Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Legitimate Concerns Update.

Yesterday, I posted a comment on Wade’s blog referencing my response to his post “we must not be sidetracked from the issues” and I asked him the following two questions:

1. Do you think CP funds should be given to M’s who believe Genesis is “metaphorical?”
2. Do you think one should be allowed to serve as a Trustee if he views Genesis as “metaphorical?”

He answered NO to both questions. He and I agree here:)

However, his response about my post was “I would encourage you to read Debbie Kaufman's blog.”

I read her post. I consider Mrs. Kaufman a sister in Christ and trust her heart is pure before God and yet I don’t think I could have planned a better example of subjectivity and ad hominem statements. Let’s note some facts:

1. Mrs. Kaufman accuses me of attacks. Please read the post “Legitimate concerns with SB bloggers.” I simply QUOTE Wade…I don’t attack him or put words in his mouth, in fact, even when he attacks me and calls me a legalist, I give him the benefit of the doubt (notice there has been no apology for his statement, rather a continual defense of him, mounted by his supporters). It is my understanding that quoting others is NOT an attack, but simply stating where they stand. If someone can show me where I have called him a name or misquoted him, I will gladly remove it!

2. I was attacked in her response: I was called dishonest. I was accused of playing to the crowd in my message and much more; most of which I have dealt with in my post, “My statement on alcohol.”

3. The issues were not dealt with: The legitimate questions I posed were never discussed. I have given Wade an easy way to clear things up…I have even suggested ways in which he can answer the questions. I would like him to be clear on these issues. The fact he chooses not to, begs many questions and concerns.

4. The following are some of the things said of me in the comment section of Mrs. Kaufman’s blog:

In his Name says:
“No that would not be part of Dr Reynolds agenda to attack Brother Wade? This man is so full of hate He should be removed from his position as a Professor in a SBC Seminary. Dr. Brad Reynolds is paid by CP Funds that means our tithes are paying his salary to spread Hate and Slander. I think the people in the pews need to know what is going on here. IMHO I believe Brad Reynolds is a Disciple of ________ and as I have stated many times, I could not see Brad Reynolds Heart.”

Wow - I’m not sure I have ever read a worse accusation on any SBC blog. "In His Name" is forgiven before he even asks, but one wonders where all the voices of “remove that comment” went.

(It should be noted that Mrs. Kaufman admonishes the commenter who gave the above comment and she disagrees with the last statement, as does Wade).


Anonymous says:
“Finally.
A layperson who sees through the smoke and mirrors of professional legalists in our convention.”

(another accusation of legalism)


Doug “how’s the weather” Meriweather says:
“It should be obvious to all that Dr. Reynolds owes his job and his future to Dr. Patterson.
He is obviously doing all he can to discredit people, using tactics that are dishonorable. In other words, he is appointed by the powers that be to do the dirty work.
Everyone I know sees through it.”

It concerns me greatly that some attribute the Sovreignty of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to mere mortals. Anyone who knows anything about higher education and the SBC knows the way to get somewhere (if that is one's goal) is to stay quiet about most controversial issues and to write books. I can't keep quiet on these issues, and thus have not endeared myself to those who feel I should. Further, this blog takes up my "writing" time. But I must be obediant to Christ and feel He led me to start and maintain this blog for the sake of Truth.


Folks, here is the reason dialogue seems almost impossible. We seem so subjective that we cannot see the difference in ad hominem comments and legitimate questions. Until we can step back and look at things a little more objectively, true dialogue will not take place.


Soon we will be back to the IMB. I will be posting Dr. Rankin’s response followed by Dr. Eitel’s response and then we will tackle the tongues issue. Also, I will give a Joshua Convergence update soon.
BR

196 comments:

Mike Woodward said...

Dr. Reynolds,

Can there ever be peace (I'm not talking about Neville Chamberlain peace!) when all of the parties involved are extensively parsing each others comments and postings, searching for any hint of (pick your variable)?

variable values:
fundamentalism, landmarkism, leagalism, creedalism, open theism, calvinism, universalism, ecumenicalism, pentecostalism, libertinism

irreverend fox said...

BBrad,

If I had any kind of position to make a decision about funding a missionary...and I learned that the individual believed that Genesis was metaphorical, any of it, I would have MANY follow up questions. That would indeed raise a red flag in my head because such thinking tends to be symptomatic of other more egregious theological positions. Not always, but many times that is the case, I have found.

BUT, if after further discussion about their theology and I felt comfortable that the individual was otherwise orthodox, I'd show them the money. That view of Genesis, in and of itself, although screwy and wrong, does not cross the line in my mind. Is it gray? Yes. Does it get close to the line? Yes. Am I comfortable with it? No.

But, if that was all there was to it and I had no other objections or discomforts, I'd fund.

What about you? Would you fund, under the circumstances I've given, that missionary? Or would you support a trustee with those same types of views?

Mike Woodward said...

I forgot to add...

Can you ever be precise enough in a blog to overcome the inherent suspicion from whatever "side" you are not on?

brad reynolds said...

Mike,

Thanks for your questions and they are very legitimate.

I think there can be peace. But we must be open to answer questions, without attacking each other.

Let me state clearly my concerns: If anyone asks me where I stand on any issue I will gladly answer their question clearly...when one answers the questions unclearly (or politically, if you will) it raises more questions.

Wade and Ben were traveling Texas speaking to churches...Ben told me he was speaking to BGCT pastors this past summer. Wade refuses to state that one who does not believe in inerrancy should not be on any board or serve as M's.

My concern, is that in order to garner votes from the BGCT on upcoming issues he may be walking the line. Knowing he cannot say belief in inerrancy is a pre-requisite for positions in the SBC because that may cause some BGCTer's to leave his wide camp. On the other hand he recognizes he cannot NOT say it is a pre-requisite either because he would surely lose on any vote then. Thus he appears to walk the line. My questions were legitimate questions which I would love for him to answer and I will gladly post his answers for all to see.

The above scenario may be as far-fetched as the Baylor Bears being National Champions in football (sorry Bart), but only Wade can clear it up.

Hope this helps
BR

brad reynolds said...

Irrevernd fox,

Wise comments. The problem as I see it though, is the opening of the door. When one opens the door concerning doubt of Genesis then one obviously opens the door for doubt of other miracles as well as the inerrancy of Scripture. How is Jesus the second Adam, if the first Adam is figuaritive? How does the sacrifice of Isaac point to Christ if it is figuaritive? If one is free to interpret Genesis figuarively then what about Exodus? Matthew? etc. Bottom line, it comes down to the inerrancy of Scripture. Which denies the BFM2K.

This does not even take into account the resources needed to question each M on these issues. Nor the subjective line of affirmation made by the interviewer.

Do I think it is possible for one to believe in a figurative Genesis and be saved? Yes. Would I ever agree to pay them with CP funds? No. Could I pray with them? Yes. Have a Bible-Study with them? Probably. Trust them to make disciples for the SBC? No.

Hope this helps
BR

Mike Woodward said...

Let's clear up the major issue I have with many of your commenters here...

You ignoramuses are completely leaving the Big 12 North leader out of your little texas equation.

After the aggies go down in flames this week, perhaps you will see the error of your ways.

Now to the minor issue. Can you affirm the BFM 2000 without affirming inerrancy?

brad reynolds said...

Mike

So you are a Mizzou fan? It will be a good game.

I don't think you can affirm the BFM2K without affirming inerrancy, because it states:
"It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy."

Concerning your other question about being precise enough on blogs. It is difficult...I found that out, on the Founders blog months ago when I was questioned about my believes but I remained there answering questions and being more precise as to remove any doubts from open-minded readers.

The blog world is a wild world but the problem with Wade isn't precision, but for me and apparently others his statements seem contradictory at times...hense we desire clarification.

Hope this helps
BR

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Some may accuse you of sucking up, but some of us know that in reality, you are sticking your neck out. I for one appreciate it. It takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to jump into the fray. Very few others in your position have been willing to do so in such a public fashion.

Thanks for standing for what many of us believe to be truth. I was accused today of being your friend. I kind of laughed since you don't really even know me, but anyone who is willing to stand the way you have is a friend in my book.

Looking forward to the IMB post and Convergence update.

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,
Your words are very kind and I am grateful. May we Praise God. He led me start the blog and for the good that it does, He is to recieve the honor.

Thanks again
BR

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Do not get your hopes up. It would be very unlike Wade to answer really difficult questions. Why start now?

As you know he has refused to answer questions from Bill Dickson, Bubba Bear, Raccoon Transporter, and a host of others from your site. That alone concerns me, but what concerns me more is his unwillingness to forgive people.

Remember the man who thought he saw Wade coming out of a bar in Oakdale, But after he was wrong, repented and begged Wade for forgiveness. To this day I have not seen Wades acceptance of this man's appology.

And what about when Wade called me a liar on your blog. I proved that at least three people had been kicked off of his blog at one time or another, but still Wade refuses to appoligize.

Please know that I am not attacking my dear beloved brother Wade, I am simply saying if you are looking for answers, forgiveness or an appology. Forget it.


Raccoon Transporter

brad reynolds said...

Raccoon
I understand your frustration…but let’s always give others the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps, part of the problem with blogs is we assume things that may not be.

Thus concerning Wade not answering questions from others, on this blog…he may not have read them.

Further, perhaps Wade has forgiven others but just hasn’t expressed it here because he said he would not post here, anymore.

I know I am not looking for forgiveness or any apology from Wade. I am curious as to some answers and I feel certain the questions will plague him until he clears it up.
BR

Jim said...

Brad,

So, would you fund an SBC M who believed in an "old earth" creation? I think that's where the irreverent fox was going.

I am a "young-earther" and I believe interpreting "selected" parts of Genesis figuratively can pose some problems (Why is this fig. but not that... Why can't this be fig?, etc.).

However, I know of many inerrantists who support the "old earth" view. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal almost-sacrifice of Isaac. The main issue of disagreement is the interpretation of the word "day."

How should we approach/support fellow inerrantists who hold this view?

Les Puryear said...

Brad,

All I've got say is: I sure am glad that you're the target now and it's no longer me. :)

Regards,

Les

CB Scott said...

Brad,

Help me out. I do not entirely understand your last comment to me on the former post. Will you help my ignorance with an exposition of the comment.

One more thing, You stated that an employee or trustee could not serve without holding to the BF&M. I think that is what you said anyway.

If so, I want to remind you that people have been serving for years without confirming the BF&M. We had a war over it.

Also I believe we still have some that privately say they think both the 1963 and 2000 are weak in areas. At this point I will not name names. It is my position that if they sign it they should confirm it privately and publicly.

A man's signature or his word should be his bond.

With that said I must say that I do not think the 1963 or the 2000 edition is without error. Only Scripture holds that position and that is due to the fact that it is God breathed and God cannot commit error.

Do you agree with this?

In addition let me say that if one does believe the Scripture to be above all documents of human origin, but yet signs a document with the understanding, in good faith, that he or she will affirm and support the document he or she is duty bound to to keep his or her word before God and man.

The breaking of such a bond to duty is one reason we have so many divorces. It is the reason that so many do not pay their bills that were made in good faith.

We as Christians are poor examples to the lost world in these areas and many more due to being slack in keeping our word.

The BF&M will never be binding as is the Word, but if I sign it in order to maintain unity and conformity to the other guardians of an institution I should keep my good faith promise and if I come to a place wherein I can no longer do so, for any reason, I should depart from the other guardians of the institution in peace and without malice or afront.

My integrity and honor in revealing my conscience should be respected by those I depart from and if they cannot respect me in my decision they too should step down.

cb

Matt Brady said...

Brad,

I sure didn't mean to post anonymously earlier this evening. I'm not sure why my comment came up as anonymous rather than with my name. Maybe I hadn't signed in before I sent it or something. At any rate, I don't mind going on record that I appreciate you. Thanks again for all you are doing.

Matt Brady
Durant, MS

peter lumpkins said...

Dr. Reynolds,

I think Wade has answered your questions. You can find them on his post about The Doctrine of Propitiation.

I regret I could not finish the conversation with him I was having yesterday evening. I must have a virus on my home PC or something similar. When I try to pull up his site now, I get a jarbled mess on my screen...looks nasty. The strange thing is, I do not have problems with the sites of others. I am totally ignorant about these technical issues. Do you have any suggestions? :)

I trust you have a grace-filled day, Dr. Reynolds. With that, I am...

Peter

brad reynolds said...

Jim

I too know of some inerrantists who hold to an old earth. IMHO they create more problems than they solve, nevertheless, I would be ok with them serving as Trustees or being paid CP funds provided they believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

BR

brad reynolds said...

CB

Great words. I agree, if someone cannot affirm all the BFM2K they should not sign it!

Let me also state I believe there is a difference in saying something cannot err and saying somthing is not erroneous.

The Bible cannot err. The statement "My heart is beating" is not erroneous.

In other words I think man can develop confessions which are not erroneous, however, they certainly will not be on the same level as Scripture which cannot err.

If one believes there is an error in the BFM2K I would encourage that individual to write Dr. Richard Land and point out his error and hear his explanation.

I think it unwise to create doubt of the BFM by stating "it is not inerrant" without pointing to any errors. If there are errors...reveal them. I think you and I both agree, we think the BFM2K is true and accurate.

BR

Anonymous said...

Dr. Reynolds,
I am an IMB missionary on the field in Western Europe. I have been following the recent discussion about parameters of cooperation within the Convention, and I'm starting to wonder if there is still room for me.

I posted about this on my blog, Missions Misunderstood. As someone with insight into the discussion, perhaps you might be able to help me see whether I still represent Southern Baptists well here on the field, and whether I am still qualified to receive CP funds for our ministry.

I know you're busy, but I would appreciate your thoughts.
-stepchild

CB Scott said...

Brad,

I did not use the word erroneous nor did I reference its definition by the use of any other word. Let me restate my position.

The Bible is infallible, without error, totally and completely inerrant. The infallibility of the Bible is not based upon extant manuscripts nor extinct manuscripts.

The infallibility of Scripture is based upon the infallibility of its Author.

It rests solidly in the perfection of the Trinity. It is God-breathed. It recieves its perfection from the very perfection of the Godhead. We ACCEPT the infallibility by faith and we LEARN its infallibility by the continual experience of faith.

Therefore, I always pose the question: How can a man that truly walks in a faith relationship with God doubt or question the perfection of God's Word?

Now, the word "erroneous" always presents the necessity of someone making a judgement as to the content of that which is written or spoken to be, in fact, erroneous or not erroneous. God's Word is not subject to such judgement by humanity due to its Trinitarian origin.

The word "erroneous" is applicable to humanity and never to God. If a document can be subject to a judgement as to being erroneous there is always the possibility of error.

Therefore, we must conclude that any document written by humanity, beyond the Bible, always contains the possibility of error and contains the possibility of being erroneous in some detail.

Brad, to say the BF&M is without error would be to equate it with Scripture. Richard Land, nor any Baptist committee, historical or contemporary, speaks in an excathedra manner. To do so would be to give the BF&M or any specified document authoritative finality.

We are not Catholic, nor are any among us Popes. In any document of human origin there will be error either in content or motive for production due to the very fallen nature of its authors.

