101 Comments »

1
Bob Cleveland said:
It’s always amazes me that A) whereas the BF&M says that the command to be witnesses, and the command to go and make disciples, applies to the individual churchmember, and B) we’re under a continuing obligation (per the BF&M) to tell others about Jesus. Yet the authority to baptize (and, for that matter, administer communion), contained in the same commands, is restricted to the Body, and those the Body “authorizes” to administer them.
Also, Jesus never said the Holy Ghost would indwell the Body .. He said He’d be there in their midst whenever numbers of them assembled. It seems to me that the presence which ought to be required for ordinances is the Holy Spirit, not some assemblage headed by someone installed in a position of headship by popular vote.
I have no trouble going along with the typical Baptist view of this, as I’m not looking for anybody to baptize, personally. But I also recall a repentant man on a mission trip who wanted to be baptized in the Sandhurst swimming pool, and I was honored to oblige him.
# August 11th 2009 at 6:51 am

2
Rick Presley said:
Are we debating this again? I thought this was settled with the Whitsitt and Bogard Controversies and the expulsion of Old Landmarkism as described by Graves, Dayton, and Pendleton at the beginning of the last century. Well, not exactly expunged, but this dissension eventually led to the rise of the ABA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Baptist_Association) as well as allowing the encroachment of Modernism into SBC seminaries when the more conservative Landmarkers jumped ship.
Oh well, let me dust off my copy of The Trail of Blood so I can follow along with the opening salvoes of the Landmark Debate of 2009.
Seriously, though, is Landmarkism making a come-back on the heels of the Conservative Resurgence and GCR?
# August 11th 2009 at 7:05 am

3
Wes Kenney said:
Dave,
Thanks for letting me know in advance about this post. I don’t want to get into a back-and-forth about the comments you’ve quoted here, as they came in the midst of conversation, and that context is necessary to really understand what was happening in that dialog, but I would like to address your questions.
1. In Matthew 28, the apostles were “gathered” at the Lord’s command and that was where the commission was given. It was given to the gathered church in the very beginning and nothing has changed that.
2. It belongs to Christ, who granted it to the church and nobody else from the very beginning.
3. Local churches are made up of individuals. 1 Cor states “we have the mind of Christ.” Again, “we too have the Holy Spirit.” When one person claims the whole key to truth, he is acting in line with the papacy. We are priests together.
4. Depends on what you mean by these terms. The doctrine of soul competency taken to an extreme denies human depravity and the need for Christ. And as I said in my last answer, As I said in my last answer, we are priests together, not as individuals. The Scripture always refers to our priesthood in the plural. If you mean by the priesthood of the believer, that you need no priest to stand between you and God, then you have denied the sole and sufficient priesthood of Jesus Christ.
5. Paul seemed to think so. He referred to her as the “pillar and ground of truth.”
6. 1 Cor 11, Paul excoriates the Corinthians for not gathering as one. As I said in the conversation on my post, your view of the descriptive passages in the Acts of the Apostles as normative for us today is a position with which I am quite uncomfortable. I’ve never personally seen an apostle.
7. We are stronger as two or three than as one. Jesus promised His presence in Matthew 18 is not for me and my buddy to get together in the woods, it is a promise that when the church is gathered intentionally as the church, he is in their midst.
It seems to me that you are mischaracterizing my view as one that sees “the church” as some foreign entity exercising control over individual believers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The church is individual believers, gathered at Christ’s command, and exercising the authority He gave her. It is not an individual, it is individuals.
Again, thanks for the heads up. I’m going to be out most of the day, but I’ll try to check back in as I have opportunity. And, while I like the picture up there, I personally prefer a purple or scarlet shirt with my clerical collar.
:)
# August 11th 2009 at 7:48 am

4
Dave Miller said:
Rick, our view of the church is fundamental to so many other issues. I am gratified that I do not believe that Wes’ viewpoint represents a majority position among Southern Baptists. But it represents a significant view in a segment of Southern Baptists, that must be engaged.
# August 11th 2009 at 8:15 am

5
Dave Miller said:
Wes, I worked hard to give context on your comments, and I would hope you would deal with them. I believe I accurately presented what you said. If I did not, please attempt to correct the record. But I would hope that you would engage here to clarify the discussion.
I am still stunned by your viewpoint that individuals cannot discern truth apart from the mediation of the local church.
I also wish you would expand your view of soul competancy and priesthood. The priesthood doctrine, especially, seems to stand in direct contrast to what you said above. You talked about the “extreme” view.
What, actually, do you believe soul competancy means? What is the priesthood of believers, if we must go through the mediation of a local church to find truth.
I am hoping that I am misunderstanding you.
# August 11th 2009 at 8:30 am

