;)
tagged: Baptist Life, Geoff Baggett, IMB Policies, International Mission Board, Missions, SBC Issues, SBC News, Uncategorized"Time to Change" – An Analysis
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Baptist Life
A couple of us at sbc IMPACT! “caught wind” of the coming “Time to Change” initiative late last week. I knew that a press release was forthcoming. I considered running it, but, in the end, chose not to do so. (Actually, we sort of “forgot” to post the release … busy life and ministry, and all…) I have to admit that I was a bit relieved. I didn’t want to portray our collaborative blog as taking a particular “side” in this issue, since there very well may be some disagreement among our contributors. Each is free to support or resist this initiative as they see fit. Two of them already have done so by adding their names to the statement. Indeed, they are free to state their positions and debate them here.
But I must confess that I am somewhat “in the middle.” I tend to disagree with the trustees’ position on baptism. Their position does not match the standards and practices of the Southern Baptist Church that I pastor. And it does bother me to think that I have faithful Southern Baptist church members in my congregation that, should they sense a call to missions, might be disqualified from service through their very own mission board due to something such as the personal view of eternal security of the one who immersed them in the waters of baptism.
But then there is the issue of “Private Prayer Languages,” which I, personally, reject as a doctrinally indefensible practice and an aberration of the proper and biblical understanding of spiritual giftedness. My debate on this issue with fellow IMPACT! blogger David Rogers was my introduction to the blogging world a couple of years ago.
But I’m not here to debate my views. So don’t even try… That horse has already been ridden to ground and sold off to the glue factory. I don’t plan to beat that deceased equine specimen today.
Anyhow, like I said, my personal position is somewhere in the middle … and a similar one to many other Southern Baptists, to be sure. And, because of my personal views, and my lack of understanding of the direct impact of the “PPL” guideline upon the mission force, I do not feel the liberty to add my name to this particular statement.
But I did read the news release, as well as the statement on the web site, with great interest. I logged on to the site expecting something new, something fresh, something that would turn my head … a bombshell, if you will … but I merely found the same call for change that I have heard time and time again for the past two years. I came searching for “meat,” but found something of an “appetizer.” Now, to be fair, this call for change came from respectable Southern Baptist folk from outside the handful who frequent the blogosphere … so that made it interesting and compelling. But, to be honest, I came away from the web site with a few more questions than answers. I need details. I want specifics. Not just an ideological statement, but a practical road map.
I will try, as systematically as possible, to pose some of my own questions for your analysis and consideration. Perhaps we can make a few guesses together and sort out some of the answers.
- When did the signatories to the initiative who are listed as “Former IMB Trustees” actually serve in that capacity? Actually, this was the first question that popped into my mind? What were their years of service? I don’t know if it’s an important question or not. But it was the first question that came to my mind.
- How do the proponents of this initiative plan to actually accomplish their stated goal? I believe that goal is summarized in this statement, “… we strongly urge Southern Baptists to seek the removal of these controversial and superfluous guidelines from use in the candidate approval process.” But how do they propose that this aim be accomplished? What steps do they propose? Where are they planning to start? Is there an actual “fire” brewing, or just some ideological “smoke?”
- Is morale on the mission field truly suffering under the current leadership? I have read many anonymous testimonies of such in the SB blogosphere, and have heard much in the way of anecdotal evidence. But are we truly seeing attrition … and is more coming because of the current guidelines? Are we looking at a Southern Baptist future that includes a dwindling IMB mission force?
- How will IMB missionaries who affirm this statement publicly be treated by current leadership? Signing as a “former” trustee or missionary, or even a local church pastor for that matter, has no measurable or inherent career risk. But I noticed yesterday that Rodney Hammer (who recently resigned his post as regional director) and my personal friend and fellow IMPACT! blogger David Rogers have taken personal stands and added their names as signatories. What will the repercussions be?
- Will Les Puryear’s signature on the document (added yesterday) have any impact, positive or negative, on his SBC presidential bid?