The Bible is infallible. No other document can stand as such.

I affirm the BF&M, but I do not accept it as a document of which I can rest my soul's faith.

cb

Anonymous said...

Brad

Do You agree 100% with all of the articles in The Abstract Of Principles?

C. T. Lillies said...

Brad

I'd just like to point out that you have a tendency to spin things in your direction. Must mean you're human.

Josh

volfan007 said...

brad,

i wish that you would address the debate at liberty u. falling apart, and the founders five pointers having a conniption fit over it. they even have a very mean spirited cartoon displayed on thier blog now.

also, yall need to go to first baptist woodstock's website(johnny hunt's church) and listen to the oct. 8 sunday evening message from dr. jerry vines on calvinism. it's excellent.

also, brad, how do the five pointers get around 2 peter 2:1? this verse seems so clear against the five pointers view of limited atonement.

from the hills of tn,

volfan007

ps. this werent no ad hominey attack on nobody. this werent no ad vertisement, or ad anything else against anyone. werent tryin to be mean and ugly to nobody either.

Bro. Robin said...

Bro. Brad

I would not expect Wade to answer your questions. He stated on Debbie Kaufman's blog that he will not read your blog anymore.

Brad, I thank you for your continued resolve to hammer out the issues and bring truth to light.

God Bless

Bro. Robin

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

Let me see if I understand correctly. Are there questions as to service being made available to someone that believes the first 11 chapters of Genesis is allegorical? I will stick my neck out here and say; Anyone that says the first 11 chapters of Genesis is allegory and can be interpreted as such, DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE.

Therefore, I would be jumping up and down like a sledge hammer yelling to the top of my lungs at the nominations committee for even nominating someone with that belief. Before I am castigated by some as being narrow-minded and mean spirited, let me remind everyone, Jesus thought highly of those first eleven chapters. He quoted them and referenced them making certain everyone understood He believed them.

Blessings,
Tim

brad reynolds said...

Peter

Can you post his answers here…I really haven’t found the time today to check out his blog yet.

Thanks
BR

brad reynolds said...

Stepchild

I read your blog and you and I would definitely disagree on many issues. However, I saw nothing that I thought would disqualify you with the possible exception of alcohol. Since you get paid by CP funds, if you use that “paycheck” to purchase alcohol then I would have a problem…and I think many widows who give to WMU would also have some problems.

Thank you for your service and God bless your ministry.
BR

brad reynolds said...

CB

I don’t think I made myself clear. My point is this.

If John likes French Fries and I said “John likes French Fries.” then nothing in that statement is erroneous.

The Bible is God’s Word and incapable of erring. Nevertheless, we can make statements that are not wrong. If there is a statement in the BFM2K that is wrong please point to it.

Surely, it is not equal to Scripture, no confession is. Scripture is God’s Word. Confessions are men’s words. However, there is truth contained outside of Scripture (not on par with Scripture). For instance, the law of gravity. While confessions are words of men they can be TRUE and I think the BFM2K is.

Hope I’m making sense.
BR

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Anything is possible in Waco. After all, what were the odds that we would have a Presbyterian elder serving as president of the world's largest "Baptist" university?

Maybe you'll believe after we take down the Longhorns this weekend.

Oh wait a minute...I'm past due for my medication. :-)

In Christ,
Bart

brad reynolds said...

volfan

I think the Caner's will be issuing a statement soon if they haven't already.

Alot is being said on some blogs about Dr. Vines message...some of it is false. It is better to listen to it than to trust some of the words on blogs.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Robin

Wade has read my questions...he has corresponded with me but he isn't posting comments here...and I haven't seen where he has answered them yet although Peter said he has. Hopefully, he has.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Tim

I'm with you
BR

brad reynolds said...

Bart

If the Bears beat the Horns I'll probably need a "strong drink":)
BR

Jim said...

Vofan,

I can only find the video version of J. Vines. Can I download just the audio or read a transcript?

Brad,

I would expect such a joke from a moderationist. I was a bit surprised to see it from one who is so staunchly opposed to alcohol. Good to see the sense of humor.

brad reynolds said...

Jim

Thanks. Every now and then I slip and let some humor out. :)
BR

sbc pastor said...

Brad and Bart,

In regard to Bart's comment and question:

BB: "Anything is possible in Waco. After all, what were the odds that we would have a Presbyterian elder serving as president of the world's largest "Baptist" university?"

I must agree that (almost) anything is possible in Waco including a Presbyterian elder serving as President of the world's (second, to Liberty) largest "Baptist" (yeah, right!) university.

Note: I believe that the BU vs. UT game is in Austin this year, not Waco - but like it really matters. Baylor beating the Horns is probably one of the very few things not possible in Waco, or Austin for that matter.

God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

CB Scott said...

Brad,

I agree that the BF&M is a valid document for unity and harmony among guardians of our institutions, but it is not perfect.

If it is, why did the 1963 edition need visitation in 2000?

It is due to the limitations of the authors in provision of content, or motive of production, or the absence of omniscience in 1963 to know there would need to be a visitation in 2000.

The Bible is of such perfect nature that it will never need visitation or revision in any word or sentence. Therein lies the difference.

cb

CB Scott said...

Brad, Bart, Jeremy,

Are you fellows possibly speaking of football? When did the game of football drift into Texas? First Oklahoma now Texas. Who would have ever thought....?

ROLL TIDE,:-)
cb

Bro. Robin said...

Brad

I am glad that there is some dialog going on between you and Wade. But to make sure that I didn't falsely state what he said, I will give you exactly what he typed:


"I no longer read any of the comments on Dr. Reynold's blogs or his posts for that matter."


This was written on Sunday October 8th on Debbie Kaufman's blog. I don't know if his correspondance was after or before that date.

Not trying to stir trouble, just trying to get the facts out.

Thank you again

Bro. Robin

brad reynolds said...

Robin

His correspondence was after that date, referring to a comment posted after that date as well.

BR

brad reynolds said...

CB
If you see an error in the BFM2K please point it out.

It's a good thing the Tide doesn't make a trip to Austin:)
BR

volfan007 said...

jim,

all i know about is the video version offered on first woodstock's website.

brad,

i listened to dr. vines sermon at woodstock. it was great and very insightful.

volfan007

ps. the real ut is the university of tennessee volunteers. smokey loves to eat longhorn beef.

brad reynolds said...

Volfan

Some Sooners under-estimated the 'horns also. I hope Tennessee finishes the year strong but don't be foolish enough to desire a visit from Bevo:)
BR

peter lumpkins said...

Dr. Reynolds,

Hope your day has been well. First, I cannot log onto Grace & Truth to You. I get a "code" page some of which reads as follows:

----------------------------------------------- */ .profile-datablock { margin:0 0 1em; } .profile-img { display:inline; } .profile-img img { float:left; margin:0 8px 5px 0; border:4px solid #cc9; } .profile-data {

Mysteriously, I can log on everywhere else. Perhaps some of the technical Brothers may have an inside scoop for me.:)

In addition, Dr. Reynolds, I mistakenly gave you the wrong post Wade's answers are on. I told you the post on The Doctrine of Propitiation. Rather, it is The Doctrine of Representation. And the answers are listed almost at the end of the comment stream.

Secondly, your answers to CB are perfectly clear pertaining to the nature of Inerrancy, at least to me. And to suggest, as evidently our Brother CB does, that assuming something can be perfectly true outside Scripture itself, takes away from the ultimate Authority of Scripture, is, in my estimation, flawed. Nor is it even remotely placing any other authority on a par with Scripture.

Have a great evening. With that, i am...

Peter

brad reynolds said...

Peter
Thanks. And we agree.

To All
Wade did answer my questions on Genesis and metaphorical understandings. He says:


(1). Do you think CP funds should be given to M’s who believe Genesis is “metaphorical?” Answer: No.

(2). Do you think one should be allowed to serve as a Trustee if he views Genesis as “metaphorical?” Answer: No.

Praise God, I think we can all rejoice with these answers.
He has yet to answer the concerns I listed in my post "legitimate concerns with SBC bloggers" but we will give him time.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Josh

Somehow, I missed your comment. Sorry, I guess I am human:)

However, this is a no spin zone:) I will be glad to correct anything I have said with spin.
BR

peter lumpkins said...

Dr Reynolds,

By the way, I do not desire to promote my site, however, I posted a nice little poll there about using the term "Inerrancy" as a description of the Inspiration of Scripture. Perhaps some of you guys may want to slip over there and "vote"

With that, I am...

Peter

brad reynolds said...

Peter

I'm there:)
BR

CB Scott said...

Peter,

You have yet to answer the question concerning the Virgin Birth.

I did not state: "that assuming something can be true outside Scripture itself, takes away from the ultimate Authority of Scripture." Brad would have to affirm this for he knows exactly what I said.

Obviously your understanding is flawed and definitly fallible.

For you to speak of Wade not answering or answering Brad's question is questionable iin itself. Would you not agree?

cb

volfan007 said...

soooooo, wade is for narrowing the tent and keeping out those who believe genesis is metaphorical... yet, he calls them brother. he believes that they are christians. so, he is for keeping some people out of leadership positions that he considers a brother in christ. what happened to all of us legalists who were trying to narrow the tent, and were trying to keep out christians in lower level tiers from serving as missionaries, or serving in leadership positions in the sbc? i mean, we were terrible meanies for saying that someone who disagrees with what we hold true as southern baptists should not be in leadership positions. we were for them staying in the sbc...but not be leaders. now, wade is calling someone a bro. in Christ who should be shut out of sbc leadership due to his whatever level tier this is supposed to be beliefs? of course, i would have to doubt that a person with that view was even saved or not. and, i would personally not want them to serve in the sbc if they believe that genesis 1-11 was metaphorical.

but,am i misunderstanding what he's saying and what his answer implies? i thought he was for widening the tent to include all christians in the sbc to be included in leadership positions and to serve as m's? what tier... in his opinion... is someone who does not believe that genesis actually happened? so, wade considers them brothers in Christ, but not good enough to serve in the sbc?

can someone help me to understand this?

from the hills of tn,

volfan007

ps. you know what i was about to say. and, smokey's teeth would bite down into bevo and cause him to beller and run back to austin.

Anonymous said...

Brad

FOR THE SECOND TIME

Do You agree 100% with all of the articles in The Abstract Of Principles?

10/11/2006 11:09 AM

Anonymous said...

Dr. Reynolds,
Thanks for visiting my blog, and thanks for clarifying that there is still room for me, despite my different perspectives.

Blessings,
stepchild

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,

I apologize for missing your question.

Yes, I affirm all of the Abstract. If I didn't affirm it ALL I would not have signed it.

If we can sign something and then jusy affirm part of it (BFM or Abstract) then we open the door to liberalism.
BR

Anonymous said...

Brad,

In response to CB's discussion of the BF&M, which I thought was great, and your follow up question to him,

Brad,
Do you think that the BF&M 2000 is innerrant? Do you think it has no error?

Thanks,
Tim
I think it would be very helpful to use Mohler's triage and for you to define level 2 issues, the level we must all agree on to be SB's. I would say that it is the BFM, but it seems that some entities are going beyond it.

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

ok. Now let's say we were on the same board and we had such a vote. After futher questions we learned that this individual otherwise feel into basic orthodoxy.

I voted to fund that individual. You voted no.

Would you then seek my removale or ask me to remove myself for voting to fund such a person, even if I myself held a orthodox, literal, historic view of Genesis?

irreverend fox said...

Everyone,

is it possible for the BF&M to be without error, sure it can be possible. Why not? Can the phone book be without error? Sure.

Neither are very probably but both are theoretically possible.

Can either the BF&M or the phone book be INFALLIBLE? No.

Inerrant: does not err.
Infallible: can not err.

Only the Bible fits both.

Let's not be sloppy with confusing terms. Doing so bring confusion and muddies the waters.

Oh, I don’t believe that either the phone book or the BF&M is inerrant either; just pointing out that it is theoretically possible.

peter lumpkins said...

Dear CB,

My Dear Brother CB: as for your question about the Virgin Birth that I allegedly, at least from your perspective, did not answer, I do not recall signing a statement that would assure I would answer any and all questions that come my way. With all due respect, sometimes I am choosey :).

However, if you will relook at your stream, Brother CB, you will be refreshed to know that indeed I did answer your question. However, I do not think you liked my answer. Thus, I am afraid if I answered it again, you would be disappointed still :).

Secondly, as for your assertion that my view is "flawed and definitly [sic] fallible", what can I say? If that is your opinion, thank you for it. But assertions are easier to make than prove, my Brother CB. Besides, that only places me in the same category that you place the BF&M, does it not, CB? Pretty good company, I might add.

But wait! Sweet Glory! If I understand your position, CB, that places me in the same category as you. For your posts--including your critique of my statements--not being Scripture, are also fallible and possibly erronous as well, are they not, my Brother CB? Whew. I feel much better now...

Finally, as for my informing Dr. Reynolds that Wade Burleson had answered his questions in a public forum that all eyes could view, being "questionable", I simply cannot respond properly by keyboard. Were we standing eye-ball to eye-ball, my Brother CB, and you said that to me, I would probably just smile, place my arm around you and say: "Love you Bro." And walk away...

I trust you are experiencing grace today. With that, I am...

Peter

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,

I know of no error in the BFM2K. Do you?


Irreverend fox,

I would not seek your removal but I would seek to visit with you about your logic.

I believe you bring out the very same point I was trying to make. The BFM2K can be without error but it cannot be infallible.

Thanks
BR

Pastor Mike said...

To Brad and all the football fans,

All I can say is the SEC is the best, and "I'm proud to be a Florida Gator." All others are Gator bait!!! (So glad there are a few who do lighten up every once in a while.

I am kind of curious as to why with all the godly discussions going on in the blog world, why no one seems to be discussing the issues with NBC: the Madonna concert that they will air, with her singing a song while hanging from a cross, as well as their demands to make Veggie Tales which they air on Saturday mornings back off on its Christian message.

I have written a statement concerning it, but very few have commented either at my blog or on any other formats. We need to take a stand "out there in the world." God bless.

Serving Him,
Mike

Tim Cook said...

volfan,

I do not see that wade has ever advocated that ALL christians should be in leadership positions...as I understand him (I may be wrong, of course) he has said numerous times that "second tier" doctrines could be issues to seperate over, and definitely issues to restrict in leadership over. I would think that key issues of how to interpret whole Biblical narratives could be second tier. Whereas, according to wade at least, moderate consumption of alcohol and speaking in tongues privately should be considered "third tier" issues.

If you are reffering to his comments about Vestal and Co. being mistreated, he never says that they should be back in leadership in the SBC. He does say that they were mistreated and were possibly slandered, and I tend to agree.

I am not trying to start any arguments, just trying to get the facts out there. I hope I helped, and Wade, I hope I represented your views correctly (if you ever read this, let me know).

In Christ,
Tim Cook

brad reynolds said...

Pastor Mike

I read your blog yesterday. I thought it was great and you are right...we must stand up. I am shocked at what NBC is doing. One thing I know they will listen to money...Disney learned that the hard way.