6
Scott Gordon said:
Dave,
I have some thoughts on your questions…
1. I cannot help but believe that the local church is the focus of the Great Commission. No believer, hoping to be in right relationship with Christ can do so apart from being connected to His body in visible fellowship with believers in a local church (Hebrews 10:25). I feel that part two of your question here is poorly worded…I believe that sufficient evidence exists for the understanding of requisite accountability for our carrying out of the Great Commission to the local church. To do less leaves the door wide open for unchecked error to enter the evangelist’s message…this ties into another question in a minute.
2. Yes, baptism is to be carried out, again, with accountability to the local church. This question is tired, worn-out. It’s not about location. It is about our covenantal responsibilities to our brothers and sisters in our church family. We are saved for life together, not a life of solitude on the open range. Even those in pioneer areas are sent by local churches. Such is evident throughout the book of Acts.
3. The promise of the Holy Spirit is a both/and not an either/or. Certainly I am able to read the Scriptures and come to personal convictions regarding what they say, but I do not have the right to claim that my individual convictions must be seen as the final word on God’s truth. We see in Acts certain individuals who tried that and were severely castigated by church leaders. Paul wrote to individual churches and pastors to warn them of individuals who would use the Scriptures in a way to create a new, different, or better ‘gospel’. These people were not to be accepted and applauded for their believer priesthood, they were denounced as anethema, to be marked and avoided, to have nothing to do with foolish tales contrary to the Gospel they had received. I have no need of a pope. I have great need of accountability, even as a pastor, to my brothers and sisters in the local church. Other than that we have ourselves another Les Feldick, an interesting character who is teaching dangerous stuff out of Southeastern Oklahoma (not far from my last pastorate in Central Oklahoma), who lauds his disdain for the local church and doctrinal accountability.
4. You have already admitted the abuses inherent to an improper understanding of these concepts. Soul competency and a believer’s priesthood requires corporate accountability. Once again, we seem to be living in a post-modern, anything goes world to which the churches in our day are willing to acquiesce. Rather than having such a hyper-individualistic form of Christianity OR a hyper-institutionalized form of Christianity, we need to have a proper picture…THE BODY of Christ, each member an individual part yet all expressly part of THE BODY. The eye, hand, or foot cannot say that he has no need of the other…for relationship, for theology, for ministry, for life. A hand is not the body, it is a part of the body which will suffer apart from THE BODY.
5. Yes, the church…and watch out here…both universal (*gasp*) and local is the primary source given responsibility to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the SAINTS. We have the witnesses to consistent orthodoxy and orthopraxy throughout Christian history and our confessions and creeds we hold to be orthodox have been written and confirmed by God’s people in His churches.
6. The harm comes from detracting from the significance and beauty of the fellowship God intended and established for the assembly. Just this morning I was listening to a segment from Todd Friel’s Wretched Radio program in which he discussed the differentiation made in the New Testament between Christians gathered in houses fellowshipping as believers and people gathered in houses for the purposes of fulfilling the commands of Christ to the body of Christ, the ministry of the local church. There are certain things which can only be done as the local church, these two are quite significant to that identity of Christ’s churches.
7. Inevitably? I suppose there could be an exception to the 100% inevitability, but the far greater danger lies outside of accountability to the local church. Sure people can, even pastors can, slide into doctrinal errors within the context of the local church. BUT, herein lies the fact that those individuals are choosing to rebel against the time-honored witness of God’s word and what faithful believers in His churches have understood His word to be saying.
Well, you asked the questions. I was irresistibly drawn to respond!
Sola Gratia.
# August 11th 2009 at 9:11 am

7
David Rogers said:
In the past couple of years, we have discussed these issues ad nauseum. But, since I have an opinion about this, and have done a bit of thinking on it, once more, I will allow myself to be drawn into the discussion and throw in my 2¢ worth…
I have “gotten into trouble” for using the “l” word before, or with prefacing it with the prefix “neo,” so I will refrain for now. ☺ However, call it whatever you choose to call it, the view that Wes espouses (and the majority of the contributors at SBC Today), though apparently based on a trivial (or at least, minor) matter, ends up having important consequences for the possibilities of fruitful cooperation at a denominational level.
Back in the 1st century, Ignatius of Antioch said that the local bishop (or pastor of the city church) was the key to unity, and deciding on debated issues. This, I believe, was the door through which nearly 1900 years of papism (or papist-tending episcopalianism) was enabled. It also was the door through which much doctrinal error was introduced and legitimized.
As I understand it, the view Wes is espousing is a view which says basically the same thing as Ignatius–only that, instead of the bishop, the key to unity, and deciding on debated issues, is the democratic process of the duly constituted local congregation (a.k.a. Baptist church).
Ultimately, though, I believe this view is subject to the same basic flaw as that of Ignatius. Just as bishops are neither infallible, sinless, nor beyond the reach of corruption, the same is true for individual local congregations. In the end, the individual believer is bound by his/her conscience, and his/her understanding of the Word of God. Otherwise, we would have no legitimate basis for leaving one congregation, which we felt had apostasized, or gotten off-track in one way or another, and joining ourselves to another one.
I would say that, in the biblical system of “checks and balances,” over and beyond the supervisory role of the millions of individual local congregations out there, who don’t see eye to eye on many issues, is that of the universal church. I am assuming here we are all on agreement on the fundamental authority of the Bible and the Holy Spirit. However, as I understand it, the combined weight of the opinions and practice of the compendium of true disciples of Jesus down through history and around the world takes precedence, in my mind, over that of the 127 brothers and sisters at Mt. Beulah Baptist in County Seat, USA.
This does not mean that I do not value the input and spiritual accountability of the 127 brothers and sisters at Mt. Beulah. I value them very much. And, I believe in living out my Christian discipleship, in a day-in day-out context very much in fellowship with them (or whatever local group I happen to belong to).
But, when I am faced with a conflict between the views of the members of Mt. Beulah, and what Scripture seems to teach, and what the weight of the teaching of the universal church seems to confirm, I will most likely go with the universal church.
Granted, there is some subjectivity in this. The majority is not always right, as the 1900 years of papism have clearly demonstrated. But there is also the same degree (or more) of subjectivity in the local church only (or local church pre-eminently) position. In the end, soul competency means that God is going to hold me accountable for investigating and weighing the merits of different views, and submitting to what I understand His Word to teach.
Also, I would love it if this discussion could center on Dave Miller’s excellent series of posts on BI baptism and the Bible. I still have not heard anyone present a cogent argument against the abundant and thorough evidence that Dave presents there. For me, the Word of God is our ultimate authority, and Dave does an excellent job of analyzing the teaching of the Word of God on this issue.
As I understand Wes’s view (and of others who agree with him), the biblical evidence hinges on an interpretation of the Great Commission in Matt. 28:16-20 that assumes a “BI ecclesiology” right from the start. Matt. 28:16-20 says nothing, however, about organizations, congregations, autonomy, democratic process, etc. It is merely Jesus instructions to his disciples, who happen to be gathered together as a group at the time. Are we to conclude that anytime any group of believers gathers together for any purpose that they are therefore a local church? Why not say, baptism is legitimate, when performed by a true disciple, as long as there are at least 2 true disciples present? There is just as much evidence for this perspective as for the perspective that says it has to be under the supervision of a duly constituted local congregation (a.k.a. Baptist church).
# August 11th 2009 at 9:22 am