These are just a few questions that crossed my mind as I read these documents. You may have more questions. Or you may have some insights. I hope that you will feel free to share them. I know that there is a genuine fear out there that “someone is watching.” That has been communicated to me personally by some people in denominational life. If you need to comment anonymously, we certainly understand.
But, please, with all grace and respect, offer your insights and opinions with regard to this new “twist” on the IMB Trustee Guidelines debate. And, before you comment, please consider taking a quick look at our Purpose and Standards pages. We’ve been having a bit of interpersonal trouble lately. Let’s all be grown-up Christian folk and “play nice.” 
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Geoff,
As to whether or not my signature on this initiative has any impact on my SBC presidential bid or not does not matter to me. I signed it because I have consistently supported repeal of these two policies and, at least in my mind, it was and is the right thing to do.
Les
Geoff,
I don’t have time right now to respond to some of your other points, but, in response to #4, I will say here the same thing I just said to Dave Miller in a comment over on my personal blog (loveeachstone.blogspot.com):
“If I ever became convinced my personal views were incompatible with those of the majority of Southern Baptists, in good conscience, I would need to look for another channel through which to serve the Lord. Thus, it is not helpful for me to believe one thing privately, and give the appearance of believing something else publicly. At the same time, as I say in the post, I am trying to do my best to do this in a way that is respectful and appropriately submissive to the authorities God has placed over me.
I have been open about these beliefs for more than 2 years now. So far, despite a few scattered remarks here and there, I have not felt my job threatened as a result of voicing my views. And, for that I am thankful. At the bottom line, though, my “job” is not just a job, but a calling. And, I trust the same God who called me to continue to provide the means for me to be able to fulfill my calling.”
Les,
Indeed, I know that you have been consistent in your stance on this issue all along. And I know that you don’t care about election impact. I’m just curious as to whether your stand may rally some to your cause or push others away.
BTW … you’re up mighty early this morning.
David,
You, too, have been consistent in your views and their expression for the past two years. And I know that you will follow God’s call in your life, no matter how you have to serve. I haven’t read your post and responses on your blog. I’ll make a visit as soon as I’m done typing this response.
I hope you realize that I didn’t post query #4 in order to question your position, but that of the trustees. I sort of see it as “easy” for people to sign the statement when they do not have income, family, and livelihood on the line. In all of the signatures on the statement, yours and Rodney’s are the two which speak the loudest.
I just wonder how many others on the field would desperately like to sign the document, but are afraid to do so.
I truly admire you taking a courageous stand for what you believe.
In reference to #2, stay tuned…in the blogging world….as well as to Indianapolis. The rumor is that more is sure to come…
But, Chris, I’m sure you’ll agree that we have heard stuff like that for two years now. Waiting for the “next shoe to drop.” Waiting for the “book to come out.” Etc…
So when I hear such rumor, I’m a bit skeptical.
But I’m still “staying tuned.” I won’t be in Indianapolis. I’m saving all of my education / convention expense for tuition payments.
I’ll have to watch on-line and read all about it.
“might be disqualified from service through their very own mission board due to something such as the personal view of eternal security of the one who immersed them in the waters of baptism.”
Geoff,
Is this really what the IMB policy says? I don’t know where to find it now, but my understanding of the policy was that baptism must be done by the “authority” of a “church” which had the proper view of eternal security, that the personal views of the one performing the baptism are of little importance as long as he/she is “authorized” by a church which has the right perspective on this doctrine.
The fallacy of reasoning becomes apparent when we ask ourselves how one is supposed to ascertain such a thing. How, precisely, do we determine what a church’s “view,” is, for example. Is it a majority vote at a certain point in time?
The policy has it roots in this supposedly “Baptist” ecclesiastical position of distinguishing between true and false churches based particular doctrines believed, rather than whether they are composed of Kingdom saints. It is an elevation of baptism to some kind of validating role in religious life rather than that of a symbolic ordinance.