BR

volfan007 said...

well, i guess that we are back to what are third tier issues, and what are second tier issues, and who sets them up as second or third tier issues? who tells everyone what level tier something is?

and, the question that comes to my mind is....why were all of us who felt that tongue speaking and hyper calvinism and drinking alcohol were called legalists for thinking that these were second tier doctrines that should keep people out of leadership positions in the sbc? why were we constantly called meanies and looked upon with scorn for stating that we believed that these were issues that should keep the tent narrow....in leadership positions. mind you, i never said that a hyper calvinist could not be in the sbc. i was never for kicking a charismatic church out of the sbc.

but, i do have big problems with our cp money supporting a missionary who is gonna teach the zamboni tribe, or the gypsies in romania, or the monguls to speak in tongues...or teach them hyper calvinism....or teach them to go ahead and turn up the bottle...here's mud in your eye... bottoms up, and all that. i do have a big time problem with that. and, whats wrong with me saying that?

i guess we need to have a big conference to decide what we believe that second tier and third tier doctrines and practices are. wait a minute...we do have that... the sbc....like in greensboro.... didnt we have a few votes down there on second and third tier doctrines?

from the hills of tn,

volfan007

Tim said...

Brad,

In answer to your question about the BF&M, I have 2 issues that I think would be an interesting conversation.

1. First, there is no Scriptural proof that the NT church operated "through democratic processes." In fact, this was added to the BFM in 1963. Before that, all the way back to the 1644 London Confession, we do not see such wording in Baptist Confessions.

2. If one interprets art. VII as demanding a closed L.S., then this also is unsubstantiated from a Biblical Witness. Certainly Baptism is a prerequisite to church membership, but should the L.S. be forbidden to those who are in our services that are in the body of Christ, but have been sprinkled? I think the spirit of the N.T. speaks against doing this. Should we continue as Baptists to teach our brothers that immersion is the Biblical mode? Yes! Should we deny breaking bread with them because we disagree with their mode of baptism? Certainly we will not allow membership to those not immersed,(otherwise we are no longer Baptists) but to refuse to take the L.S. with them? I do not see a Biblical directive for doing this. Do you? Furthermore, most pastors that I have talked to invite all christians to partake, I think that this is becoming very common. I would venture that there are great numbers of SBC churches that violate this aspect of the BFM everytime they have the L.S.

Tim

CB Scott said...

Peter,

I did not say you could not be or should not be choosey.

I did say it was questionable for you to comment about Wade relating to answering Brad's question since you did not answer mine.

That presents a different context completely. Does it not?

You did not present a view. You actualy presented an assertion which, I might add, was and continues to be flawed even though you continue with much verbage.

Finally, you did not really answer the question of the Virgin Birth, but you did, as you are doing now, present a wonderful dog and pony show.

cb

Wes Kenney said...

Pastor Mike,

Kevin Bussey, who is ever-vigilant in standing against hypocrisy, posted on that very issue back at the end of September. Here is a link to that post.

RevBubbaBear said...

Well Brother Brad,

I have been silent for a couple of days doin church work and all. I wanted to tell you that the comments here are much more peacable than when you were out of the country. Glad you are back.

Most of the seriously over the top comments are gone. Praise Jesus. Only a few veiled digs remain. We can live with that.

Concerning Wade and his stance on things. I have now read over a hundred postings on several sites and think I gots a handle on thangs. It has become clear to me that several thangs are happening.

From where I sit in Blogland it appears that:

1. Wade does not want word to get out that Dr. Page may take the South Caroilna director job and git out of the presidency after one year. He admits travelin tryin to round up support for San Antonio.
2. Wade wants to expand fellowship even to non SBC individuals, but must be careful in how he releases this info. Too broad leaves him hangin out to dry. Too narrow he aint got enough support.
3. Wade will answer in a forum where he fills safe so others will come to his aid.
4. Wade has not forgiven at least three people who have repeatedly asked for it. Can't find him forgiven them anywher here in blogland.
5. Wade's coalition grows every time someone questions him or challenges his integrity or doctrinal stability.
6. Wades constituency does not care about alcohol drinking, women in ministry concerns, integrity when signing institutional documents, enlargin our SBC fellowship to include Presbyterians, or tongues in the church.

With that said, please keep us informed on all these thangs. We know you do care about us little pastors in the SBC.

These are just a few of my observations as they APPEAR to me. If I am wrong please let me know. I am not tryin to be mean and I invoke my disclaimer as I still love Wade (in the Lord) as well as all my other dear brothers here.

God bless you all

Bubba Bear.

Ps. Hay volfan I really like your way of thankin.

brad reynolds said...

Tim

Let me recommend NT Scholar Gerald Cowen's book "Who rules the church?"

Concerning LS Hopefully we will get to that in time also.

As you know I deal very thoroughly with each topic. We are still going to finish the IMB and then get to tongues and then baptism and then maybe LS. Maybe one day we will finally get to Calvinism.
BR

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Brother CB

Why thank you, my friend. I trust your night will be great. With that, I am...

Peter

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

instead of discussing 1st, 2nd, 3rd tier issues why not just come out and say how many tiers we are concerned about.

Why not say that we won't fund anybody with variant 2nd tier theological views as well as 1st tier differences?

RevBubbaBear said...

Dear Brother Brad,

After reading over a hundred posts on SBC bloggers sites I think I got a good handle on thangs. However, I am curious as to why Mr. CB continues to argue concerning erroneous, inerrancy, and infallible? I aint no rocket sciencetist, but even I can tell what you mean by your crystal clear statements. Is he arguing just to be arguing or is he trying to cover for some of Wades lack of response to his unwillingness to forgive people?

Just askin?

Disclaimer: I anit being mean. I just want to know why CB aint gittin it? I love all my dear brothers and CB and Wade too.

Bubba Bear

volfan007 said...

bubba bear,

dont you wish brad would take off that blogger approval thang? it slows everything down to a snail's crawl. hard to carry on a decent conversation that a way.

i like your way of thankin too, bear. and, your coat looks nice and shiney today, my friend. you must have eaten a lot of fish here lately. i ate a mess of catfish last nite. it was gooooooooooood. boy, i love catfish. it was so good that it made me want to kiss muh wife.


from the hills of tn,

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

Irreverend Fox
I’m uncomfortable speaking of 1st, 2nd, 3rd or whatever tier issues also. What is 2nd tier to some may be 3rd tier to others. Thus I think it best to just address the issues as the IMB Trustees have done.
BR

RevBubbaBear said...

volfan,

I too wish Brad could remove the moreration but I know some of You Know Whos friends (the new SBC Pope) would get ugly again real quick. Why you reckon some people follow people like that anyway? Is they just not capable of thankin on thier own? I try to read all the issues and see the bigger picture and then make my decision. I annt followin nobody but Jesus. Just so happens some you good fellers like you and Brad doin the same thang. I'm glad to know there is brothers like you and Brad to serve long side of.

Oh yeh, I love catfish too.

Brad,

Just you to no that I'm a prayin for you.

Bubba Bear

Ps. Brad why them Calvinist fellers raggin on them there Caner fellers? THem two calvinist fellers called off the debate. Why they bad mouthin now? I met that younger Caner feller in Texas once. He seemed like a pretty sharp tool in the hands of the Lord. Reckon them calvinist fellers was scared to match wits with him?

Disclaimer: No intention of slander, malice, bad feelings nor none of that stuff intended. Just airin some thoughts from a Alabama pastors mind. I love all you good fellers even the calvinist who been bad mouthin my brothers (the Caners) and the new SBC Pope (I love you, but aint voten for you to be pope in San Antonio) but I love you Wade (in Jesus of course).

Anonymous said...

Brad,

I have read Dr. Cowen's book, and I still do not see in the NT that there is a clear, Biblical teaching that the church must operate by "democratic processes." AGAIN until 1963, these words do not appear in any baptist confessions.

Instead of answering or discussing an issue, it is easy to just say, "read so and so." What good does that do? I could just as easy say, "Read Dever's Book." With all due respect to Dr. Cowen, I think it was disingenuous for you to flippantly cast aside my comment with "read this." You were the one that asked if somebody thought something was in error in the BFM, I answered.
Your reply? a categorical casting aside of the answer, I interpreted it as "your wrong, read Cowen." I think you repeatedly do this, "your wrong, read stein." "your wrong, see........." We could all quote those who agree with us, but we need to go to first source, the Bible and not rely on 2nd source as if it is authority. Otherwise we end up sounding like JW"S using the watchtower to tell us what the Bible realy means.

Trying to stay christ-like. Mean no offense,but at times I am not sure you are interested in real dialogue.

I think at times people can be like this, there mind is already made up about everything, discussions are merely an attempt to win the day for what I believe, instead of careful investigation of both sides and a willingness to change.

I will never forget sitting in a class with a professor at Southern, (Schriener) it was a doctoral class, he presented his ideas on an issue, several mentioned various opinions that were different, he actually mulled them over in his mind, you could see that he was listening to understand the position, not listening to bash it. In this instance, he actually said, "I see what you are saying, I am going to research that." The next time we met he actually indicated he felt there was merit to that position. Amazing, never saw that happen before.

We all need to be GUARDIANS, we also need to be careful and open so that we are not guarding tradition instead of scripture.

Sorry about the long post.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Came across the following posting on Ethics Daily concerning your views on alcohol. Thought you all would find it interesting.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=7962

It states:

Thank the Almighty for men of God like Brad Reynolds, professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina and pastor of Gravel Hill Baptist Church in Clarksville, Va. A man who is not afraid to stand firm on the Word of God, come what may.

Recently, he stood on the truth of the Gospel when he thundered, "The very idea that the Holy Spirit of God is moved by the use of alcohol is contrary to God's Word and sacrilegious."

Reynolds' righteous indignation was caused by some so-called preachers who dared to proclaim "moderation" as the appropriate response to drinking.

According to Reynolds: "Not long after the [Southern Baptist] Convention, one of them went on to say that he went to share Jesus with someone, had a meal with her and asked her for wine at the meal. She was so moved that a Baptist preacher would ask her for wine that her heart just opened up to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ, and she got saved."

How dare one even think that the Spirit can work the miracle of grace through partaking in the spirits!

It is a slippery slope, my fellow Southern Baptists, to advocate moderation in drinking. One day you allow adults to sip wine and before you know it there will be drunken, homosexual orgies in church.

Professor Reynolds says it is sacrilegious to combine alcohol with the movement of the Holy Spirit. I will go even further, and I hope Professor Reynolds would agree: All those leftist, commie-loving liberals who are advocating "moderation" in drinking should be drummed out of our convention.

After all, we didn't kick out heathens during the '80s and '90s just to surrender the soul of our convention to a new crop of Bible-hating liberals. It doesn't matter how high the chain of command we have to go to save our convention. If they advocate combining alcohol with doing God's work they should be excommunicated (or whatever Baptists do to get rid of undesirables.)

Immediately I can think of two individuals who should immediately be disfellowshipped.

One had the gall not only to drink wine, but to actually make it during a party. Obviously this preacher does not know God's Word as well as professor Reynolds.

This preacher, who for his own protection will remain nameless, was at some wedding. At one point, the party ran out of wine. His mother asked him to make some more wine, instructing the servants to follow his instructions. Through some work of trickery (no doubt due to Satan, because we know the Holy Spirit would never partake in such a sacrilegious act) this preacher turned water into wine.

It gets even worse. At another event, some final dinner, this preacher took some wine, blessed it in God's name (can you believe it?) and gave it to his followers, commanding them to drink. He even said that if they refuse to drink this alcohol, they can have no part of him.

Well, I don't know about you, but I would rather stand with Professor Reynolds than some self-proclaimed Messiah who commands his followers to drink. Because of his actions, this preacher is not worthy to be called a Christian.

The second person that should no longer have any say in the Southern Baptist Convention is a one-time dear elder. In a letter to a young man he has been discipling for some years, he blatantly led him astray.

This young man, Timothy, was very impressionable and has always admired his mentor. So it is a shock that this elder tells Timothy to have a bit of wine with his dinner, for it is supposedly good for the digestion system.

What more can I say. Both these men, the self-proclaimed preacher and the elder, should immediately be expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention, and we should have nothing more to do with them.

Unfortunately, some believe these two men have long left.

Now if you will excuse me, I will return to my glass of Chablis--and continue with my armchair-quarterback blogging.

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

So for you everything is primary? That is what I don't understand...on what basis does (or more to the point SHOULD) our institutions and agencies discriminate theologically?

I have yet to have a decent answer. it seems like a straight forward, fair and legitimate question doesn’t it? if you say, the bf&m2000 then why do they go beyond it? If not the bf&m2000 then what is it?

It seems like “everyone does what is right in his own eyes”. These are institutions and agencies supported with cp dollars…how can they discriminate in areas that the churches of our convention have never settled and yet still receive those dollars? That’s crazy to me.

Jim said...

Not that I necessarily want to get to the subject again but...

Volfan,

I think there is probably only a super-minority of people wishing to teach hyper-calvinism... that is which denies the universal and general call for all persons to repent and believe the gospel.

I stand with you in saying that I want to teach nothing that the Bible doesn't teach and everything that the Bible does teach.

brad reynolds said...

Bubbabear,

Thanks my friend.


Tim

It was easier for me to say read Dr. Cowen’s book than to quote some things from it. I agree with you that people seem to be unwilling to be open about different opinions. This is sad and unhealthy. I think if you talk to my students you will find I am very open-minded and thus the purpose for this blog. Feel free to read the comment sections of my alcohol posts this past summer. I think you will find I looked very very thoroughly into the abstinence issue.

I apologize if it sounded flippant to you…I am unusually busy at this time and am still fighting a fever I got from El Salvador. I’ve read Dever’s book, it certainly is not nearly as thorough as Cowen’s nor does it deal (IMHO) with the Greek text as well. One can just as easily say “I see no CLEAR biblical teaching that the church must operate by elder Rule.”

Concerning its insertion in Baptist confessions let’s be clear that Baptist did not place things in confessions unless it became an issue. The fact that no Baptist confession before 2000 spoke of women pastors does not mean Baptist did not believe women should not be pastors. It just meant it was never an issue until now.

If you have evidence that Baptist were Presbyterian before 1963 I am sure we would all be interested to see…but I think you will find Baptist have always been Baptist in ecclesiology.

Hope this helps my brother.


Anonymous,

I have read the ethics daily article and was not surprised with the content nor the absence of biblical contextualization considering the source.


Irreverend Fox

The BFM2K is the minimum requirement for serving as a Trustee or being employed by SB. However, our institutions have always had Trustees. A Trustee is a TRUSTEE (Please see Webster for a definition). In other words, they have always made decisions they have felt best for our institutions. The moment we remove their authority we ruin the entire Trustee system…this is what is at stake. I personally don’t want to be discussing the differences in the NOBTS and SEBTS handbooks at the SBC. At Southeastern we have a policy against tobacco use. In fact you can’t be a student if you use tobacco, inevitably if Wade or someone like him were a Trustee for SE he might say, “That’s wrong…that goes beyond the BFM2K…SE is narrowing the tent….we are excluding many SB…etc” I think you get my point.

Thanks for your thoughts.
BR

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

then we need to change the system. If "trustee" means that a BoT's has freedom to discriminate theologically, beyond the stated theological convictions of the convention, then that is not a good system and is the root issue/problem spurring on all this hoop-la.