8
David Rogers said:
Here is the link to the first post in Dave’s original series on baptism. For anyone who has not yet read through all of the posts in Dave’s series, I urge you to do so. It is well worth the time.
http://thistentsjustright.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-biblical-baptism.html
# August 11th 2009 at 9:34 am

9
Ray said:
Wes’ position reveals on ongoing debate in Southern Baptist life with respect to the Church. When exactly did the Church begin? For those who declare that the ‘Church’ was ‘gathered’ in Matthew 28 place themselves in the difficult position of defending the possibility that there was a time when the Church was without the power of the Spirit. Others, including myself, believe the Church began at Pentecost with the giving and receiving of the Holy Spirit.
# August 11th 2009 at 9:56 am

10
John Fariss said:
Since I am (apparently) unable to enter a lengthy comment, I will submit a more condensed one. This is based on the work of historian Dr. Jeffrey Burton Russell, now retired, but who taught at places ranging from UC-Berkley to Notre Dame to Harvard. In his “History of Medieval Christianity,” he suggests that the church then became polarized into advocates for order, and those who advocated prophesy–and in the medieval Catholic church, order’s advocates won the day, precipitating the Protestant reformation on the side of prophesy. In the preface, he says, “Both spirits are in the tradition of Jesus, . . . But the spirit of order has attempted to reform men and their institutions to correspond with the will of God, while the spirit of prophesy has sought to transform them, to lift them out of this world into the world and life of God.” He suggests the tension between the two are necessary in the life of the church. Is it possible that Dave’s perspective is based on this spirit of prophesy, and Wes’s on that of order?
# August 11th 2009 at 10:01 am

11
Chris Johnson said:
Brother Dave,
Interesting post, and one that clearly reveals some distinctive thoughts within the Southern Baptist Convention. As I look back at the political statements that were deemed necessary by the convention, it is also clear that a progressive thought on the nature of the church is shaped by simply adding more words.
I have highlighted and underlined the changes to the “faith and message” to focus attention on the few times a committee within the convention felt the need to articulate its view. I find the progression interesting, creating a great ambiguity of words that can be twisted and contrived to be anything anyone wants them to be and used politically as anyone deems necessary. The “congregation” in the original was assumed to be empowered by the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Bible written through the Apostles, echoes that same empowerment.
1925 – A church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel;
1962 – A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel
2000 – A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel;
Dave, I believe it is clear that the church is Christ’s and through the power of the Holy Spirit the members are edified being members one of another. The Apostles never used referents to the church as “New Testament”…why would they? The Apostles never used the term “autonomous” or “local”…again why would they?,…since scripture is clear that this need to depend upon terms for organizational control did not enter their minds once they understood the purpose and power of the Spirit. Yet, the Apostles understood that the church, living by the power of the Holy Spirit, met locally (how else could they meet), and the church had the privilege and responsibility to be autonomous for the sake of the gospel (to fend off anti-Christ wolves). So how one uses these terms is critically important to a mature understanding of the biblical view of the church that is Christ’s alone.
As Rick has pointed out, the SBC seems to always return to this question, and I believe it to be a good thing to continually remind the convention of Christ and His church. We are obviously all taught a bit different on this issue, and it does have implications to how one understands their role in the church. I believe the Apostle Paul gives us a comprehensible directive as he approached the Roman Christians when he said. …..Romans 1:8-12 “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. (9) For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, (10) always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. (11) For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; (12) that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.”
Paul assumed the church to be a body of believers that would accept him, edify him, and he would do the same. This same theme reverberates throughout the book of Galatians and all of the books written after Christ ascended to the Father. An Apostle we know well misunderstood this differently for a time (Peter),…but were corrected and repented of that misunderstanding of the church. We should be careful today not to assume that the church is ignorant, being less than empowered by the same Holy Spirit than we are,… if so, that type of thinking will result in political separation void of any edification. If one puts their faith in organizations they miss the head being Christ and more often than not form their alliances on political grounds. The SBC is called to edify, not to build up strongholds for the sake of political gain.
Blessings,
Chris
# August 11th 2009 at 10:16 am

12
David Rogers said:
John Fariss,
I am not aware of any comment length limitations here at Impact. It must have been some temporary glitch. That is, if you meant that the site itself did not permit you to enter in a longer comment.
# August 11th 2009 at 10:37 am

13
Benji Ramsaur said:
Dave,
“1) Do you believe that the local church is the sole focus of the Great Commission command? Is the evidence sufficient on which to build the idea of local church dominion over all Great Commission activities?”
I don’t think so. I don’t believe the immediate gathered disciples constituted a local church in the first place. My evidence:
1. Luke’s two volume work [Luke & Acts] says nothing about ekklesia until after Pentecost.
2. Matthew mentions ekklesia three times and one of those times communicates that the ekklesia would be future–”I WILL build my church” Jesus said. Jesus sent His disciples out to preach during His earthly ministry. He could have said “I am building my church” or “I am building [up] my church”. However, He did not say that.
3. John’s completed set of works [John, 1-2-3 John, Revelation] says nothing about the ekklesia until after Pentecost took place in history.
4. One of the images of the church is that the church is the Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells. If the Spirit had not come yet, then there is no Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells.
Grace to you,
Benji
# August 11th 2009 at 10:37 am