R. Grann -
No, that is not the exact wording of the policy. But my statement is one potential implication, or “fleshing out” of the policy.
For instance, consider this hypothetical (and it is a hypothetical … any resemblance to actual events is purely coincidental):
What if a young man, who hails from a Baptist heritage and family (but has not made a faith decision of his own) makes a decision to follow Christ and is saved while deployed with the U.S. Army in Iraq? In following through on his decision with baptism, he asks to be immersed. His division chaplain happily agrees to do so, and he is immersed in baptism in one of the swimming pools on the grounds of a former mansion of Saddam Hussein. At the end of his tour he returns home and is welcomed into the membership of his parents’ Southern Baptist church based upon his decision and his obedience to follow Christ in baptism by immersion. Five years later he senses a call of God to serve as a missionary on the international field. Would he be qualified to serve, and would he make it through the IMB’s qualification system?
By the way … his division chaplain who enthusiastically immersed him upon his salvation was a chaplain endorsed by the Assemblies of God. He was assisted by a chaplain endorsed by the Presbyterian Churches (USA).
Geoff,
Regarding your other questions:
1. I am not sure of exactly, in the case of everyone one on the list, who rotated off when. But I do recognize at least several names as having been trustees when the new policies/guidelines were originally passed. I imagine that, with a little research, it wouldn’t be too hard to come up with the answer to this question, though.
2. I am totally unaware of the answer to this question. I am waiting to find out just like everyone else.
3. I haven’t actually been on the field in the last year or so to be able to give much first-hand observation regarding this. I was on the field, however, the initial 1 1/2 years after the new policies/guidelines went into effect. My read on it is that most missionaries are more concerned with just fulfilling their ministry, seeing people come to Christ, disciples made, churches planted, and, especially, as of late, church planting movements facilitated.
I have known of some uneasiness due to fear that trustees may be spying on us, or looking to catch us doing something they don’t like. There is also a bit of confusion related to trying to discern the long-term vision of the IMB, and a perceived discrepancy between overall values of administration/field leadership and trustees. Add on to this the discouragement that often comes with frustrating results, cultural adaptation difficulties, family issues, etc., and it is easy to see how morale may suffer in some instances. To be honest, though, I would be surprised if very many missionaries at all were lying in their beds at night worrying about the new policies/guidelines.
Actually, what concerns me more than the actual policies/guidelines is a mindset that I perceive underlies them of a move towards a greater isolationism in our relationships with other Great Commission Christians and even sister Baptist Conventions around the world. It is disconcerting to pray and plan strategy on how to reach the people you feel God has called you to reach, come to the conclusion that this means greater partnering with other GCCs, and then, have to worry if you are going to get your wrist slapped for doing so.
4. I already answered, and…
5. Who knows?
So some were serving when the guidelines were passed?
That’s very interesting.
Geoff,
I see your point, and the hypothetical case you’ve cited is baptism in the New Testament pattern from my perspective.
The new IMB policy might invalidate the baptism in the case you cited in the following way (I am giving way the Landmark Baptists thought about this, having spent so many years among them I am quite familiar with it): since the Assemblies of God churches are not true churches because they believe one can lose one’s salvation, and the Presbyterian church is not a true church because they baptize infants, their ministers do not have authority from a true church to perform baptism.
This points out the theological implications of the IMB policy, i.e. that true churches are not assemblies of God’s forgiven people, but God’s forgiven people who have correct thinking.
Exactly. Very well stated.
The very idea that a group of people in a room somewhere in Richmond can “invalidate” someone’s baptism should send shivers up the spines of autonomous churches throughout our convention.
William,
So, you would be for that group of people in a room somewhere in Richmond to validate a Mormon baptism? Or, a JW’s baptism? Or, a sprinkle on top of the head by the Methodists baptism?
We all should be for some baptisms to be deemed invalid, it’s just a matter of how narrow that you and I and the rest of the SBC think it should be.
Agreed?