Brad, this is THE problem.

Does your school prohibit obesity? Seems to fit with a prohibition upon tobacco and not including a prohibition upon obesity does not fit seeing the school does prohibit tobacco use. Do you see my point?

Each seminary/agency should be autonomous from each other but NOT autonomous from the Convention! This should be especially true when receiving cp dollars, dollars that are generously provided by the local churches of the Convention.

Without some kind of change to this system you describe, politics and power-struggles will always distract, if not worse…ESPECIALLY NOW IN THE AGE OF THE BLOGOSPHERE wherein dissenters have such an unprecedented voice and potential platform. It seems as if our SBC leadership is facing the same dilemma that the mainstream, drive by media is facing…they no longer control or at least no longer have primary influence over information distribution and commentary. For the SBC, things have already been chewed on and batted back and forth many times on many blogs hours or even DAYS before BP has an article.

If we had one set doctrinal statement, agreed on by a vote of the convention, which is binding upon all our seminaries and agencies...cutting both ways (no less than and no more than...) all theological discrimination would be cut and dry, black and white and would be "across the board".

This needs to change, somehow, some way, do you agree...to any degree at all?

Jim said...

Brad,

You said: "In fact you can’t be a student if you use tobacco."

Is that absolutely true? When I applied to SEBTS I indicated on my application that I smoked cigars infrequently (approx. twice per year).

I received a phone call from the admissions head and he strongly requested that I think over my conviction on the issue. I said, "OK" and he said, "OK" and I went to SEBTS.

brad reynolds said...

Jim

I can't speak to your experience but I do assume the handbook is applicable. And I believe the stipulation about no tobacco use is in the handbook. However, I use that as an example. We also have dress codes here that are not included in the BFM2K. I know it is an extreme, but what if a Trustee claimed it was wrong to require students to wear shirts. Such a requirement is legalistic...it is not in the BFM...etc.

My point is that I am unnerved to think we would start discussing policies and handbooks at the SBC...talk about a long feuding meeting. Let's let Trustees be Trustees.

Irreverend Fox

I think you see my point above. Let me further state that the IMB has long had a policy on tongues. In fact, years ago, Dr. Parks sent a RL with "firing" power to a situation where an IMB M was interpreting tongues.

As I stated before the new policies came from abuses that Trustees were seeing on the field as a result of a "don't ask don't tell" type of policy implemented by the admin without the Trustees knowledge. These abuses were becoming systemic and the Trustees decided to do something. However, at first it was just guidelines from a committee, but apparently the administration didn't like what his bosses had done so he took it to the full Board. The Board agreed with the committee and thus it became policy. I have recieved numerous e-mails from M's on the field who are saying charismatic abuses are commonplace in some areas.

I think it is better for Trustees to deal with this in house than to embarrass the M's by bringing it to the SBC...not to mention the feuding that would take place.

Hope this helps
BR

irreverend fox said...

lol,

actually it doesn't help...but...it's not your problem so I shouldn't try to force you to defend these things.

I don't care if the IMB has a history of discriminating against tongues...that just means that they've done so baselessly for a really long time ;^)

This will never stop until the system is tweaked, refined...CHANGED...whatever is the safest most politically correct way of saying it…

I'm not asking that the sbc write handbooks, lol, God grant me the words to express what I’m trying to say…

Ok Brad, here is what I am saying, we ought to be able to say to ALL BoT's in the Convention: "This is what we, the churches of the sbc theologically declare and teach. You can not tolerate anything LESS than this and can not discriminate FURTHER than this."

Brad, if the Convention can require, as described by you when you wrote: "The BFM2K is the minimum requirement for serving as a Trustee or being employed by SB." why can't we add to that instruction/requirement something about them not going beyond it either? Are you telling me that we can tell them to allow NO LESS but we don't have right to tell them to go NO FURTHER?

Lol, Brad, it's alright buddy...I know I'm putting you on the spot. Apparently I'm the only person in the 17 trillion regenerate members of the SBC that sees this.

Or, my shrink is right and I’m just crazy…

brad reynolds said...

Fox (I hope it is ok for me to call you that),

Thanks for your comment. The blogosphere has created no small issues for the future of State papers and the SBC in general. I am not sure where we will land.

I think I will disagree with you on some issues here. I think our institutions have always and should always have documents/policies that go beyond the BFM’s. My concern is we are removing our Trust from our Trustees.

I understand your perspective but just disagree with it and I do believe we can tell Trustees not to go further…but I don’t think this is wise (since dress codes go further).

PS – I don’t think you are crazy, although one would have to wonder about you and I both, since we are sitting at home on Friday night blogging:)
BR

irreverend fox said...

Bloggin on a Friday night...Instead of soul winning I know...what a shame...Well this is Saturday morning now...wow...opps...I need to hurry, I've got two JW's coming here at 10:30 this morning, we've been talking about Col 1:15 and the implications of "firstborn of all creation" in light of Hebrews 1:6. The process has been slow but progress is happening... I'm getting the feeling that these two are elect!

Anyway, thanks for your help, at least now I know SOMETHING can be done IF the sbc wanted to do it.

And I don't want to take the "trust" out of trustee either, I really don’t, maybe I could talk to one of those low-life lawyers my wife works with about how to properly phrase something. Or maybe I'll stick with studying for my next Bible study with my JW's (I met them when they knocked at my door about 3 months ago asking me if I knew that the end of the world was about to happen and wanting to know if I would be open to having a Bible study, I said, "SURE"! I sure do wish more depraved sinners would just knock on my door and ask ME if I would to talk about spiritual matters and have a Bible study, that would save me a lot of time and effort in knocking on their doors and would free me up for much more blogging...)

Thanks Brad, I'm ok with not agreeing on IF we should try to change it. At least I know that the possibility is there, that is enough to settle me down. That's fine, and heck, some no name church planter in Wadsworth Ohio is not gonna make any power plays to make a fundamental (I don't think that word is popular anymore) change in our sbc. Not when sinners keep knocking on my door an interrupting all my blogging.

brad reynolds said...

Fox

I'll pray for your bible study with the possible "elect":)

I'm like Spurgeon, "I pray God will save all the elect and Elect some more":)
BR

irreverend fox said...

well brother Brad, God didn't convert them today...but until the door closes I just treat them as if they are the elect...what else can I do?

We are plowing straightforward into Colosians 1:15-20ish...upon my suggestion...believe me, if we can get passed "firstborn" we'll be doing alright.

I wish our sbc folks knew HALF the principles of these JW's regarding the use of Lexicons and other resources like Vines and Strongs...

I'm only 28 but I remember a day, when I was a young kid, when EVERY deacon and preacher talked about lexicons and Vines and Strongs, in EVERY sunday school and mid week study...what happened? My dad had all these gruesome looking 72 pound books and they'd dig in during adult bible studies!

How many teachers, opps, I mean facilitators in most of our churches even know what any of those things are, let alone own one, let alone use any of them?

I'd rather talk with two honest JW's...like these two...for hours at a time...then sit around with shallow sbc preachers who act like trends in "growing" a big church is all they have on their mind.

Is it normal to deal with JW's that don't jam the NWT or Awake or The Watchtower down your throat? These two characters don't. We've done nothing put dig into interliner's, lexicons, vines, strongs and several translations (NIV, NASB...almost never NWT)?

That's off topic, sorry, I'm just excited!

brad reynolds said...

Fox

You are off topic but I don't mind. In fact I enjoy this more than the constant debates on the Blogs (I know I am responsible for much of that but I am trying to provide a different perspective then other blogs:)

I have oft argued that we should be better about teaching students how to use "helps." I know we have language purists out there, but I know many students will not keep up with their Hebrew and Greek and thus would benefit from knowing about Analytical Greek NT's and Interlinears and other interpretation and parsing guides.

By the way, if and when you and the JW's get into John perhaps you can reveal how they translate the greek without the definite article in John 1 as "a god" but do not do so in John 8. Anyway, I'm excited for you:)
BR

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

THE HEART OF A NEIGHBOR

As posted on Wade Burleson's Blog

Scripture Reading: Luke 10:25-37

“Which of these . . . do you think was a neighbor . . . ?” . . . “The one who had mercy on him.” Luke 10:36-37

The man who spoke up to test Jesus was an expert in religious law, but he didn't truly understand that love is at the heart of the law. In his head the expert knew the summary of the law to love God with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself. But his actions didn't show what he knew.

“Keep the law, and you will live,” Jesus said, in effect. This unsettled the man, so he gave a typical legalistic response: “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus told the parable of the good Samaritan, in which three travelers find a man who has been robbed, beaten, and left for dead by the roadside. The first two were religious leaders. They saw the half-dead man but crossed to the other side and continued on their way. The third man was a Samaritan, whom most Jews in those days would have despised. He stopped, bandaged the wounded man, put him on his own donkey, and took care of him.

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor?” asked Jesus. The lawyer replied: “The one who had mercy on him.”

The point is this: rather than asking “Who is my neighbor?” we need to ask, “Am I a neighbor to people around me who need help?” When we act like a neighbor to others, they become our neighbors.


Prayer
Lord, every day I pass by opportunities to lift someone else's load. Create in me a true heart-of-a-neighbor so that I may become a blessing to others. In your name, Amen.

In His Name
Wayne Smith


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

Grosey's Messages said...

have you ever read Hebrews 1 in the NWT? Man alive! They make a hash of it. I asked some JW's if they knew what it meant in the NWT.. they hadn't a clue!
Steve

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

if God does convert them I'll make double sure they learn our Baptist ways and show them that gluttony is tolerable for our leadership but a drop of alchol is not. Don't worry about that. They'll be Baptist.

Am I being contrary today or what?

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,

I know this is slightly off current topic, but relevant to the main 'gist' of the posts regarding Wade Burleson. This morning we received a CP bullletin inside our regular church bulletin. In the CP bulletin there was a story about a boy who received a toothbrush from a Baptist camp as a result of CP funds. The article states, "The little boy trusted Jesus to be his Lord and Savior-and it started with a toothbrush!" Now, I know that you believe God didn't use a toothbrush to save that young man any more than He used wine to save the lady in Wade's illustration. In both cases, God used the Christlike spirit of His servants as a means of presenting His gospel - the instruments involved just happened to be a toothbrush and glass of wine.
Again, I know it's slightly off current topic, but it struck me as a great analogy when I read that article this morning.

Grace and peace brother,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL

I think a closer analogy to the wine would be to say "God used me taking a puff of marijuana to lead someone to Christ."

To claim a hygiene instrument and a glass of mind-killing substance are equal misses the entire point of taking care of our bodies:)
BR

brad reynolds said...

Fox

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

You know my feelings about gluttony, they are the same as my feelings about arbitrarily killing brain cells:)
BR

brad reynolds said...

Wayne

Thank you for your encouraging comment my brother.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,

You're missing the entire point of my comment. I am not comparing wine to a toothbrush, but rather the two situations to each other. In each situation, the implication is made that an 'instrument' was 'instrumental' in a conversion experience. The issue is not that there is a difference in wine (which has been demonstrated ad-nauseum to have health benefits) and toothbrushes, but rather that, even though the stories 'insinuated' the assistance of instruments, such insinuations were not intended as most Christians would understand that neither toothbrushes nor wine serve any integral part in a conversion experience. It is rather the Christlike spirit of God's servants who people respond to. Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

Grace and peace,

PTL

Jim said...

Brad,

You said, "I think a closer analogy to the wine would be to say "God used me taking a puff of marijuana to lead someone to Christ.""

The only difference seems to be the fact that the Bible teaches drinking wine is acceptable, even if the alcoholic content was less then than now.

Playing football also contributes to the loss of brain cells. How could you watch such a mind-killing activity? ;)

Sorry Brad, I didn't think this blog post comment section would be complete without chasing that wascally wabbit... the alcohol debate.

volfan007 said...

there's a world of difference in saying that God used a toothbrush, or a stick of gum, or whatever...and saying that God used schlitz malt liquor, or bud lite, or three sisters wine.... in bringing someone to Jesus.

brad,

i like your analogy of smoking weed. that fits very well. back in the day, before i came to Christ, i smoked a lot of weed and drank a lot....and, i knew it was sinful. it was wrong. another analogy would be to say that because you stripped with a stripper...on stage...that that made the stripper open to the gospel. yea, right.


volfan007

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad and Art ,
As Posted here and On Art's Blog.
I find it funny Brad that you can say these people repented and promised to open Blogs using their real Names and ask for forgiveness as is stated on your Blog. Various people tried to show you that you needed to Manage your Blog, not just Wade. You failed to Honor those requests that came from What I would call a True Brother in Christ. Yet you failed to take advice from a Brother in Christ.
These same people you defended as repenting, turn right around and start posting their (Accusations or What ever your want to Call it) on your Blog without signing up for a Blog of their own. Accusing Wade of not allowing ctheir comments on his Blog. These were outright Lies and you went along with this, Why? Brad I advised you to read your own Blog. I don’t think you took that advice or you overlooked my comment above. I will post this on Brad Blog as well as here on your Blog Art. I know Brad will at least in his e-mail

In His Name

Wayne Smith

brad reynolds said...

Wayne

Not sure what this has to do with this post…but I responded to you on Art’s

Blessings my brother.
BR

brad reynolds said...

PTL

Thanks for the clarification. And it is different. Nevertheless, I think there is a difference in saying God uses our good deeds (giving one a toothbrush) to accomplish His will and saying God accomplishes His will in spite of our foolish deeds (drinking alcohol).

I know you and I will disagree on the degree of foolishness of drinking wine for enjoyment, but that is another debate we have had consistently:)
BR

brad reynolds said...

Jim

I’m not aware that “playing football” kills brain cells (I think it has more to do with the hits that the head receives). Nevertheless, perhaps the fact I played football is why my mind is a little slower than most. Imagine how slow I would be if I drank alcohol also:)

You are correct the Bible does imply that non-intoxicating alcohol was permissible but I also think it implies “drugs” are permissible for medicinal purposes. My point was that I find it would be hard to discriminate between mind-altering drugs for recreational purposes.

But you bring up an interesting topic. I have felt that the sport of “boxing” would be difficult to defend biblically. What say you?
BR

Jim said...

Brad,

Watching a couple of guys beat each others' brains out is not very appealing to me. Now that kills brain cells!

Yeah, I'm not sure where you would go in the Bible to get a good a good "theology of boxing" or "ultimate fighting."

SelahV said...

Brad: Regarding the analogies being shared withing this thread:Are the analogies themselves the point we are to consider? Or the parts (toothbrush,marajuana,strippers,ie)within the analogies the point we are to consider? P.S. What is tag?SelahV

brad reynolds said...

Selahv

You are welcome here always. Glad to have you. You are also gracious.

Good question. I think the parts within the analogies are the main questions. I believe PTL was trying to show that the offer to participate in drinking alcohol was used by God in the same way that the giving of a toothbrush was. But I certainly disagree.

God Bless
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

When you open it up, you really open it up:-)

The relationship between football, toothbrushes, wine and evangelism?

Wow!

Give me you opinion on this one.