14
Robin Foster said:
John
While your attempt to bring in an “expert” to illustrate that Wes is advocating something anti-spiritual is clever, one needs to only look at the actions of the reformers to see their own attempts at order in the murdering of the Anabaptists.
BTW, spiritual things are things of order. It is the Holy Spirit himself who inspired Paul to write 1 Cor. 13:40
40 But ​a​all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.
# August 11th 2009 at 10:37 am

15
Benji Ramsaur said:
Dave,
“1) Do you believe that the local church is the sole focus of the Great Commission command? Is the evidence sufficient on which to build the idea of local church dominion over all Great Commission activities?”
I don’t think so. I don’t believe the immediate gathered disciples constituted a local church in the first place. My evidence:
1. Luke’s two volume work [Luke & Acts] says nothing about ekklesia until after Pentecost.
2. Matthew mentions ekklesia three times and one of those times communicates that the ekklesia would be future–”I WILL build my church” Jesus said. Jesus sent His disciples out to preach during His earthly ministry. He could have said “I am building my church” or “I am building [up] my church”. However, He did not say that.
3. John’s completed set of works [John, 1-2-3 John, Revelation] says nothing about the ekklesia until after Pentecost took place in history.
4. One of the images of the church is that the church is the Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells. If the Spirit had not come yet, then there is no Sanctuary of God where the Spirit dwells.
God Bless,
Benji
# August 11th 2009 at 10:40 am

16
John Fariss said:
David,
I did not mean to imply that y’all had imposed some length restriction. Please accept my apology, as it does sound like that, but I did not mean it so. I suppose the problem is some sort of computer glitch, whether at my end or at the server I do not know.
Robin,
I did not say that Wes or his perspective was anti-spiritual. Rather, I suggested that his perspective was more in line with a Biblical call for order than with an equally Biblical call for prophesy. It is not the same thing as calling the perspective “anti-spiritual,” at least not as “anti” is commonly used. And I am not quite sure what to make of your comment that I am “attempt to bring in an ‘expert’ to illustrate that Wes is advocating something anti-spiritual is clever.” I simply believe in giving credit for an idea where credit is due, in this case to Dr. Russell. as far as the “clever” comment, I don’t know, but that sounds like an attempt to disparage or overlook the possibility that I might be on to something.
John
# August 11th 2009 at 10:53 am

17
Benji Ramsaur said:
Dave,
This is how I see the fulfillment of Christ’s words concerning the future building of the ekklesia on Peter [as I take it]. I have been helped by something James P. Boyce said in the article I referred to over at SBC Today.
I think when Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit that created the church. Then Peter preached the gospel. That was Jesus “building [up]” the church on Peter. Then the text in Acts says that “the Lord” added to the church.
“The Lord” is referring to the Lord [Jesus Christ] and thus we can see the fulfillment of Christ’s words. Christ was building up/adding to His church.
Today?
Well, back in the text in Matthew, Jesus asked all of the disciples who they thought He was. He did not ask Peter specifically. However, I think Peter spoke for the entire group when He made that marvelous confession.
Today we do not have Peter. However, we have the Apostolic writings that Peter represented. When that Apostolic gospel is preached, Jesus continues to build up the church on that rock.
That’s how I see it.
God Bless,
Benji
# August 11th 2009 at 10:55 am

18
Scott Gordon said:
David R,
As I read it the gathering in Matthew 28 was not a chance gathering. It was ordered by Christ…who is the head of the church.
Also, I sense you are no fan of systematic theology regarding the doctrine of the church. Surely no one would argue that any gathering of 3 people should be called the church. On the other hand, I also do not see within the total witness of Scripture, letting Scripture inform Scripture, any understanding that we can live our lives as believers and consider ourselves to be obedient to the commands of Christ without visible connection with and accountability to a local church.
Sola Gratia!
# August 11th 2009 at 11:24 am

19
Scott Gordon said:
Benji,
Comment #15, would you then concede that Christ was establishing the framework of His church with his initial disciples and thus laid down the confession of Peter as an essential for His church which would be expressed in local congregations as defined elsewhere in the Bible? In other words, Jesus could give instructions for His churches prior to the visible establishment of said churches?
SG!
# August 11th 2009 at 11:31 am

20
Tim Rogers said:
Brother Dave,
This argument that the church was not the church until after Pentecost is an interesting one. I would certainly agree that the organism we call the church today was not officially sealed to do her work until Pentecost, but I would disagree that the understanding of the church as a local congregation was not until Pentecost. You see, in Matthew 18:17 Jesus instructed his disciples to take an erring brother before the “church” (ekklesia), one of the three times that Matthew mentions this word. The time that Matthew referred to this word was when he referenced the church universal, something that has not been gathered yet. Jesus will build his church (the one that contains believers of all denominations) on the faith statement of Peter.
I will not rehash the arguments that Brother’s Wes, Scott, and Robin have presented. I would like to say that you do err when you compare Brother Wes’ use of the church as being God’s holder of accountability to that of the Catholic Church. You see the Catholic church’s decisions reside in the mind of the Pope. The autonomy of the local church–a distinct principle of being Baptist–keeps one person from becoming a Pope. Dr. Mark Dever’s analysis of Matthew 18:17 in A Theology for the Church says, “The congregation was ultimately responsible for ensuring converts were baptized and the Lord’s Supper was duly administered to those giving credible evidence of regeneration. And the congregation was ultimately responsible for protecting and defining membership of a church, but in admitting and dismissing members. Thus Paul assigned these responsibilities to the Corinthians congregation in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2.”
Blessings,
Tim
# August 11th 2009 at 11:31 am