David
Has anyone else noticed the almost staggering blogosphere silence regarding this recent event in Baptist life? It’s almost deafening.
Like others who have posted on this “initiative,” I have also noticed lots and lots of readers, but very few commenters. The views from overseas ISP’s have been plentiful, and I’ve noticed lots of visits from Nashville, Richmond, and the DFW area. FYI.
David,
I agree. But how many SBC churches do you think recognizes a Morman or JW’s baptism?
None would be my guess.
IF, I know it is a big IF, a local Southern Baptist Church investigates a person’s Baptism before admitting them into their membership then why would the IMB’s guideline override that church’s decision?
What if the person was baptized at a Southern Baptist church whose pastor did not believe in the deity of Christ? Would their baptism then be illegitimate? If so, I imagine there could be alot of people who have an illegitimate baptism and need to get dunked again and I guess, as long as we don’t report those, that would be OK, right?
William,
The point is that the ordinance of baptism was given to the Church. It’s not a personal thing…it’s a church thing. So, the Church, or the Churches of the SBC in cooperation in doing missions, need to be satisfied that a persons baptism is a true, legitimate, Scriptural baptism. If a child was baptised by their mother in the backyard swimming pool after she led him to Christ, with only a brother and sister present, would you accept that baptism, or think that the SBC should accept that baptism?
Also, William, your statement about no SB Churches accepting a Mormon baptism…well, we just had a big debate in the blog world not too long ago with at least one SB missionary saying that they would accept a Mormon baptism. So, I guess that there are some that would accept Mormon and JW baptisms out there in SBC Land. And, they would not be happy about people in their churches being asked to be Scripturally baptised in order to be a SB missionary.
So, the question remains for the SBC to answer….just how narrow do we make the baptismal requirements…or, what will accept as a true, Scriptural baptism. That’s the 94 million dollar question that’s being discussed and debated. But, we need to keep one thing clear…we all would not accept some baptisms. So, we dont need to make those who feel a little more “narrow” about it look like meanies for demanding a true baptism for our m’s.
Personally, I’m not a Landmarkist. Thus, I believe that they go a little far about this issue. But, I dont think that they’re some scheming, mean fundies who are trying to kill everyone’s liberty and snuff out Church autonomy. They just believe in a more narrow view than I hold, and that I’d hope that the SBC would hold.
David
Pastor Worley
I’ve seen you and another poster state in explicit language that an IMB missionary would accept a Mormon baptism. If an IMB missionary said that, they should be sent (or kept) home.
The problem is that statement was never said in that form.
Please reread the original comment instead of accepting this stripped down and revised version as gospel. The missionary never said that he would as a rule accept a Mormon baptism. His acceptance of a Mormon was so highly qualified that in a practical sense it would never happen. I believe he said as much.
It’s not a problem to disagree with his acceptance of this highly qualified, and very improbable, baptism. I’m somewhat sure I would NOT accept it. Just make sure you are disagreeing with what he said, not what others want to say he said.
I really try not to read motives into what is commented on, but I gotta admit I’m struggling here a bit.
David,
You said, “Personally, I’m not a Landmarkist. Thus, I believe that they go a little far about this issue. But, I dont think that they’re some scheming, mean fundies who are trying to kill everyone’s liberty and snuff out Church autonomy. They just believe in a more narrow view than I hold, and that I’d hope that the SBC would hold.”
Are you saying that your desire the SBC to adhere to “Landmark” views, even views more narrow than your own?
David Worley,
Mike already answered, saying a good part of what I would say. Looking back, I probably should have avoided the question when it was first asked to me, because it could have, and obviously has been used as a trap.
I have already said it on this blog, and on several others out there. But, I get the feeling that if don’t keep repeating myself, these false rumors and innuendos will continue to float around the blogosphere. So I need to make myself clear.
I do not believe in Mormon baptism. However, neither do I believe that the doctrinal views or moral integrity of the administrator of baptism, or of the group authorizing the administrator of baptism, determines the validity of the baptism.