Years ago ,as a pastor, I taught a young boy in my church how to shoot a rifle. Now we were not just "plinking" like at RA camp.

I taught him how to shoot a rifle. He became very, very good at some very long range shooting.

I later coached him in football in the LPD VA. High School League. Due to your living in VA. you may know what a rough division that was and is. I taught him how to life weights and also how to "defend" himself from "bullies".

He stayed in our church and as time went on I was able to see him come to Christ and be Baptized.

I watched him grow up. As far as I know he did not drink or use dope or get involved with other things boys "chase after". He kept himself clean, healthy and strong. He joined one of our Armed Forces. He has been decorated more than once for his "long range" capabilities.

He now "hunts" for a particular terriost devil in a foreign land with the intent of "reaching out and touching" him long distance like "Bell Telephone", but with far greater finality. I pray for his success everyday and ask you to do the same.

Under no circumstances would I have given him a beer, bottle of wine or "Jack Black" to bond us together. As a matter of fact had I caught him with such I would have kicked his rear end.

Now if anyone cannot understand the difference in teaching him to shoot verses giving him a drink of alcohol. Or coaching him in football verses buying him a beer.
Or teaching him how to fight verses teaching him to drink in moderation I feel sorry for those you do teach whatever it is you do teach them.

I am tired of playing around about this. Booze is not a gift. It is a poison. It is a snake and it is stupid to think it will never bite you. Frankly, it has already bitten us all in one way or another.

One thing is very near a fact if not one for sure. A glutton may eat too many hamburgers at McDonalds and a moderate drinker may drink one too many while sharing the "gospel" at his favorite pub. But when they drive home the probabilities are that it will not be the glutton's car that becomes an "UNguided missile" that crosses the median of the interstate and kills your family.

Now go ahead and teach moderation, boys, but pray to God it is not my family you kill if you drink one too many. Take that to the Bank.

PS. Paul often used the Greek Games as illustrations. I think he liked them. If you examine his letters closely you will see he spoke of boxing more than once.

cb

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad,
The reason these people that say their comment were rejected and I said they were lying is as follows

Wade stopped excepting anonymous comments on Aug 3, 2006 and you can go there and verify this. When you look at who a comment is from you can tell if they are True, Maybes, or Don't Knows. The True ones have a Blog and e-mail. The Maybes have a Blog, but hide behind a false or real name and no e-mail. The Don't Knows post as Anonymous and hide every thing. Also you can tell by Color of their Name. Blue are True Blue, The Non-Blue are really Hiding. In the Garden of Eden weren't Adam and Eve hiding from the Lord God. WHY?
Now when someone say they tried to post a comment on Brother Wade's Blog and say it rejected and one believes that it maybe true what they say, I say Horse Hockey!!! This is what it says for comment to be posted on all Blogs that say no anonymous comments.

This blog does not allow anonymous comments.
Choose an identity
Blogger

wade burleson said
Michael,

Yes, you do have to be a blogger.

Though it is not difficult to hide one's identity as a blogger, I got tired of people pretending they were someone they weren't and posting a comment as "anonymous."

So . . .

If someone wants to comment sign up for a blog.
Thursday, August 03, 2006

Brad I'm also posting this on Art's Blog

In His Name

Wayne Smith

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

any comments about the latest SBC Outpost?

posttinebraelux said...

Volfan,

The analogy of using a stripper is a straw man argument and is offensive dear brother. You, my friend, are - intentionally or unintentionally, and I hope unintentionally - saying that having a glass of wine at dinner is akin to dancing on stage with a stripper. That is a gross exageration of what I've been visiting with Brad about. Please, if you don't have constructive input, keep silent.

Grace and peace,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,

Again you've misunderstood. The 'parts' of the analogies are not the point at all. My point was that the analogies themselves are similar - i.e. that God used peoples' Christlike spirit - not a toothbrush or glass of wine - to bring about conversion. Toothbrushes cannot save people and neither can wine - they're inanimate objects and that's my point. And NO, I was not saying that the offer to participate in alcohol consumption is the same as offering a toothbrush; they are completely different actions (neither more or less sinful, but both different) - I was saying that neither the toothbrush nor the glass of wine were instrumental in the conversion process. Am I making any sense at all? This seems to me a rather simple analogy, but I am having quite a bit of difficulty expressing it. And here I thought I was a pretty cogent writer.

Grace and peace,

PTL

RevBubbaBear said...

Dr. Brad,

Why is it that every time you make a great point some of these fellers just want to argue, point fingers and raise trival questions?

They want to point out friviolus thangs like wine is legal dope aint. Well what if you was where somking dope was legal and you was dumb enough to burn one of them fat daddies, like Wade was will to pop a cork with that lady. Then would it be o.k.?

NO of course not. Not unless you was one of them fellers they been callin liberals. Down here in Bama us conservatives dont believe in Drankin, Dopin, or ... well you get the picture.

If the New Pope gets his way and expands the tent, liberals will be the least of our worrys. Why they might be askin for girls in San Antonio. Lord help us. Amazin what starts with a frindly harmless glass of wine, aint it?

Bubba

volfan007 said...

wayne, my friend,

do you think that you are the boss of everyone? i mean, where do you get off bawling brad out about the way he does his blog? and, frankly, just because brad aint doing it like you think it ought to be done does not mean that it aint right. who do you think you are thinking that you are right about everything, and if people dont do things like you want them done, then they are sinning, or deceptive, or scheming, or manipulating, or doing something evil.

brother, you need to back up a little bit, and get off of that high horse, and smell the roses. i dont believe that God died and made you the king of the universe.

brad didnt answer your super spiritual, judgemental attack on him; but i will. and, i am saying this in love....

from the hills of tn,

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

Folks

I posted all the comments but before you choose to respond to each other...please know I will not post mean-spirited comments or back-handed slaps...some of you were real close last time.

BR

brad reynolds said...

PTL

If the motives of people were all that mattered and not their actions then the book of James is largely unapplicable. Thus, even if one puffs marijuana or drinks mind-killing liquids in a Christlike spirit I don’t think it is the same as giving a toothbrush in a Christlike spirit.

PS – you are a cogent writer…but I have found that we all read things that aren’t there usually and I am speaking of myself first.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Irrevernd Fox,

I had not even looked on SBCOUTPOST until you brought it up…been busy still recovering from my virus and respiratory infection and playing catch up with school.

Thus my silence, I would imagine that the reason other JC participants are silent about this is 4-fold.
1. To play on others blogs is folly in many situations.
2. They have lives outside the blog world and have never participated in it.
3. They usually don’t speak before they know the entire situation (in other words, they display wisdom).
4. If it is like Guidestone, then there a many companies that may not have the same morals that we would desire to uphold which our finances are invested in because of the nature of mutual funds.

What would seem hypocritical to me would be individuals complaining on a blog about hypocrisy only to find out that their retirements are invested in companies that support abortion clinics or homosexuality or such. Talk about “give ‘em enough rope…”

They may want to look at all the policies of companies which Guidestone invests in:) Otherwise, their righteous indignation falls on themselves.

Hope this helps.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Fox

one more thing. I have been on a blog the past few days claiming that blog owners are not responsible for the comments made in the comment section. While I was there I was "corrected" about the comments that were "unChristlike" on my blog.

What seem almost humorous if it wasn't so sad, is now some of those same participants are involved in a conversation where cynic remarks(like wondering if one of our SB institutions would be intersted in Ken Lay) are and implicative statements like "When an institution or person lives by principle there is an inherent consistency of logic. When an institution or person lives for power there is an inevitable corruption within leadership" are being made.

My struggle isn't that these comments were made, but that those who are on this blog are blinded to the duplicitous nature of correcting others about "unchristlike" statements and not themselves.

I too wish for consistency:)
BR

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad,
With the info I gave you, I will now repost comments from your Blog.
When I hear a Sermon and I always appreciate Sermons that are from God's Word. I don't like Sermons that tickle ears, for laughs. I take notes and when I get home, after Church I get my different versions of 4 Bible and 4 commentaries out and study what the message really was about and lock it in. Here of late I don’t have to do that, except on rare occasions, because the Sermons are right on. My pastor preaches in the expository style most of the time, in long series covering whole books of the Bible. He is currently preaching us through the whole life and sayings of Jesus on Sunday mornings. Paul tells us
1Th 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit.
1Th 5:20 Do not despise prophecies,
1Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from every form of evil.
1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.


volfan007, whoever you are, I post comments for seeking the truth.

In His Name

Wayne Smith

brad reynolds said...

Wayne

Thank you so much for the exposure you keep giving me on your blog. I am honored. You and concernedsbcer have been so gracious to draw more readers here.

I really do appreciate your quoting word for word comments by others. Although I think anyone who knows me will obviously disagree with the supposesd motives you think I have...but if you want to judge them so be it. Even CB will tell you otherwise.

I count you as a brother
BR

CB Scott said...

Wayne,

I have never had the privilege to meet you, but I certainly believe you have the heart and soul of a brother in Christ. You have great passion and conviction. I also believe that you , Ben and Wade were truly wronged by some that had evil intent in speaking in such a terrible way with a reference that you would frequent sodomite bars.

I must admit you were far more gracious in Christian conduct than I would have been. All three of you were.

At this time, I believe the Lord has probably taken those that said those trashy things about you guys to the woodshed if, in fact, they are His children.

If they are not then just consider who their real Daddy is and know their day is coming for harming the children of God.


One thing I would like to say is that I have known Brad for years and so has Ben. We all have in common our educational background and have been influenced by many of the same people.

Just as I have often defended Ben Cole when people question his motives I will have to do the same for Brad.

It is a strange thing I know due to the way those of us that are grads. from SEBTS go at each other sometime. We all debate with color and flair, with no holds barred.

It appears sometime that we hate each other, but that is far from reality. Although we are all different we all have a very similar value system.

I do not know anyone that has butted heads in this arena more than Brad and cb or maybe cb and Tim Rogers. (Tim Rogers does exist, by the way).

At the same time I give you my word that Brad's motives are not evil or of a twisted spirit. He is a godly man, that is fearless in his convictions. So are Ben, Tim and countless others.

At the same time, like the rest of us, Brad can be hard headed,prideful and stubburn. I think, sometimes, it is inherent due to where we were educated. SEBTS boys are tunnel rats, trench soldiers and street fighters. It is in the unwritten curriculum for us to be so.

I believe Brad's motives are good. I do not always agree with him and the positions he supports, but I believe he, as I believe about you, has the heart of a lion and the desire to serve Jesus with all of his soul.

If you ever get the opportunity to spend some time with him do so. I think you will be able to say you have looked into the eyes of a brother.

Brad,

What do you mean by: "even CB" ????:-)

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad,
This is not all of the comments I have here, , to many. If you are really interested in the Truth you can use this time line and see the lies. You will also see that this Bill Dickson and Raccoon Transporter is the same person.

I'm not telling you what to do with this Truth, but God know the Heart of every one that posts and comment on this Blog. It is only God That I'm trying to Honor with Truth. I have noting to hide from or anyone to Fool.


anonymous said

Brad,Wade will not allow me to post on his site. I have cut and pasted direct quotes from his sight. I would like to know why he allows this sort of conversation to take place on his sight. I am not making any accusations, but I am asking one question. What does the following comments tell us about Wades theology and his intention for the future of the SBC?
Bill Dickson
10/05/2006 11:07 PM

in name said

Bill Dickson,
Don't start telling more lies after your last journey. Wade would allow your comments if you were a Blogger.
Be true full to your word that you would open a Blog.

Brad this is the same person who asks for forgiveness and has not corrected his way.
Read Wade's Blog for yourself and don't take the word of Troublemakers.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
10/05/2006 11:46 PM

in his name said

Brad,Here is the Truth as commented by Bill, good to see time and Date on comments.

Three days ago and still has not opened a Blog for posting.

Bill said:Sincerely sorry for any and all hurt caused by my comments or by comments made under my name.

I will be setting up a blog account in my name so no one can post as me.Bill Dickson
10/03/2006 9:24 AM *********************
10/06/2006 12:35 AM

cb scott said

Anony the Quoter,You are right. Those are all direct quotes and you have taken them out of their context, but somehow, I think you already know that to be the case.Preachers also get things wrong when they take Scripture out of context.Taking things out of context is never a good thing to do with the Bible. For that matter, it is not a good thing to do with the statements people make or write. It is usually foul in intent and results.
cb
10/06/2006 12:36 AM

RevBubbaBear said

Dear CB,After my prayer time this morning I was readin this blog and your comments. I agree with you whole heartedly my brother, we should never take peoples comments out of context specially Gods Word.I read Wades blog again and for some reason I am misunderstanding how that Bill feller took thangs out of context.

That Ben feller seems to be pokin fun at people who believe in the end times, and well that truth of facts feller, I aint really sure what hes saying, but sounds like hes in favor of saddling up with people who dont believe the bible. Can you please clarify that for me? I am new to this and some times mis thangs. Thank you sir.

Bill,If you promised to stop commenting anonymously then you ought to do it. Keep your word man. Not trying to be mean, but do what you say you gona do.
Bubba Bear
10/06/2006 9:30 AM

anonymous said

Brad,Dr. Russell Moore from Southern delivered a lecture in his classroom and Wade is taking him to task.
I am a blogger and actually attempted to post my comments on his site, but has me blocked.
but you refuse to post my comment on your site.
,CB ScottPlease do not accuse me of taking Wade out of context as you did Bill Dickson.
Please do not raise a smokescreen to protect Wade. He needs to be confronted on this issue.

Raccoon Transporter
10/06/2006 10:16 AM

les puryear said

Brad, Wow. What's happening over here? The vitriol is just spewing. I was going to ask you whom you thought Dr. Moore was speaking of when he referenced bloggers in his talk, but never mind. It seems that you've got more serious problems on your hands. :)
Regards, Les
10/06/2006 10:38 PM

volfan007 said

racoon,my comments were either deleted or blocked several times by wade. that's why i quit commenting on his blog. and, i have registered.
volfan007
10/07/2006 12:03 AM


As I stated about the color of True Blue, you can see them on this Blog as posted.

In His Name

Wayne Smith

brad reynolds said...

Wayne,

CB is right about my motives and sadly he is probably right about my wretched humanness expressed in pride.

Not sure why you posted those comments. But anyway, I am amazed at how people refuse to forgive others and continue to bring up their failure, when they beg for forgiveness.

I was just on Art Rogers’ blog where he chastised me for allowing the comment and then quoted the comment in his comment section. I believe you also have quoted it in your posts on your site. That seems a slight duplicitous to chastise me for allowing it and then ya’ll post it. Everyone claims, “Brad you should remove it” and then they post it on their blogs (quite ironic).

Perhaps I am the only one who sees something wrong here, but I am glad God doesn’t bring up repented failures like we seem to.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

RevBear,
Please define liberal for me because if I am to be called names, I want to make sure what you mean by calling me a liberal. If you mean that I believe in the inerrant word of God and that I believe in a literal creation, a literal heaven and hell, a literal virgin birth, a literal atonement, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent triune God, and that Christ is The Way, the Truth, and The Light and The Word, then I must accept your monicker; if that's what you mean by liberal, then I'm proud to wear the label. If you mean anything else, my friend, your words are offensive and should not have been uttered. If you intended anything other than what I have just cited as my beliefs, then I would offer you the same advice I offered Volfan - if you don't have anything edifying to say, then remain quiet - please.