21
Tim Rogers said:
Brother Dave,
Sorry, but “The time that Matthew referred to this word was when he referenced the church universal, something that has not been gathered yet. Should read; The one time that Matthew referred to this word was when he referenced the church universal, something that has not been gathered yet.
Blessings,
Tim
# August 11th 2009 at 11:36 am

22
Benji Ramsaur said:
Scott,
“In other words, Jesus could give instructions for His churches prior to the visible establishment of said churches?”
Yes, I believe that. I believe that entire sermon on the mount is for local churches for example.
“Comment #15, would you then concede that Christ was establishing the framework of His church with his initial disciples and thus laid down the confession of Peter as an essential for His church which would be expressed in local congregations as defined elsewhere in the Bible?”
I’m not sure what you mean by framework. I think Peter “represented” the Apostles and thus “represented” the Apostolic word [narrowly in the confession and more broadly as well] which I think helps us understand what Ephesians means when it says the Apostles are the foundation of the church.
# August 11th 2009 at 12:01 pm

23
David Rogers said:
Scott,
By the argument you are making, it seems to me that if Jesus were intending the delivery of the Great Commission as a specifically local church event, he would have done it not only with the 11, who are mentioned in Matt. 28:16, but rather with the more than 500 to whom He appeared at the same time, who are mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:6. All 500 + of these were no doubt “members” of the Jerusalem church, since that was the only “local church” there was at this stage, right? Why not call a real bona fide “church meeting” then to give instructions regarding discipleship and baptism?
As far as systematic theology of the church (or ecclesiology) is concerned, actually, I quite enjoy reading the views of various writers on this topic. I perhaps do not agree with all the views of your favorite systematic theologians, but then again, views on ecclesiology are a dime-a-dozen nowadays. And, actually, there are some who would have no problem calling 3 a church. And, to boot, they have a bit of Scriptural evidence on their side: “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matthew 18:20).
As far as visible connection and accountability to a local church are concerned, I am not suggesting anything different, if I am understanding you correctly. That’s why, in case there were any doubt on this point, included the following paragraph in my previous comment:
“This does not mean that I do not value the input and spiritual accountability of the 127 brothers and sisters at Mt. Beulah. I value them very much. And, I believe in living out my Christian discipleship, in a day-in day-out context very much in fellowship with them (or whatever local group I happen to belong to).”
# August 11th 2009 at 12:03 pm

24
Tim Rogers said:
Brother John,
I believe Robin will clarify what he was saying so I will not try to tell him what he should say (I will leave that for his wife to do). :)
You do bring up an interesting perspective. However, I believe you are trying ot point to a tension that really does not exist. Once again, the difference of Catholics and Baptist are so far removed that to compare them is overlooking the basic concepts of one’s commitment to the scripture. Baptist believe in soul competency where Catholics hold to the competency of the Pope. Baptist believe the revelation of Scripture is closed and Catholics believe the Pope speaks new revelation. When Brother Wes references the church he is speaking about a local group of people who advocated the truth of Scripture. That is what the CR was based on–the people in the pew–believing and defining what the Scripture taught. It seems that Dr. Adrian Rogers stated something about this. I cannot remember the exact quote and maybe Brother David will help me with that exact quote, but I believe he said that if Southern Baptist believed the Bible taught monkeys could fly airplanes (or something absurd like that) then the professors needed to teach that the Bible taught monkeys could fly airplanes. As believers, we are tied to a local body of believers. I believe we all would agree that a believer is not truly surrendered to the lordship of Christ if one does not become part of a local assembly.
Blessings,
Tim
# August 11th 2009 at 12:04 pm

25
David Rogers said:
Tim,
I believe the quote you are referring to from my father is the following:
SBC seminary professors must teach “whatever they are told to teach. And if we tell them to teach that pickles have souls, then they must teach that pickles have souls!”
However, the context of the quote is quite different from the context in which you are using it here. He was not talking at all about ecclesiology, per se, but rather about denominational accountability for the money that is given through the Cooperative Program.
See my previous comments on this here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/search?q=souls+pickles
# August 11th 2009 at 12:10 pm

26
David Rogers said:
I know there are many comments here already, and my original comment was a bit long. But I would be very interested in the response from any of you BI guys to my point that, at the bottom line, the BI view of the basis of unity, and orthodoxy, carries with it implicitly the same basic flaw as that of Ignatius of Antioch, when he said that the basis of unity was the local bishop. In other words, if the local church is the ultimate ground of authority, when are ever justified in changing local churches?
# August 11th 2009 at 12:16 pm

27
Benji Ramsaur said:
“3) Do you believe that only the local church can answer difficult questions, or does the Spirit’s indwelling give individual believers the ability to discern biblical truth?
4) Are soul competency and the priesthood of the believer biblical concepts which we should hold on to?”
No, I don’t believe that only the local church can answer difficult questions. In relation to the rest of what you say, let me say this.
I do think it is good to try and understand the Bible in the context of the local church. The New Testament talks about building each other through song and Jesus did give pastors/teachers to the church.
So, I’m not comfortable with someone having the attitude of “Well, I don’t need the local church to help me understand the Bible. I can just read it on my own”. I do think that is too individualistic.
However, on the other hand, I definitely do not believe the church is infallible. I do not believe “the church speaks with the authority of Christ.” I believe Jesus has already spoken in the Apostolic word. And I believe the church has no business pressuring any individual to believe or practice things that are not taught in the New Testament Scriptures. I do believe in Liberty of Conscience.
To sum up, the individual need the church. The church should not trump the individual conscience by trumping the New Testament.
# August 11th 2009 at 12:17 pm

