tell you how to run your blog.

I am, however, asking politely that as a representative of Southeastern Seminary, the Southern Baptist Convention, not to mention the Lord Jesus Christ, that you refuse to allow individuals on this blog to post accusations of homosexuality against Wayne, Ben or myself.

In addition, I would ask that you not allow comments that lie, and I mean outright lie, about seeing Ben and me in a bar in Oakdale. To me, that is unconscionable and deeply grievous.

Finally, slanderous comments by L.T. that the Fort Worth Star Telegram and the Dallas Morning news will soon expose the secret life of one of the signers of the Memphis Declaration is bizarre and ad hominem against not just one person, but the entire group of Memphis signers.

I just think it would be wise to not allow these kind of comments.

I'm almost positive others think so as well and will soon let you know.

May God help us.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Reynolds,

Perhaps there is a revival taking place in our midst. After reviewing the comments and sincerely praying for the last hour or so, I too would like to retract my comments and ask everyones forgiveness. I will post in the future but I will do so in a sirirt of love and constructive dialogue. I will abide by your wise rules.

Please remove my previous blogs.

L.T. Ross

brad reynolds said...

Wade

Thanks again for your concerns, and the concerns of others.

I assure you I take my responsibility before Christ seriously and that answers the other questions about whom I represent! Therefore, I will attend my blog as I see fit!!! No amount of comments from numerous individuals will change that. Christ is my judge and I rest in that.

Again thanks for your concern.


LT

I will be glad to remove your comments my friend. Thank you for your kind spirit. It is good when the Holy Spirit works in our lives.
BR

volfan007 said...

boy, some people just seem to always want to tell everybody else what to do. i have to deal with that all the time, brad. you just do as you feel led of the Lord to do.

volfan007

ps. this was not written in anger. this was not an ad hominey, or ad anything attack on anyone.

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

Brad,
When someone posts to a blog, they do so - knowingly or unknowingly - at the risk of being attacked and at the risk of the blog moderator choosing to not remove obviously slanderous remarks (i.e. insinuations that one is a homosexual). To that Mr. Burleson, I'm sure, is well aware. I do not, however, see any attempt by Mr. Burleson to run your blog. I see a sincere request by another blogger for you to remove such disparaging remarks (maybe you know something about Mr. Burleson that I don't know). As I usually try to do, I try to put myself in both sets of shoes. Were I the moderator of a blog where someone asked me to remove a comment where that person had been grossly misrepresented, I'd remove the comment. Were I the recipient of such slander, I'd sure ask the moderator to remove the comment. Wouldn't you? Having said that, if the moderator said, in effect, "I'll not remove the comment", I'd move on, resting in the assurance that I was not the first to receive slanderous remarks, nor would I be the last.
BTW, the new rules, while admittedly (by yourself) can be perceived as subjective, should help to direct the arguments at the issues and not the bloggers.

Grace and peace to you my friend,

PTL

Wade Burleson said...

The slanderous comment that accused people by name of being homosexuals has been deleted, the ungodly and unconscionable lie that I have been in a bar with Ben Cole in Oakdale has been deleted. The untrue and unchaste comment comment about a newspaper article exposing the secret life of a Memphis Declaration signer has been deleted.

Brad, I find it stretching incredulity that the men who wrote these comments are commended for their kind spirits (example: LT two comments above).

These men should be rebuked, not commmended. They should be rebuked harshly.

The comments stayed on your blog for at least two days while I waited for your response. You did not remove them until I objected. But even after I objected you took me to task for telling you how to run your blog.

Brad, I don't pretend to know what is best for you or your blog, but I would hope you could see that your position at Southeastern places you in leadership in the SBC, and the inability to take action on this issue until I challenged it, and then commending the men for their "kind spirits" and chastising me for trying to tell you how to run your blog is a very serious misstep in judgement in my opinion.

I look forward to meeting you one day. I also look forward to working with you in the Southern Baptist Convention.

I will, however, not be participating in any discussion with you on your blog. I am always willing to forgive, but for the sake of my children, my family and the church I pastor, I will not be communicating with you on your blog.

And I pray that your errors in judgment will not cost you more than my participation in this blog.

In His Grace,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Once again I am sorry for any harm I caused. I repented and asked all for forgiveness. If that was unclear. I again ask for forgiveness.

Wade,

Please forgive me. Do not hold this aginst Brad. I believe him to be a good honest man. Please forgive me. It was my sin.

L.T.

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

L T

IMHO I believe Dr. Brad Reynoles knows exactly what he is doing on His Blog and in His Comments.

In His Name

volfan007 said...

boy, there are two somebodies acting ugly in here. realy ugly.

volfan007

ps. it aint brad, and it aint l.t., and it aint bill nor terrence dickson.

brad reynolds said...

PTL
To remove some ad-hominem statements and not all is a more peculiar practice than removing them all. I chose to begin removing them all but felt it would be insincere to just remove some.

The implications of homosexuality are serious as are implications of legalism (one who teaches one can be saved by works). I have been called such here on this blog as well as others.

Thus I chose to remove none or all. And I chose not to make it retroactive. However, the Holy spirit worked in people's lives and for that I am grateful...He does a much better job than we do.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Wade,
The gratefulness I was expressing was for LT's repentance...I find it most amazing that a pastor like yourself would not rejoice in his repentance even if he said things that hurt you!!!

Isn't that what Grace is all about? If my rejoicing at his repentance offends you, then so be it.

Concerning my taking action...please, get serious my friend. I took action long begore you said anything by asking the comments to be more Christlike...further, I have not changed anything here based on your advice - I removed the comments because they asked me too, not because you asked me too. I think I have made that clear.

Concerning my "leadership position" I am confident that the rejoicing at these individuals' repentance will be applauded by the majority of Christians. For he who is without sin can cast the first stone.

Your welcome here anytime but I certainly understand your decision. I look forward to meeting you...be blessed
BR

brad reynolds said...

Wade,

One final note here. Please do not confuse my rejoicing at one’s repentance as condoning one’s sin. I do not.

Further, don’t assume that my rebuke concerning how I run my blog implies I am not empathetic to your situation. To imply or to state something about someone that is untrue, is wrong and sin. Further, the false implication of homosexuality is a horrid offense.

I can empathize because I have been called a legalists; one who is a hireling; and one who lacks integrity. Of all of these, the “legalists” is most offensive, because it implies I believe one is saved by works not grace…in other words they are calling me a heretic.

I hate you do not grasp my concern for being subjective in applying my rules retroactively. I certainly will be praying for you and would never rejoice at the hurt of a fellow brother, in fact it grieves me. I will pray for your wife and family also…as my wife can certainly relate.
BR

Wayne Smith In His Name said...

b