Grace and peace dear brother,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
Again you misunderstand. 'Motive' is quite different than 'Christlike spirit'. I would define Christlike spirit as being evidenced by actions, not just by motives. It was the Christlike spirit of the Christians as evidenced through their humble and gracious actions that God used to bring about conversion.
Hopefully at some point I'll be able to express myself clearly without engendering so much confusion.

Grace and peace brother,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL

I think the bear was speaking of those that he thinks Wade wants to widen the tent to based on Wade's comments about poeple who do not believe in inerrancy being conservative. I don't want to speak for him but I don't think he was calling all moderationists liberal.
BR

brad reynolds said...

PTL

Although I could be wrong...I guess he should answer that question:)
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
The tenor of his comment is that those who are moderationists would also "be askin for girls in San Antonio". A little outside your guidelines, no?

Grace and peace brother,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL
then we are back to taking a puff of marijuana are we not. Could that also been done in a Christlike spirit according to your view?
BR

brad reynolds said...

PTL

I did not read it like that but I think I have already addressed my guidelines earlier...please see my comment at 5:53pm
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,

You know my stance on that issue, but since (I assume) you're asking for the benefit of you're faithful and verbally abusive followers, I see no difference, Biblically, in having a glass of wine and 'taking a puff of marijuana' as you call it. Having said that, I would offer two caveats: (1) I am assuming that it is legal to do so, and (2) I am assuming you can do it without becoming 'drunk'. I have never 'taken a puff of marijuana' and thus cannot speak of whether you can or cannot do that without getting 'drunk'. If taking a puff makes you drunk, I would certainly be opposed to such actions.

Grace and peace brother (and waiting for the onslaught of abuse),

PTL

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad,
Did you read my comment you just posted. Please read it as I'm trying to see what Cb Scott who I definitely know and SEE his Heart in his comments, as I also see Ben Coles Heart.

In His Name

Wayne Smith

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

CB,

Thanks for the kind words. If you knew how my Heart breaks of having to take this matter on in the Light of my Great Grandchildren and the fact that those comments are still on this Blog and the ones that caused this have been removed. They are still posting as Bill Dickson/ Raccoon Transporter as resent as 10/09/2006 10:57 PM and still under anonymous. Until Brad stops excepting these under anonymous he will continue to draw this type of Blogger. Missionaries can and have signed up for Blog names.

CB I love you in the Lord and I know your Heart.

In His Name
Wayne Smith

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

what are your thoughts, in general, on an SBC agency or seminary investing in and profiting from companies that manufacture, distribute and/or sell alcoholic beverages? In general, are you for or against it?

IF such a thing was taking place wouldn’t you consider that to be in conflict with Res. 5 from this past years sbc?

IF such a thing were to take place, what would you suggest, if anything, should as a result transpire? After hearing you preach against the evils of alcohol I assume you would be outraged if southern baptist agencies or seminaries were profiting from sale of alcohol. Since you have came out against the consumption of alcohol, in such a public and “loud” way, understand that those who pay attention to such things will be looking to see if you honestly look into this, and if what is being reported is indeed true, it will be expected of you to come out strongly, as you did at the JC, against it. Your credibility is on the line, make no mistake.

I believe that if these things are TRUE that your voice will be heard in outcry against this and I do believe that you will publicly and openly and unashamedly demand that this be put to a stop. In fact, I expect this of you. When you tossed your hat into the ring of this very subject, baptists and alcohol, you crossed a ‘line of no return’. I do not agree with your view on alcohol use…but…I respect it. If you meant what you said at JC and these allegations are true, then you must speak loudly against it.

Also…

Wade Burleson said: “When an institution or person lives by principle there is an inherent consistency of logic. When an institution or person lives for power there is an inevitable corruption within leadership.” And that is all he said. Do you agree with this statement or disagree?

Anonymous said...

Brad,

I am not proud of it, but I have past experience in the use of marijuana and also of drinking alcohol.

For one thing you are sorely mistaken to compare one drink of alcohol to a "puff."
Pot is a halucaginic, alcohol is a barbituate.

Secondly, One can drink one alcoholic beverage and not be anywhere close to what a good inhalation of pot can do.

In my opinion, comparing the two is an absurd analogy.

Tim

RevBubbaBear said...

Wayne and CB,

Why do you two keep bringing up thangs that have been washed under the blood. I read two different times where that feller who said something about that bar appoligized and asked for forgiveness. He said he repented. Why aint that enough? Dont you guys ever sin? Does you ask for forgiveness? The why dont you forgive this feller then? Why you goto drag up his sin an smear it in his face?

I am bout to come to the conclusion that both of ya done been too close to the new pope and aint got no forgiveness just like him.

Sad, Sad, Sad,

Bubba

Ps. CB, you accused me of misquotin you. I dont know where i did, but I am sorry. Still love you brother even if you want let this stuff die.

Brad lets move on please. These fellers are boggin you down with their reterick.

Disclaimer: No mean intentions just want you to realize what you doin is wrong to keep being unforgiving

RevBubbaBear said...

Brad,

I am really concerned with these fellers who are tryin to force you to do thangs just to keep them happy. You said the past is in the past. These fellers seem like pawns of the new pope to me.

You laid down some guidelines now they want to drag up the past and smear repentant fellers and try to force you to condemn these fellers who done repented several times.

Why does this Wayne and CB feller carry so much weight anyway? Does not Jesus forgive these fellers if they asked like they said they did? Why aint that good enough for these dear brothers?

Bubba

Forgive, Forvige, Forgive. Good enough for Jesus Good enough for me. What about you?

brad reynolds said...

Tim,
Would you say that another barbiturate would be a better analogy? As PTL makes clear the issue is whether they get drunk on a barbiturate. In other words, as long as someone doesn’t get drunk it is ok to participate in legal activities like drinking/smoking barbiturates. I disagree.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Fox
I think I have responded earlier on your alcohol “rabbit.”

Before, you point your finger this direction just know that you too would be considered “inconsistent” if you have any monies in Guidestone and believe “homosexuality” is wrong. Please See Timmy Brister’s Post Uh Oh.

I will admit investment’s are a sticky issue for the SBC right now and I for one am not happy with all the companies we are investing in (my problem is I don’t know where the line is – I’m not sure there are many companies left who do not have homosexual agenda’s or promote gay rights or give to planned parenthood, even Walmart is heading this direction)…furthermore, I will gladly state that if one of our institutions is investing directly in Coors then that is inconsistent with the resolution we passed and I could not support it.

But I am waiting to receive all the information before jumping on the bandwagon…I’m not one who enjoys crow…and so I usually wait to condemn actions until I know all the facts. For those who don’t mind eating crow, they are free to speak quickly, and usually do.

What is more troubling to me though, is that the blogs had this story out before the Trustees met…which means one of our Trustees “leaked” information from their packet. I’m not sure the guilty party can honestly be called a TRUSTee (not much trust should be given there). Perhaps a better rabbit to chase would be integrity in Trusteeship!
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

Maybe we are getting somewhere. If you remember someone has been has been pointing to the problem of trustee integrity for the duration of these debates for the last six months.

cb

CB Scott said...

William Bear,

Your dog and pony show is getting old. Anyone that can read can easily see that my comments above relating to Wayne and Brad were in no way smears toward Brad.

I was telling Wayne that Brad was not evil in his motives.

Upon reflection maybe you really can't understand. Maybe you really are as you present yourself here. Maybe it is not a dog and pony show after all. If so please forgive me for expecting you to do that for which you are not equipped.

cb

CB Scott said...

Wayne,

Brad really has dealt with these guys as best he could. Remember he was out of the country. Remember he was fighting Hell and preaching the gospel. Remember he got sick as a dog while doing so. I ask you to give him grace here as you give me in saying I have a good heart.

Trust me on this one. Brad has a far more gracious heart than me. So do most of the brothers that visit Blog Town and speak to various issues.

Ben, Brad, Tim, Marty, Art, Wade, Mr. Green,Wes, Jeff, Bart, GeneM, Micah, Travis, Kevin, Bob, Tim Sweatman and all the other Tim Guys that are not Tim Rogers but get confused with him sometime:-), Jeremy Roberts, Alan and never forget the first lady of Blog Town, Dorcas Hawker, and countless others are people seeking God.

All are different. All mess up. Blog Town residence can be rough.

The SBC at-large does not know how to deal with Blog Town folks, especially when we visit places like Greensboro. Some are really fearful of what will happen when Blog Town "swoops" down on San Antonio with cell phones, blackberries, bluetooths and lap tops and Bibles in tow. It is a new world for some and very hard to handle.

Blog Town has opened up the old question of "sin stock" again. The SBC has not talked about that one for a while.

Now it is out there again and we have stockbrokers, preachers, missionaries, ex-criminals and insurance agents, MD's and JC's blogging away about it. Who knows what will happen.

I even heard Villa Rica's brothers, Pancho and Lefty, were planning to start up a still and sell stock to parachurch groups:-)

Wayne, lets just let those guys like 'Coon Trapper, Bill Dickson and other flamers go. Brad did what he could. It was wrong of them to say what they said and they will pay. We all pay, but never in total. Only Jesus paid it all and He did not owe any thing to anyone.

I am of all men glad He paid, because if He had not I would get what I certainly deserve--Hell in the end. I deserve it maybe more than most of Blog Town, but I "ain't gonna get it" and only because Jesus paid it all.

Wayne, you are a good man, so is Brad. Call him up. Buy him some of that "sissy coffee" these young guys drink. Talk it over. Pray together. Let it go.

IN CHRIST FREE,

cb

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad,

I guess you just don't want the Truth to be known about repent and keep on sinning. You are ignoring my question.
Brad is this how you handle Discipline in your Church?
Maybe you need to read Les's Sermon on CHURCH DISCIPLINE
he has on his Blog. So be it.

CB, I tried to see what you see, but I'm not seeing it.

In His Name

Wayne Smith

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I'm not well versed in SBC trusteeship, but unless trustee meetings were 'classified', then I'm not sure there would be an issue with 'leaking' information that was to be addressed at the meetings. If the meetings were/are 'open information' meetings (as all SBC meetings should be in my opinion), then I'm not sure any integrity was broached. Maybe you can help me understand why there would be an issue with 'classified' material? (and I'm sincere about that question - I'm not being sarcastic)

Grace and peace brother,

PTL

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

I'm sure you are right about the leak, I thought the same thing. You-know-what splatters in all directions.

I also AGREE with you, that it gets murky when looking for a line when it comes to investing. At some point we all "invest" our money in sin. I mean, if you go to a movie your money, at some point, goes to producing porn I'm sure. When you get half priced appetizers at Applebees after evening worship, your money goes to buying...beer and keeping the bar open. Not to mention trying to keep up with all the companies with ties to "sin"... it is hard to define a line.

The point, my point, is that Res. 5 is the actual issue and your comments about alcohol, frankly...which like I said, I respect although SOMEWHAT disagree with(not totally)

It is almost LAUGHABLE to have such a strong resolution as res 5 and then have the JC with men, like yourself, slam into the issue (which I can not stress enough I respect the view and would rather you just preach what you feel God has laid on your heart then to dishonor God by trying to avoid conflict) and then months later learn that (at least?) one of our seminaries is INVESTING in such companies and profiting from the sale of the stuff that our convention so strongly condemned!

This just proves "our" point. Res. 5 was ridiculous and apparently meaningless anyway. To men like you, it was and is important. Men like you with real conviction. Men like you who if you knew that was going on (if it was) would have warned first, blown the whistle second. Men who "sound" like you but are not "like" you is apparently who pulls strings in the sbc right now.

I'd rather work with and simply disagree with and vigorously debate with men like you over a beer (just like, lol, I abstain) then a politician, even if that politician campaigned on "my" issue.

Also,

do you agree with Wades statement?

volfan007 said...

to everyone,

i used to live to party. i drank beer, whiskey, and smoked weed before i got saved. i can tell you from experience that i functioned a lot better after one or two tokes on a doobie, than i did after drinking a beer.

in fact, i used to pride myself in that i drove better...could fool people better...could appear more sober...after smoking a joint, than i could after drinking a beer, or a shot of jack daniels.

thus, the analogy to drinking wine and smoking a joint is a very good analogy. maybe some people think that we should go out and party with the dope smokers...maybe that would make them more open to the gospel...yea right!

also, i think my analogy about stripping with the strippers would be a good one to drinking with people in bars in order to make them "open" to the gospel. i mean, as long as you dont lust after the stripper....what would be the harm??????!!!!!????? it would make them feel better about you.

where in the world are going with this kind of thinking?

also, i love everyone. my little, pea-pickin heart is full of the love of Jesus. i dont hate wayne, nor wade, nor nobody. why in the world people keep bringing my name up as someone who hates is beyond me. just because i dont agree with certain people, and take thier flawed logic to it's ridiculous conclusion....does that mean that i hate someone? no! i am just a big ole teddy bear who loves everybody. but, i do like to see Gods Word and His truth declared. i love to see Jesus represented well. and, to that, i say that i will always declare Gods truthes and lift up Jesus until i breathe my last breath. after He saved me out of my wicked, dead life...i love Him and i will stand for Him and His truth. and, i will stand against anything that i see as taking people away from Jesus and His truth that sets the heart free. praise the Lord!


from the hills of tn,

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

PTL

I spoke to a Trustee and apparently he saw somehting wrong with the leaking of information before the meeting. And the leaking of documents written for Trustees. I would assume that Trustees or sharreholders of businesses do not publicize their private documents given them by the company.

I could be wrong on this but another Trustee certainly saw a problem here.


Wayne

I really don't know what you are speaking to.


Fox,

I can state, I could not support investing directly in brewery's even if it is through a mutual fund, I think that is certainly at odds with the resolution. I am still gaining data on this...so pardon my absence of comments here. My struggle is that I could invest in Fox News today and they be bought by Coors tomorrow. Investments are a sticky issue.

Concerning Wade's comments, of course I can agree, but the point is - the context wherein he made the comment. I'm not sure it is said without implication to Dr. Patterson and thus an accusatory finger from one who is wanting "more Christlike statments on blogs." Just seems ironic.
BR

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad,

If you are really interested in the Truth you can use the time and date line and see the lies. You will also see that this Bill Dickson and Raccoon Transporter is the same person. You can remove all comments accusing me, Wade, and Ben...

In His Name

Wayne Smith

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I'm not sure 'confidential' documents related to a private company's interests would be similar to documents related to a trustee's meeting within the SBC. Private companies have a legitimate basis for holding 'confidential' material. I'm not sure we (Christians) should be involved in 'secretive' types of activities. So again, I'm not sure why 'leaking' an SBC document - whatever the source, content, or intention, would be an issue.

Volfan,

Please spare me your justification for saying that drinking a glass of wine is akin to 'stripping with a stripper'. The comment was foolish, inciteful, offensive, and in VERY poor taste. You should be ashamed not only of the fact that you said something like that, but that you refuse to see the un-Christian nature of it as well.