28
Dave Miller said:
Wow, I go away for a hospital visit and lunch, and the comment stream gets pretty full.
David, I agree with you that we have debated this subject “ad nauseum” and yet ecclesiology still seems to be the subject that arouses the most debate and interest. The decisions we make on this will shape the future of our denomination.
I’m still waiting for your book! I’d be glad to write the forward, or at least the jacket testimonial.
# August 11th 2009 at 12:31 pm

29
Chris Johnson said:
I always get a chuckle out of the “universal and local” distinction that some put on the church as if the church is divided or have a good reason to be divided (denominations). Christ never looked at His bride as divided or this theological concept revealed for today as both/and as some wrestle with or use to advertise their particular view, but He did tell her (His bride) that when she gathers in His name, that she is to have a pretty good idea of how she is identified since she has made a singular confession (Matthew 16).
- The extreme localist believes that the organization “grants” membership to this confession through a list of to-do’s or baptism.
- The extreme universalist believes that the individual is a member regardless of any affiliation.
- The committed Christ follower believes they are called out to be members one of another through the work of the Holy Spirit, therefore they understand those of the same confession by their love for one another, not by vote, or by assembly (1 John), but by love and fruits of the Spirit. Those that are intent on separation from us were never really of us, as John was say.
I prefer to use the term ecclesia as those Christ has called in the same way as the Apostle Luke and Paul depicted the church….
Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.
Acts 12:5 So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God.
Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Romans 16:1-5 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; (2) that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. (3) Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, (4) who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; (5) also greet the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia.
Philippians 4:15-16 You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; (16) for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.
Philippians 4:21-23 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you. (22) All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household. (23) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
O how we can profit from the scriptures in order to see the bride more clearly!
Blessings,
Chris
# August 11th 2009 at 12:35 pm

30
Dave Miller said:
John Fariss,
I don’t know what the problem is, but I have been having lots of problems getting my comments to go up (really long waits). Must be some sort of server thing – those little demons that run around inside of computers.
# August 11th 2009 at 12:40 pm

31
Robin Foster said:
John
It seems to me that quote you used equated those of “order” as forcing conformity on others, while those of “prophecy” are those who seek spiritual transformation in people.
I did not want Wes to be mischaracterized as one who thought the church was an agent of conformity such as the RCC has been through out history. If this was not your desire, then I thank you for that. But I still wonder why use this analogy that does not accurately reflect the historical record of the reformers?
# August 11th 2009 at 12:43 pm

32
Dave Miller said:
Scott, well-reasoned thoughtful answers (even when they disagree with my manifest wisdom) – exactly what I would expect from a man-of-the-pinstripes.
John, I am interested in reading more about the spirit of order/spirit of prophesy thing you mentioned. It sounds like it might be worth reading.
# August 11th 2009 at 12:51 pm

33
Scott Bradley said:
As with most hotly debated issues in the SBC, both sides argued have merit. Who would deny that the SBC has always been somewhat influenced by Calvinism yet has remained enthusiastically evangelistic. Likewise, even the tension in this post, which dates back at least 160 years, has allowed the SBC to maintain a strong sense of “local church” while letting individuals be heard. Each of you, if you would check the bylaws of your own church would most likely find that baptism, when performed by that local church, makes one a member of that church through baptism, which is a staunch influence of Landmarkism tying baptism to the local church.
I have heard four important things discussed here, which are baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the universal church, and the local church. The two ordinances were intentionally designed by God to nicely complement the two types of churches discussed here.
Peter said in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism is the “pledge or answer of a good conscience towards God”, i.e. your profession of faith. Is that not what we teach baptism is, an outward profession of an inward experience? This is a pledge to God, not the church, and therefore can be seen as a “universal” profession, making us all one in Christ.
The Lord’s Supper, on the other hand, displays the fellowship of willing believers gathered together as one lump, a “local” profession, if you will.
I believe and teach that baptism is your universal profession of faith in God through Jesus Christ and that you become a member of our church through a conscience decision of a responsible and informed will.
Our Constitution is designed to reflect both the universal display of the church through your profession of faith and that a believer, in order to fulfill the commands of the Scriptures, should not forsake the assembling together as a church with like-minded believers. The local assembling of believers is the soul competency aspect that every believer must be mindful of.
Both sides are correct, yet one without the other leaves both lacking.
# August 11th 2009 at 12:55 pm

34
Dave Miller said:
Scott, well-reasoned thoughtful answers (even when they disagree with my manifest wisdom) – exactly what I would expect from a man-of-the-pinstripes.
John, I am interested in reading more about the spirit of order/spirit of prophesy thing you mentioned. It sounds like it might be worth reading.
Benji,
Interesting perspectives both on the founding of the church and the issue of soul competency. It is evident to me that the church did not form until Pentecost. It is also clear to me that the Great Commission was given to those who were founding the church.
I fully agree with your comment on soul competency. We can neither deny the importance of the local church nor denigrate the importance of individual conscience and competency. Finding that balance is the difficult thing.
# August 11th 2009 at 12:57 pm

35
Dave Miller said:
Scott Bradley – welcome and well-stated.
# August 11th 2009 at 1:00 pm

36
Chris Johnson said:
Brother Robin,
What do you believe are the inherent dangers in exclusively sponsoring one of these two types of thinking?: Established as an organization (local body) vs. Formed as a living organism (entire body that meets locally). It seems that many folks get polarized into one of the two positions. Or, is there really a difference at all?
Blessings,
Chris
# August 11th 2009 at 1:03 pm