The important thing is the faith of the person being baptized, their intention to be obedient to the command of Christ, and the mode of baptism. The command to baptize is given to disciples of Jesus in general. The idea that it is given specifically to the local church has no scriptural justification.
Read Dave Miller’s excellent series of recent posts on this, if you doubt this is true.
Also, the truth is, some of the disciples, and local churches, that take upon themselves the prerogative to baptize turn out, in the end, to be false disciples, false teachers, and/or false churches. Does this mean, then, that we must go back and trace down everyone who submitted to baptism, in good faith, at the hands of these people and churches, and tell them they need to be baptized again? Some of these churches may even have masqueraded as “Baptist” churches.
To me, the only answer to this dilemma is that the validity of baptism does not hinge on the one doing the baptizing, but rather on the intention of the one being baptized.
That is the whole point I was making. The whole “Mormon thing” is one giant red herring.
I wish some of you would acknowledge this, and move on. It is not a good thing to impugn the character of a fellow brother in Christ.
David Worley,
I know my name isn’t a common name here because I often read blogs but don’t believe I have ever posted on a blog before today.
I do not set traps. I wanted to engage in this conversation so I could understand this issue better before Indianapolis.
I understand your concern about it being a trap. I have seen people set those on this site and others and I want you to know that is not what I am about.
I hope my previous comments do no throw this comment strand off subject.
Here is my main question:
IF the IMB is going to deny candidates because of a specific policy on Baptism, shouldn’t the convention approve such a measure before it is established?
William,
Your input and opinions are most welcome here. It is admirable that you are seeking to be an informed participant.
I am having a little difficulty connecting your statement on “setting traps.” Are you talking to volfan or David Rogers. David R. made reference to a hypothetical that was used as something of a “trap” to get him to state his position … which has since been repeated, revised, modified, and commented upon in various blogs.
Just looking for a little clarification.
Thanks for making us your first place to comment!
Geoff,
Sorry for the confusion, I have my two boys with me in the office while my pregnant wife is at a routine doctors appointment. I was confused about who/what they were talking about. Now I have read it through again, I believe they are talking about something else that happened in a previous comment strand, not this one.
William -
Roger, that.
That’s why little kids and babies were made for you young folk.
Where do you live and serve?
Geoff
I live in Coats, NC and serve as Youth Pastor at Coats Baptist Church.
William Futrell,
The trustees of an entity can set policy for their entity. The discussion (for a couple years) in the blogsphere has been about the degree to which trustees can/should go beyond the the Baptist Faith and Message (which since moderates were pushed out of the SBC has taken on a more authoritative role) in setting entity policy. If trustees do go beyond the BFM, or if they set what some believe to be inappropriate policy, the only means to keep them in check is the Convention itself (or to elect a string of SBC presidents which will appoint trustees with a different viewpoint).
This is why the recent Time to Change Statement is quite unique. The authors of this document are challenging what they believe to be an inappropriate policy set by the IMB trustee board and are taking the issue to the Southern Baptists people themselves. We are all now wondering whether they are going to attempt to present a motion (of some kind) from the Convention floor for a vote. The list of signatures they’ve collected on their document is rather impressive.
R.G.,
I’ve seen the list and there are several people I know and respect.
Why couldn’t someone just make a motion stating that if an entity’s trustees are going to make a policy that goes beyond the BFM 2000, they bring it to the convention for a vote so that the issue can be openly discussed and debated. That way we would know why certain things are done
David Rogers,
I doubt very seriously that Tim Rogers set a trap for you. He was probably honestly seeing just how far that you’d go with your view of baptism, or to help you see where it would logically end up….what it’d lead to. And, I know that I’m not I’m not trying to set any traps. I also am not trying to impugn your character. I didnt even mention your name. You and Mike did that.
Also, David, did you not say that if the person was truly saved, and was baptised(immersed) by a Mormon Church, that you would see no reason to not accept their baptism as valid? Did you not basically say that? I thought that’s what I read, and I think that I remember that it was in response to Tim’s question…was it not?