Brad,
Not only did you allow the original comment, but you allowed Volfan to justify it in a second posting as well. I am dissappointed.

Grace and peace to all,

PTL

Timothy Cowin said...

Brad,

In light of "The Resolution" in the shadow of "The Joshua Convergence" and in view of the fact that Dr. Patterson and many other "leaders" felt that it was important to release their take on alcohol, you must see that the action of the SWBTS to move money into an investment plan that supports and profits from the sale and use of alcohol and tobacco --- totally makes those involved look like hypocrites.

It is possible to invest in such a way that one does not directly support tobacco and alcohol industires. If I was not so greived over this double-standard and the ensuing inability of others to see it for what it is, I would laugh at the irony of it all! Jesus revealed and condemned this same kind of duplicity in the practices of the Pharisees.

Brad, give us the "no spin." I dont agree with the resolution, but you being one who has and has so with vigor and consistentcy, don't back down now.

Do you really think that trustees should keep us in the dark? If an issue involved a personal nature, dealing with individuals, I agree in discretion. But any and all business of an SBC entity involving policy, procedures, management etc... should and must be completely open.

Timothy Cowin

brad reynolds said...

Timothy,

What part of "I could not support investing directly in brewery's even if it is through a mutual fund. I think that is certainly at odds with the resolution."

If you want to hear me speak all sorts of evil things about a sister institution you will be waiting for a while.

Furthermore, I am still looking into this but I will state again, for your enjoyment, "I could not support investing directly in brewery's even if it is through a mutual fund and I think it is certainly at odds with the resolution."

Finally, the duplicity of those who have there funds in Guidestone and feel homosexuality is wrong and are pointing there fingers at SWBTS is obvious and telling.


PTL
I would assume that with any institution there are things that must be kep confidential in Trustee reports (like firing a staff member or something which the law requires confidentiality). The point I am making is not whether we agree that it should be confidential but if it is to be kept confidential there was a breach of trust which calls into question the integrity of the Trustee who leaked this. This of course is being neglected by the blogs.

Further, your disappointment is noted but I have such from both sides on the issue in what I post and don't post. This is the problem with not having a totally open forum but I am sure you have expressed the same disappointment with possible ad hominiem comments made by those with whom you agree.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Wayne

Your righteous indignation is noted again. But I think you would be more convincing if you removed all your ad hominem comments towards me and others. It is like you are saying, "Brad, remove all comments that attack Me Wade and Ben, but I will continue to attack whomever I fell like attacking."

I have addressed the comments that have been removed and if someone has asked me to remove a comment they made and I have failed to do so, please point it out.
BR

Jim said...

Brad,

Thanks for showing such wisdom in not talking about an issue before you hear all sides. We all would do well to follow such an example.

You said, "Finally, the duplicity of those who have there funds in Guidestone and feel homosexuality is wrong and are pointing there fingers at SWBTS is obvious and telling."

I don't think what you've given here is an accurate 1 to 1 comparison.

To be parallel, Guidestone would have to be investing in a company that somehow profited from homosexuality. I'm not sure what that might look like (gay bars?, prostitution). I hope you get my point. I'm having a difficult time thinking of a 1 to 1 comparison.

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
You're correct; I have expressed disappointment - even toward those with whom I do agree - when they build preposterous straw man arguments (stripping with strippers) or when they use ad-hominem tactics. My disappointment stems only from the fact that I DO know that you are aware of the insulting nature of such comments and would not use such tactics yourself.

As a side note, the self-depracating 'country bumpkin' style which some bloggers use does little to conceal their mean spirited natures.

On the issue of 'leaking' confidential material. I agree with you - if it was made clear that the information was to be 'confidential' (which I'm not sure why this particular information would require such), then to broach that agreement is a display of an untrustworthy action. The bigger issue, however, (in my opinion) is whether there should be any confidential information (items of a legal nature aside) held by trustees of the SBC. Obviously one's personnel records are, to some extent, confidential, but aside from that, I can't think of anything which SB members at large shouldn't be privy to.

Grace and peace,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,

PS - just curious - how many comments have you actually not allowed since enacting the 'moderation' setting on your blog?

PTL

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Tim,

I understand you do not agree with Dr. Reynold's analogy between "pot" and alcohol. So be it, my brother. Also, as do you, I have my own memories of experiencing both.

Yet, to insist the analogy is "absurd" seems, at least to me, overkill. What Dr. Reynolds has forever insisted upon is the illicit use of these mind-altering drugs for recreational purposes. That being so, if it is, then, morally acceptable for one (alcohol), then there seems to be no real reason why it would not also be morally acceptable for the other ("pot").

Now, my Brother Tim: whether or not you "buy" the analogy is one thing. I can accept that. But to insist as do you that it stands "absurd" simply lacks, at least from my view, thoughtful reflection.

I trust you possess a great evening, Tim. With that, I am...

Peter

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

What interesting comments. It seems that if the Trustee packet had some comments about personnel issues that were needing to be discussed and that packet was leaked to the press then SWBTS would be held liable. I am no lawyer, but information that is given to Trustees is confidential until it becomes public.

Let me bring my favorite sport into this comment in order to illustrate. Go to Florida and request Dale Earnhart's autopsy photos. They are public records. You cannot get them! Why? They have not been released to the public. It is the same with Trustee Material. It is not public until it is released to the public. Ask Brother Wade Burleson.

Blessings,
Tim

Timothy Cowin said...

Brad,

Sorry for missing the entire stream! I respect you for your consistentcy, brother.

It is not to my "enjoyment" that we are talking about this! It breaks my heart that brothers could waste time fighting over the use of alcohol. I will fight over the abuse of alcohol any day. It breaks my heart that the character of men could be maligned, attacked and misrepresented because they hold to a stand on moderation. It is painful to see a frenzy of leaders publish articles decrying the use of alcohol. And then, then to see SWBTS trustees be asked to agree to the moving of millions to funds that directly support the sale and use of alcohol and the profit of it? I think a apology is owed to all who were the subject of anti-alcohol rhjetoric by you know who.

I do not konw if this is righteous indignation or simply the flesh, the heart is deceitfully wicked. But in my view anyman who votes on this day to support this move ought to put their hand over their mouth and shut up about the issue of alcohol.

Timothy Cowin

posttinebraelux said...

Tim,
I too, am no lawyer (although I have begun the process so we'll se where that goes), but I assume you're exactly right - if material handed to the trustees is labeled 'confidential', then the trustees should honor that request unless: (1) it would be unlawful to do so, or (2) they have a moral conviction that materials handled by the trustees of the SBC should not be confidential, but rather open to all. If they hold to (2), then 'leaking' the material might be the wrong way to go about change.
The issue I'm concerned with, however, is whether any trustee materials SHOULD be 'confidential' (again, legal material aside - personnel records, etc.).
Your analogy to autopsy photos is, in my opinion, not a good one because in one case you're dealing with an individual's 'rights' and in the other case you're dealing with material belonging to an institution which should, for all intents and purposes, be completely transparent. In fact, I'm not sure there are any good analogies to how 'churches' should operate. They are so unique to any other organization.
BTW, why does everyone capitalize trustee? Is that some special office or something?

Grace and peace,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

Timothy

Thank you for expressing your heart. Allow me to express mine. I think it is very sad for pastors to ever give their parishioners a biblical excuse to drink intoxicating beverages, especially when one considers the negative way “strong drink” is viewed in Scripture. To give individuals an excuse to purposely kill brain cells reveals why brain cells should not be destroyed.


PTL and Tim

I do not know if the packet contained confidential information but my point was that if it was expected of Trustees to keep their information confidential before the meeting then to leak it implies a lack of integrity.

PTL

I have not allowed about 4 comments if memory serves me correctly. Just implementing my policy seems to have cleaned up the comments considerably on both sides. You are right in insisting that I would not state many things that I feel to be ad hominems, but I think the ones who make statements are responsible for them.


Jim

I agree with you. They are not oranges and oranges but I am not sure they are apples and oranges either.

To invest in a mutual fund that has a few breweries in it is not the same as investing in the breweries. Furthermore, my concern is that those who find fault in this, at least acknowledge that if they claim culpability to those who would invest in such a fund and then claim innocence if they invest in a fund where the companies give to homosexual causes there is a semblance of duplicity.

To say to those who are against alcohol “if the mutual fund you invest in contains any breweries then you are hypocritical, but I am totally innocent if any of my monies go to support a pro-gay agenda in the companies I invest in” seems convenient to say the least. My point is that investments aren’t as black and white as some seem to imply…it is a sticky issue.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
Thank you so much for saying, 'I think' before making the statement that it is sad for pastors to state that the Bible makes no condemnation of alcohol consumption. Oftentimes people just state that the Bible condemns alcohol consumption as if what they're saying is fact - which I think we both would agree is not. It is very refreshing to hear someone of your Biblical prowess preface a statement like that in terms of personal conviction. Would that others had as much grace in their speech.

Grace and peace brother,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL

I don't "think" it is personal conviction. But I do think we have been here:)
BR

CB Scott said...

volfan,

I stand against the use of alcohol for many various reasons,but not from studying Greek.

I, like Brad believe a Believer does best to let alcohol alone completely.

I guess that means I also agree with you relating to the use of alcohol.

One thing I am going to venture with you though is what you said about strippers. one thing is for sure they, in general, would not respect you if you got up on the "runway" or stage and revealed you were a Christian and wanted to share Christ with them. Most "strippers" have a higher standard in their minds for Christian behavior or a Christian witness.

I agree with PTL in his assessment of your comment relating to women that have already seen enough of the evils of secular and "Christian" (so called) men alike. As for what he said about what I will call your "cornpone" act. I do chime in and say it is getting very boring.

Now if that makes me a godless liberal so be it, just be careful how you say it.

cb

brad reynolds said...

PTL
Please know that as offensive as the stripper analogy appears to you (and honestly I am not sure the analogy is analogous), to suggest God would use wine to bring people to Christ is very offensive to those of us who believe the Bible teaches an abstinence from intoxicating drink. Perhaps that is what brought out the passion in Vol
BR

Jeffro said...

Brad,

I would love to hear your thoughts on the reinvestment of SWBTS funds in mutual funds that include tobacco and alcohol companies. Do you know whether or not SWBTS is going to make sure that none of the money is going to be invested in businesses that we are "totally opposed" to? Would you agree that it is hypocrisy to invest any of the money in any of these companies?

I know this had nothing to do with your post, but I saw that the comments had leaked off in the alcohol direction again. I look forward to hearing your thoughts

brad reynolds said...

Jeffro

Please read above comments.

BR

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad,

Mat 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

I posted here on your Blog to shed LIGHT on what my attemps to help you open your EYES and see Truth of the Lies and Slander posted here on your Blog. You kept overlooking each request, as a result of you not taking a look at what you allowed to be posted here on your Blog. I said and posted on my Blog what you failed to address on your Blog. I have returned to your Blog with a humble Heart and yet you fail to address these Blatant Accussation against me, Wade and Ben. I said before I would remove my post on my Blog if and when you Take responsible for your Blog and Remove the Lies and Slander. I Pray you do it soon as I don't think it shows Honor to God on either Yours or My Blog. What ye say Brad.

In His Name

Wayne Smith

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad,

What is one's Word Worth in Your Mind? I have always Honored my word, since I was a Teenager. That's 55 years, as I'm 71 yrs old now. My Grandfather taught me that if your not good for your Word, Your not good for nothing.

In His Name

Wayne Smith

brad reynolds said...

Wayne
I am responsible to keep my word and to guard what I say and what I post. No matter how much you try to get me to take responsibility for what others say, I do not see that as my responsibility. I must do my best to keep my word regarding what I allow to be posted, I have been gracious to some, since my new rules but I feel I have been fair. If I am wrong, I am wrong with a pure heart before my Father. I would never assume to tell you what you should do on your blog.

God Bless you
BR

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

Brad

I said before I would remove my post on my Blog if and when you Take responsible for your Blog and Remove the Lies and Slander against me. I Pray you do it soon as I don't think it shows Honor to God on either Yours or My Blog. What ye say Brad. This is my last Olive Branch,

In His Name

Wayne Smith

Timothy Cowin said...

It is reported on other sites that the proposal to the trustees to move such funds was withdrawn for further study.

This in itself is truly amazing. Is it possible that all the conversation caused a pause in policy in the SBC?

Timothy

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

forgive me if you have addressed this...but for some reason I can't remember it if you have.

Do you believe that Jesus consumed alcohol? Did He turn water into grape juice or "wine"? If you believe He did consume alcohol, regardless of the amount in comparision with todays standards, would that not reason to believe that He had sinned in the process due to killing all those brain cells needlessly?

Or do you believe that Jesus did not consume alcohol in any form or amount?

brad reynolds said...

Wayne

Whether you remove your post or not really does not matter to me. But if you will send me the comments you are referencing that are still on my blog which you believe slanders you...I will review them.

I take no joy in Christians calling others names and feel we can discuss these issues without stooping to such level but I am not responible for what others say. Nevertheless we are certainly trying to keep things here more Christlike.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I'm a little surprised that you would side with one who would use such a preposterous analogy. I would have thought your understanding of Scripture greater than that. Please don't muddy the waters further by comparing my angst at being accused of being willing to 'strip with strippers' with your (or Volfan's or RevBear's) angst at people who disagree with you regarding the legitimate use of alcohol (and as I've tried to say at least 5 or 6 times now - I don't know whether you aren't listening or whether you intend to put words in my mouth - I don't believe that God 'would use wine to bring people to Christ'). If you'll read back through the thread, you'll note that I've said over and over that God uses people's Christlike spirits as evidenced through action to bring about His salvation. I'm not sure why that's not getting through. I cannot think of any more clear way to say that, I honestly can't.
Now, do you REALLY believe that being accused of being willing to 'strip with strippers' should evoke the same emotion as having someone disagree with you regarding the legitimate use of alcohol? If so, I am dumbfounded. I can point to SCRIPTURE after SCRIPTURE which cautions us against being involved with harlots - I can point to NONE (and neither can you) which caution us against having a glass of wine.
Truly, I am amazed brother that you would suggest that he should be as offended as I because I believe the Bible does not teach an abstinence doctrine and he said that people like me would be willing to 'strip with strippers'.
I'm not sure what else to say...

Grace and peace,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

Fox,
I think Brad will tell you that the alcohol debate has raged for quite a while. You're question, however, I don't think has been addressed and it does present a bit of a conundrum for our good friend Brad. I think Brad will tell you that Jesus did, in fact, drink alcoholic wine, but diluted to the point that it would be difficult to get drunk (I don't agree with that, but I think that's what Brad will say). At any rate, if it had ANY alcohol in it at all, it would kill brain cells needlessly, wouldn't it? HHMMMMM Very interesting dear Fox, very interesting indeed......