37
John Fariss said:
Robin,
Part of the quote was also, “Both spirits are in the tradition of Jesus,” and neither Russell nor I said (or insinuated) that one was good and the other bad. The point is simply that both exist, and in fact that they exist in tension with each other. I would go so far as to say that whenever one has been over-emphasized at the expense of the other, problems have arisen. In the Medieval church, the problem became one of order squelching prophesy, which is the subject of the Russell book I quote. I daresay the opposite has happened in the modern pentecostal or charismatic movement, where prophesy (so-called) is given free reign without the restraits of order. I want neither extreme or exclusion to characterize the Baptist church in the 21st century–neither the wider Baptist family in general nor the SBC in particular.
As for using an “analogy that does not accurately reflect the historical record of the reformers,” I am not sure sure that it doesn’t, but at any rate, I will have to give the matter more thought and prayer.
John
# August 11th 2009 at 1:04 pm

38
Benji Ramsaur said:
Dave,
“It is evident to me that the church did not form until Pentecost. It is also clear to me that the Great Commission was given to those who were founding the church.”
I think you’re right.
# August 11th 2009 at 1:08 pm

39
John Fariss said:
Dave,
Yes, it is interesting, isn’t it? Russell’s book was written back in 1968, and I have no idea if it is still in print or not (doubtful). The full title is A HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: PROPHECY AND ORDER, and its IBSN number is 0-88295-761-9. It was recommended reading in Glenn Miller’s Church History class at SEBTS back pre-CR.
John
# August 11th 2009 at 1:10 pm

40
Benji Ramsaur said:
Dave,
I’m still kind of thinking on what you said.
The gathered Apostles were not the church. The gathered Apostles were the foundation of the church.
I think that is the right distinction.
# August 11th 2009 at 1:14 pm

41
Dave Miller said:
Tim Rogers,
As to the points you have made, I would respond as follows. First, in comment 20, I’m not sure of your interpretation of Matthew 18:17. It is possible that you are assuming a specific usage of a general term (assembly). The word “salvation” sometimes just refers to being rescued or delivered. It does not always refer to what we call salvation. And the use of the word “ekklesia” does not necessitate that we interpret that term as “church.”
As to the use of the reference to the similarities of Wes’ view to catholicism, I am only trying to make one point (and it is certainly not that Wes is a closet papist). The Catholic church withholds the right of individual conscience and invests it in “The Church.” It seems to me that Wes is doing the same thing with the local church that the Catholic church does with the church as a whole. He is denigrating the individual’s right to seek truth separately from the local church.
I am not sure that your understanding of the dynamics of the Catholic church are accurate. I have lived in Catholic-dominated regions for nearly 20 years, and I am not sure that you pope-focused viewpoint would be accurate to the way that Catholics believe or practice. I’m no expert either.
# August 11th 2009 at 1:16 pm

42
Dave Miller said:
Benji, I sort of stopped in mid-thought (trying to answer questions and comments faster than I can type).
The Great Commission was given to the founders of the church. that jives with my view that the command was given generally, not specifically. We are all part of the universal church, and should be part of a specific local congregation.
But the command was general. I do not see the limitation to the local church nor do I see the damage in parachurch groups carrying out Great Commission activities (something Wes seemed to oppose).
# August 11th 2009 at 1:21 pm

43
Dave Miller said:
We have had World-Changers in Sioux City for the last several years. In previous years, we have celebrated the Lord’s Supper together at the prayer service (Tuesday nights?). This year, word came down from the top that we could no longer share the Lord’s supper at World Changers.
Evidently, there were complaints that the Lord’s Supper was being celebrated outside the boundaries of the local church – that a Baptist gathering was sharing the bread and cup outside of strictly defined parameters.
We were upset. How on earth is anyone harmed by a group of young people from various Baptist churches celebrating communion together, even if it is outside a local church setting? That just seems silly and petty to me.
# August 11th 2009 at 1:26 pm

44
John Fariss said:
Some seem to think I have been a bit pro-Catholic, or at least that I am improperly comparing Catholics and Baptists. A thought that the server apparently “ate” and that was part of my original comment was to the effect that, “the genius of the early Baptist movement was that they found a way to accomodate both the calls to prophesy and to order. The call to order was through the conviction that the Bible is our standard in all matters of faith and practice, while the call to propphesy was accomodated through the Baptist distinctives of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer (singular, which allows for rights of conscience–not plural, as something invested only corporately in the church, whether universal or local). Maybe this clartifies my perspective on Baptists, of whom I am one.
John
# August 11th 2009 at 1:28 pm

45
Tim Rogers said:
Brother Dave,
You write; “I am not sure that your understanding of the dynamics of the Catholic church are accurate.” I have stated that the Pope writes scripture. Thus, the decisions of the church is placed in one man’s mind. Here is the statement from Pope Paul VI concerning Vatican II:
“Whatever were our opinions about the Council’s various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be whole hearted and without reserve; it must be willing and prepared to give them the service of our thought, action and conduct. The Council was something very new: not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrine must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed, be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit. (Paul VI to the Roman Curia, 23 April, 1966)” Notice that he attributes the findings of Vatican II as the same as Scripture. Wes at no place states that the local church writes new scripture. What he does say is that the body of believers made up of the local church interpret scripture. Where is the denigration of a person’s right to seek truth? That individual has every right to openly state he does not agree with the local church’s interpretation of that scripture. However, it is the local church’s responsibility to allow or not allow that person leadership. If it is not allowed that person may go and begin his own bible study based on his individual beliefs. But as the only one in that church that believes differently he should not expect the church to accept his interpretation.
You also write: “I’m not sure of your interpretation of Matthew 18:17.”
I believe you will also have to disagree with Dr. Dever on this interpretation. You see in his portion of the above mentioned theology book on page 795 & 796 he writes: “The fundamental responsibility under God for the maintenance of all aspects of public worship of God belongs to the congregation. Whether in settling disputes between Christians(Matthew 18:15-17; Acts 6:1-5)…While congregations may and do err in fulfilling these responsibilities, the responsibilities do not cease to belong to them. No other body, either within or outside the local church, may finally remove these obligations of duty from the congregation as a whole. Toleration of erroneous teaching, particularly in regards to the gospel, neglect of baptism or the Lord’s supper, and carelessness in admitting or dismissing members are all the responsibility of the local congregation.”
Blessings,
Tim
# August 11th 2009 at 2:49 pm