David and Mike, I really dont appreciate the tone that both of you seem to be taking towards me, either. You both seem to be implying that I’m just trying to make David Rogers look bad. I am not. I was simply responding to the conversation at hand, especially concerning William Futrell’s comment and question.
Now, David, if I am in error, please tell me how I’m in error, and I will certainly apologize. And, I will stress again that I am in no way trying to make you look bad. But, there are some people out there who have said that they would accept the baptism of a mother baptising her child in the backyard immediately after the child receiving the Lord. And, I will be checking the conversation that you had with Tim a while back. But, I really have no desire to get into any debate or arguement with you.
William, first of all, I dont know how in the world you can even find the right keys with that many children around you. And, God bless your wife and your unborn child. And, again, my answer to you…which is all that I was trying to do before people got upset with me…was that there are always baptisms that would be invalid, or deemed not Scriptural baptisms by the IMB, or by the SBC. It’s just a matter of how “narrow” are we gonna be. I mean, sprinkling and pouring would not be accepted. Campbellite baptisms would not be accepted.
Geoff, I’m not sure that I’m understanding your question to me. Could you reword it, please?
David
William,
That might be a good motion, but enforcement would be another thing. We don’t have judges or a police force. All we have are some very blunt tools to replace trustees.
RG,
You are right. No police or Judges, but the SBC does have a mighty nice checkbook. Witholding funds could make some people rethink acting too quickly.
Pastor Worley,
You seem to be one who appreciates plain speech. As far as I’m concerned, that’s an admirable trait. The one thing I can’t stand about some evangelical bloggers is how they use grace filled words to tell you you are a low down skunk. All in love of course.
Here’s my question: How should I respond when your reading of a comment is fundamentally different than mine? You see an ecumenical nightmare while I see a writer trying to illustrate a point using the tool his discussion opponents gave him.
Let’s honestly agree on one thing: I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to some bloggers, and you tend to give the benefit of the doubt to some bloggers.
What do we do if they are not the same group?
David,
I think I was more confused by your statement (which I quoted) than your were by my question.
I think you may have slightly misspoken … or I may have slightly misunderstood … or both, which is entirely possible.
In your last paragraph in comment 17, you began … “Personally, I’m not a Landmarkist. Thus, I believe that they go a little far about this issue. But, I dont think that they’re some scheming, mean fundies who are trying to kill everyone’s liberty and snuff out Church autonomy.”
Then, in your final sentence you said this … “They just believe in a more narrow view than I hold, and that I’d hope that the SBC would hold.”
On the surface, your last sentence seems to say that Landmarkers have a more narrow view than your, yet, at the same time, you would “hope that the SBC would hold” such narrow Landmark views.
That is the source of my confusion.
BTW … are you coming through Cadiz on the way to Indy? If so, you need to stop by and let me buy you and your wife a meal. I owe you one.
William,
Trustees don’t get paid, and we don’t want to starve the missionaries. Welcome to SBC politics and the feeling of helplessness.
Granne …
Blunt tools, eh?
David Worley,
Thanks for your answer. I accept, in good faith, your explanation of your intentions in what you wrote.
I am seeing now that what I wrote on Tim Rogers’s blog has a lot of potential for being misunderstood, and for that reason, I probably should have been more careful in the way I worded it.
However, I do want to make clear here that whenever someone says I approve of, or accept the validity of “Mormon baptism,” I think that is a misinterpretation of what I was saying. From what I understand, Mormons, when they “baptize,” do so with a certain degree of “baggage” that comes with it. When you are “baptized” in a Mormon ceremony, you are, in effect, communicating your agreement with the false Mormon gospel. For this reason, I would never ever recommend someone to be “baptized” by Mormons.