Grace and peace,

PTL

volfan007 said...

cb,

my cornpone act is not an act. i am a hillbilly from tn. i'm sorry that it's boring you. also, i do see the analogy as true. i view drinking strong drink for pleasure...to get high...to get happy...as sin. i get my views on this from the bible.

wayne,

i dont remember anyone ad homining you. i dont remember seeing all these attacks on you in brad's blog. i dont know...maybe i am wrong, but i dont remember them. i do remember you coming down real hard on a lot of people.

brad,

God bless ya, bro. i wish i could buy you lunch sometime...how's ribs, or catfish sound?

from the hills of tn,

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

PTL

I did not know that you were accused of being willing to strip with strippers if I missed that please let me know and I will remove it. I think the point being made was that one was willing to participate in an act that the Bible would condemn (strong drink, stripping) in order to gain an audience with a sinner. Now my point was that as preposterous as it sounds to those who believe stripping to be sin that God would use such to open the door for a gospel presentation it is just as preposterous to those who believe drinking intoxicating drink to be sin that God would use such to open the door for a gospel presentation. Hope that helps.

Now, concerning Fox’s question.
I do not know that Jesus drank water purified with wine but we have no evidence that He didn’t. Thus I shall assume that he did. Without a doubt it would probably have killed brain cells. But there is a vast difference in drinking water in order to survive which had been purified with wine in order to kill bacteria and killing brain cells for the pure enjoyment of it.

Hope this answers your question. I have never said alcohol for survival purposes is wrong.
BR

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

If Jesus had the ability to turn water in "wine", then obviously He could have simply turned it into grape juice, or, purified the water itself and just made Evian or something.

Why did He turn water into fermented wine when He could have turned it into one of those other two choices?

“When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;” James 1:13 niv

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
Please point to the passage in the Bible that condemns drinking wine. If you'd like, I can point to SEVERAL passages which condemn adultery (which would be the act of stripping with a stripper) and promiscuous behaviour with a harlot (i.e. stripping with a stripper). Again, I'm slightly surprised that you'd allow that kind of analogy on your blog. I'm dumbfounded that you'd defend it. So be it, at least I know where you stand. You will defend the inciteful analogies of those who side with you.

To the killing brain cells issue - we do have Biblical evidence that Christ was called a winebibber (i.e. drunkard); if He didn't drink wine, there'd be no basis for such an accusation. Thus, we can be pretty confident that He drank wine (at whatever the dilution rate). If killing brain cells by drinking wine is sin, then it it sin (as a side note, I still haven't found the passage that says, 'thou shalt not kill brain cells' - I'm haven't given up yet, though). He would have had an alternative - He could simply have purified the water He drank by miracle. I'm pretty confident that if drinking wine was sin, he'd prefer miracle over indulgence. Further, he could have drunk juice from watered down 'grape honey' (which was the boiled down juice of unfermented grapes).
I promise I won't tell your superiors if you ascede that the Bible does not condemn drinking wine for purposes other than survival. It will just be between you and I. :) I know you won't admit it, but you have to know that here is just no scholarly defense of such a position.

Grace and peace,

PTL

Jim said...

Brad,

I know it has been said already, but in light of the alcohol rabbit it should be pointed out again.

People in NT times could survive by drinking things other than wine. Evidence=John the Baptist and others who abstained.

Anonymous said...

brad

Irreverend Fox ask these questions and you didn't answer them

Brad,

forgive me if you have addressed this...but for some reason I can't remember it if you have.

Do you believe that Jesus consumed alcohol? Did He turn water into grape juice or "wine"? If you believe He did consume alcohol, regardless of the amount in comparision with todays standards, would that not reason to believe that He had sinned in the process due to killing all those brain cells needlessly?

Or do you believe that Jesus did not consume alcohol in any form or amount?

10/17/2006 10:18 PM

Grosey's Messages said...

It wasn't so long ago that the leader of a "charismatic" cult, David Berg, was encourageing his female converts to engage in "flirty fishing"; using sex as an evangelistic tool.
"At least six women, including both his daughters and two of his granddaughters, have publicly alleged that Berg sexually abused them when they were children. Berg's eldest daughter Deborah Davis has written a book in which she accuses her father of sexually molesting both her and her sister when they were children, and attempting to have sex with her as an adult."
To be fair, there have been some wacky ideas used for evangelism.
While Vol may have used an extreme analogy, it has been done.

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous

Question answered above.


Jim

Agreed one could survive without wine but that does not mean some did not survive using it.


PTL

Inciting is when people claim alcohol opens the door for the gospel and yet I have allowed those to stand.

Dr. Stephen Reynolds has already addressed the absolute forbidding of intoxicating drink in Proverbs 23:31 and the negative view of alcohol in Proverbs 20:1. While you may not agree with this language scholar from Princeton. I am not sure I would call him and Robert Stein unscholarly:)

Concerning Christ purifying everything he touched (wine, drink, food, door knobs etc) I think to state such nullifies in some way the humility of becoming man in a sin-stained world.


Fox

Jesus was honoring his mother’s wishes.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous

Question answered above.


Jim

Agreed one could survive without wine but that does not mean some did not survive using it.


PTL

Inciting is when people claim alcohol opens the door for the gospel and yet I have allowed those to stand.

Dr. Stephen Reynolds has already addressed the absolute forbidding of intoxicating drink in Proverbs 23:31 and the negative view of alcohol in Proverbs 20:1. While you may not agree with this language scholar from Princeton. I am not sure I would call him and Robert Stein unscholarly:)

Concerning Christ purifying everything he touched (wine, drink, food, door knobs etc) I think to state such nullifies in some way the humility of becoming man in a sin-stained world.


Fox

Jesus was honoring his mother’s wishes.
BR

CB Scott said...

volfan,

If your "act" is not an act you are not a Hillbilly. I know many Hillbillys and they do nor communicate like you do. A True Hillbilly would call you a "Ridge Runner". Hill billys do not hang out with Ridge Runners.

You are incorrect to credit the Bible with your poor and rude behavior directed to women caught in human bondage. Jesus would never speak as you did. The "stripper" analogy was sinful and without evidence of Christian character. You lie when you credit the Bible with such. You need to clean up ypur "act" if you intent to continue the "show" of which you are the only star and, sadly, the only fan, Vol.

cb

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
Not surprised that you skirt the issue. While Stein labored the point that alcohol may have been watered down, any exegesis of Prov. 23 that has to do with 'prohibition' of alcohol is clearly a misinterpretation of the passage. To state the 'prohibition' interpretation as if it was fact is arrogant.

Grosey,
I'm sure there are plenty of wacky methods of evangelism, but what is at issue here is not that there are wacky methods of evangelism, but rather that there has been strong implication that those who hold a moderationist position would be involved in some of those wacky methods - specifically 'askin for girls in San Antonio' and 'stripping with strippers'. That, my good friend, is what is offensive to me.

Grace and peace,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

Ok folks

Once again we seem to be getting into name-calling. Let's all try and be more kind...I have been slack again in allowing some thing to stand but unless you clean it up yourselves I will start making you repost your comments.


PTL

I have read Dr. Stephen Reynolds interpretation and I am not sure I would classify his scholarly work as arrogant.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
To take a passage that clearly deals with drunken behaviour (Prov. 23 for example) and postulate that it promotes a prohibition against legitimate consumption of alcohol is a conviction that I do not feel at liberty to condemn. To state that your interpretation of that passage as FACT is........? What would you call it? If there are MANY, MANY scholars who interpret the passage differently, what else, besides arrogance, would you call it for one to state that his interpretation is fact? Mind you, I never said that Dr. Reynolds was arrogant - you put those words in my 'mouth'. I simply stated that for anyone to state that his or her interpration of ANY passage that stands up to scholarly debate as FACT is arrogant. I'm not sure Dr. Reynolds would state that his interpretation is FACT. I would assume that he would present his argument as just that - a scholarly argument and as 'his interpretation'. My point is, don't take someone else's interpretation as fact just because it agrees with your position.

Grace and peace,

PTL

irreverend fox said...

Brad,

oh please, please tell me that you are just blowing me off here and want to move on. Please tell me dear brother that as a professor that this is not the best you've got...

"Jesus was honoring his mother’s wishes."

Brad, are you serious? Jesus would sin in order to honor his mother's wishes?

I simply assume you want to move on my friend because that can not be your real answer. That is a "hall of fame" dodge of an answer.

We can move on, it's ok. I still love you Brad.

CB Scott said...

Gary Fox,

Brad and I differ on some things.
Yet, when he is right, he is right. An answer if it is the right answer is right even if it is simple.

Maturity teaches one this truth. I am sure you will catch it as maturity does catch you.

cb

brad reynolds said...

PTL
I shall assume you have read Dr. Reynolds post and if so then you must agree that one cannot state that 23:31 was CLEARLY speaking of drunkenness. Furthermore, either his interpretation is right or wrong, there can’t be numerous correct interpretations of Scripture, there can only be one (of course we all believe ours is the one, but surly God only knows)…if it is right and he believes it is (backed by a PHD in biblical languages from Princeton) then according to him it must be fact, a good hermeneutical interpretation of a text is not arrogance but diligence…if it is wrong then obviously it is not fact, but that does not negate his diligence that you assume is arrogance.

Perhaps you and I are semantically passing each other…I understand your concern but I would certainly not phrase it as you have, which causes our disagreement.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Fox

Guilty as charged:) In a way I was trying to give a quick answer but in a way I was being truthful also.

Jesus was honoring his mother’s request. But I don’t believe he made it into intoxicating drink, rather a wine/water mixture…sure he could have made it pure water but he would have then changed water to water…the fact it was a NEW product was the miracle, thus it was wine, which was etiquette for the marriage ceremony.

My struggle is the implication of Jesus making “strong drink” when it is spoken negatively of in Proverbs and the further implications of those who would have “well drunk” intoxicating drink and thus the contribution to drunkenness. I think George Whitefield has well said,

“it is true (as I observed at the beginning of this discourse) our blessed Savior did come eating and drinking; he was present at a wedding, and other entertainments; nay, at one of them worked a miracle to make wine, (you see I have been making some observations on it) but then it is not plain there had been more wine drank than was absolutely necessary for the support of nature; much less does it appear, that something had been indulged to pleasure and cheerfulness.
The governor does indeed say, "When men have well drunken," but it no where appears that they were the men. Is it to be supposed, that the most holy and unspotted Lamb of God, who was manifested to destroy the works of the devil, and who, when at a Pharisee's house, took notice of even the gestures of those with whom he sat at meat; is it to be supposed, that our dear Redeemer, whose constant practice it was to tell people they must deny themselves, and take up their crosses daily; who bid his disciples to take heed, lest at any time their hearts might be over-charged with surfeiting and drunkenness; can it be supposed, that such a self-denying Jesus should now turn six large water-pots of water into the richest wine, to encourage excess and drunkenness in persons, who, according to this writer, had indulged to pleasure and cheerfulness already? Had our Lord sat by, and seen them indulge, without telling them of it, would it not be a sin? But to insinuate he not only did this, but also turned water into wine, to increase that indulgence; this is making Christ a minister of sin indeed. What is this, but using him like the Pharisees of old, who called him a glutton, and a wine-bibber? Alas! how may we expect our dear Lord's enemies will treat him, when he is thus wounded in the house of his seeming friends? Sirs, if you follow such doctrine as this, you will not be righteous, but I am persuaded you will be wicked over-much.” (Whitefield – Marriage at Cana).

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I, too, struggle with why Christ would have turned water into 'very fine wine' when there would obviously been those at the party who had already 'well drunk'. I (and all of us) must be very careful, however, to not allow our preconceived 'conviction' of what Christ 'should' have done to allow us to interpret the passage in a way that panders to our own preconceptions. We must allow the Scripture to speak for itself.
Speaking of interpretations, you're exactly right - in the end, there is only one TRUE interpretation of EVERY passage. My point is that I don't believe Dr. Reynolds is 'diligent' (arrogant for those of us who don't think diligent fits) enough to say, "I know there are many other wise and sage Bible scholars who disagree with me, but my interpretation is the ONLY CORRECT interpretation." That, my good friend, is not diligence, that is arrogance. BTW, I don't think I've read where Dr. Reynolds said that his was the only correct interpretation. Maybe I missed that.

Grace and peace brother,

PTL

volfan007 said...

brad,

amen.

cb,

God bless you, bro. the Lord can take all of that self righteous anger out of your heart if you will let Him.

and, my analogy is still true, whether cb or ptl likes it or not. we dont sin in order to reach people with the gospel. drinking alcohol to get high... for pleasure...is foolish. it will lead to sin...eph. 5. proverbs 20 and 23 are pretty clear that drinking strong drink... drinking that which has moved itself aright will lead to many bad things.

i am sorry that yall dont see it that way, but you dont have any right to call me names, and accuse brad and me of being arrogant. goodness gracious. where's the love?

from the hills of tn,

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

PTL

If Dr. Reynolds believes his is the right interpretation based on his work, then he soesn’t need to say he just tries to show it which is what he did…for him to say there are other correct interpretations would be a lie.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
Of course he thinks his interpretation is right, but it truly doesn't stand strong scrutiny - even if he does have a PhD. For instance, Dr. Reynolds translates the commonly translated passage, "do no look on the wine when it is red" as, "don't look on the juice as it is fermenting" and then says that we can postulate from that that we are not to drink it. We must, however, use common sense when looking at this passage. If we are not to even look at wine 'as it is fermenting', then Christ, all the disciples, Paul, Timothy, and many others sinned because they would often have looked at wine when it was fermenting (whether or not they drank it aside). Now, that interpretation just doesn't make sense, so we have to try to extract what the Proverbs writer would have meant by that verse (1) in the greater context of the passage, and (2) in a context that would not implicate Christ or otherwise be unharmonious with other Scripture. One common and scholarly interpretation is that we are not to 'lust' after wine, which fits the 'red' or the 'fermenting' interpretation of the hebrew word. That is an interpretation that I am comfortable with as it does no damage to either the rest of the passage, or to Scripture in general. If, however, someone else holds a different interpretation (Dr. Reynolds, for example), I am comfortable allowing them their interpretation based on their conviction. He is not accountable to me for his interpretation, nor am I accountable to him for my interpretation; he and I are accountable to God for our interpretations. Therefore, whether we eat or drink, do all to the Glory of God.

Peace and grace,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL

He does argue that a Proverb means “don’t look on the juice when it is fermenting.” But are we to interpret Proverbial sayings literally, or should they be “proverbial sayings?” In other words when the proverb “As a bird wandereth from her nest, so is a man who wandereth from his place” is spoken are we to go and observe what a bird does when it leaves its nest and then assume that a man who wonders from his place will also hunt for food and fly from tree to tree or do we understand it is a proverbial saying.

I think we understand it as a proverbial saying, in other words :don’t look on the juice when it is fermenting” means don’t desire intoxicating drink!

I hope we can agree at least on this:)
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
That's my point exactly; it does not 'follow' as Dr. Reynolds says, that we are not to 'drink wine'. That's quite a leap to derive 'don't drink wine' from 'don't look on the juice while it's fermenting'. I certainly agree with you; an appropriate interpretation is, 'don't lust after the intoxicating wine.' We cannot, however, extrapolate that it is a passage condemning the moderate consumption of wine - only the lustful and over-indulging consumption (as is evidenced by the balance of the passage). I'm glad we finally agree. :)

Grace and peace,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL

I think we are separated by a common language:)

To say do not desire intoxicating drink and do not lust after it, could mean two different things, but if you agree with me that it likely means do not desire to drink any intoxicating drink then we have reached an agreement.
BR