What I was talking about, however, was a highly hypothetical situation in which someone, for who knows what reason, truly accepted Christ by grace through faith, and got confused and thought they were being obedient to Christ’s command when they were “baptized” by a Mormon somewhere, somehow. I don’t see why this would ever happen. It is totally hypothetical. Would this person need to be baptized all over again because the person baptizing them was defective in their doctrine?
As I see it, if we said yes, then we would have to re-baptize everyone whenver it came out that the person or church that had baptized them had apostasized, or had been shown to be heretical in their views. None of us could ever be totally sure when this might happen to us. That is what happened in the Donatist controversy of the 4th and 5th century. All kinds of people who thought, in good faith, they had been “baptized,” were all of the sudden informed their baptisms were no longer valid, because the ones who had performed them had since “fallen away” from the faith, even though they returned later.
At the bottom line, this discussion is not about “Mormon baptism,” and I should not have let it get sidetracked there. It is about whether the validity of baptism hinges upon the doctrinal correctness and moral integrity of the one doing the baptizing.
RG,
I am used to feeling helpless…. I am a youth pastor- Ha ha
William,
True dat! I spent 12 years in those trenches.
OK Guys,
I have enjoyed the conversation, but I gotta go. The boys are needing a change of environment.
Free Indeed,
William
Geoff,
What I meant is that Landmarkers hold to a more narrow view than what I hold to, and that I would want the SBC to hold to. IOW, I believe that Landmarkers go a little bit too narrow, and I hope that the SBC would never go that narrow.
Geoff, alas, I wont be coming thru Cadiz, but maybe you and I can meet at the Golden Corral in Murray and eat some cow flesh… especially if you’re buying.
David
Geoff,
Blunt tools. I mean how can you get trustees to change their policy. You can’t. Pass a motion, they can ignore it (although they might not). The only enforcement is for the Convention to pass a motion to fire all the trustees on a board and for the SBC president to appoint new ones (never tried, but Herschel Hobbs said the Convention could do it). Or you can elect SBC presidents favorable to your point-of-view and let new trustees rotate on the boards. To replace half the trustees (seven year appointments) takes about 4 years. This is only approach that really works, and that is why the election this year will tell us which way things will go. There are political strategists out there who know this.
Got to go. Supposed to be writing a report. Will check back tonight.
Mike Woodward,
I do appreciate plain speech. I dont appreciate people implying that I’m doing something that I was not….especially if they dont know the intent of my heart.
I thank the Lord for David Rogers. I dont agree with him on some issues, and that’s ok. As far as I’m concerned he’s a good brother in Christ.
I dont know you, nor have I had the opportunity to get to know you, but I’m sure that you love the Lord and love your family and your Church family. I’m sure that you’re a good brother in the Lord as well.
David
David W. -
I can’t afford the gas to go to Murray, much less Indy.
And I thought your comment back up the line lost a little something in the translation. thanks for helping me understand.
BTW … don’t all you preachers have Wednesday night to get ready for?!! Whole lotta bloggin’ goin’ on.
David Worley,
Thank you. I think you are a good brother in Christ as well, and I thank the Lord for you. I think that is a good place from which to continue the on-going discussion. I hope this spirit can spread further beyond here.
Volfie
You are correct – you do like plain speech – and I am going to issue you a plain challenge.
When you see someone misrepresenting what David Rogers has said on this “Mormon Baptism” issue – which is a non issue, I would appreciate it if you would correct them.
I think it will take one of you BI boys to set the other BI boys straight.
I commented to David Rogers earlier on his blog that I’ll bet he never takes the bait on another hypothetical situation again. He engaged Tim Rogers question and all it has gotten him is grief.
I for one am praying for David Rogers, and am amazed at how patient he has been in answering this over and over and over agin.
JIm
This points out the theological implications of the IMB policy, i.e. that true churches are not assemblies of God’s forgiven people, but God’s forgiven people who have correct thinking.
I think you have given me confirmation of my long-time sense that there are some Baptists who, though their doctrine says “once saved, always saved”, their practice communicates “by grace are you saved through getting %100 on a theology test”.