46
Dave Miller said:
As to Mark Dever’s comment, Tim, I do not think I disagree with it (and if I do, even Mark Dever can be wrong, right?) He says, “the fundamental responsibility…” I have said something similar above.
The question is whether Wes is right that the SOLE responsibility in these areas lies with the local church. There’s a difference there.
As to Wes’ comments, they are pretty plain. The individual cannot decide questions like I posed. Only the church can. The congregation is the arbiter of fact in all such decisions.
You said, “What he (Wes) does say is that the body of believers made up of the local church interpret scripture.”
Are you saying an individual with a Bible and the Holy Spirit cannot interpret scripture? Should Martin Luther have yielded to the authority of the local church as he searched scriptures?
What if my local church adopts a false teaching? I must accept that right? If we deny the individual’s right to interpret scripture, we deny the individual’s right to expose false doctrine in the church.
My church’s established policy is that divorced men cannot serve as deacons. Yet, I have written here that I believe that is a wrong interpretation of scripture. Am I in sin because I am saying that my church’s established policy is wrong?
# August 11th 2009 at 3:10 pm

47
Dave Miller said:
Also, I do not believe that the RCC sees the Pope as writing scripture. They believe he has the power to give proper (and binding) interpretations on certain areas, when he speaks ex cathedra. They see church tradition as of a higher value than we do. But even a Pope is not given the power to write scripture.
# August 11th 2009 at 3:22 pm

48
Chris Johnson said:
Brother Tim,
Do you think it is fair to say that you believe that all other SBC congregations are considered the “universal church”, and that the congregation you belong to is called the “local church?”…even though those terms don’t exist in any of the Holy Scriptures.
If so, I’ll ask you the same question that I have asked Brother Robin,…. What do you believe are the inherent dangers in exclusively sponsoring one of these two types of thinking?: Established as an organization (local body) vs. Formed as a living organism (entire body that meets locally). It seems that many folks get polarized into one of the two positions. Or, is there really a difference at all?
What is sacrificed in either of the positions, if anything?
Blessings,
Chris
# August 11th 2009 at 3:26 pm

49
Benji Ramsaur said:
Chris,
I know you did not address me, but I have thought a little bit about this.
My concern is that in seeing the church as primarily an organization that the “it” [i.e, organization] ends up trumping the importance of the people who are organized.
Some might respond by saying something like “Well, we care about both the issues and the people”. But I wonder if there is a sense in which the people ARE the issue.
It is interesting that both 1st and 2nd Thessalonians refers to the collective church as being “in Christ”. That is amazing to stop and think about. Not only am I individually in Christ. The church I am a member of is in Christ.
So I guess I am looking at the meaning of the church as a “people bound together in Christ”.
Some might say that it is just as assembly of people. However, I think that may be a way to give “it” [i.e. the organization] too much prominence.
Plus, how does a mere assembly obey the instruction to pray without ceasing [1 Thess. 5:17]? It’s not like church members are continually assembled throughout the week.
God Bless,
Benji
# August 11th 2009 at 4:14 pm

50
Benji Ramsaur said:
Chris,
Here is kind of how I think about it. I belive I may be thinking out loud here.
If one views the church as an assembly of people, then it seems like the people are to serve the it [organization].
However, if one views the church as a people who assemble, then it seems like the it [organization] is to serve the people.
So, should the people serve the it or the it serve the people? Or is there some third alternative? Those are some of my thoughts.
# August 11th 2009 at 4:37 pm

51
Dave Miller said:
Benji, instead of either/or, is it both/and?
# August 11th 2009 at 4:40 pm

52
Benji Ramsaur said:
Dave,
I dunno. I’m certainly not against assembling. Assembling should build up the people. Assembling should be good for the people.
I suppose my concern is with viewing the church as a mere organization like a CEO might view a smooth running company. As long as that organization is running smoothly, it looks right nice to him. The good of the people aren’t so much in view as that smooth running organization.
That seems very impersonal to me. It’s about organization.
However, maybe the word assembly has been robbed of being seen as a blessing if it has been viewed as an impersonal organization.
I don’t think Jesus wants us to think “as long as it is running smoothly, it’s good”. I think He wants us to think about the good of the people when assembled.
Again, I think I am thinking out loud here.
# August 11th 2009 at 5:03 pm

53
Chris Johnson said:
Brother Benji,
I appreciate what you have written as you think out loud here. I am not trying to get anyone into a gottcha scenario…so everyone can rest easy. So, I’ll think out loud with you as well.
The essence of what you have brought forward though is correct in my view. As Christ called His disciples and was forming this new body with the character and expression of the Holy Spirit like had never before been unleashed,…. I believe Christ was calling forward the prophetic words of Joel and in tandem with the Apostle John gave a dramatic picture of this new congregation, this new organism…and you better believe they would be spreading into congregations all over the countryside,…. not because they were well organized, but only because of the Spirits indwelling.
Joel 2:28 “It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.
John 7:38-39 “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” (39) But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
It is remarkable that none of the Apostles, post resurrection, were about protecting an organization (except for Peter for a while, and probably a few others no doubt). This well learned tradition was in place before the Spirit had been given, but after the Spirit had been given these newly adopted sons of God were for protecting the confession (rock) not the well worn or some newly baked tradition. This was a dramatic difference for first century Jews, who were very comfortable in a Jewish organization, that some outsiders could occasion, should they be accepted and meet certain Jewish standards. The organization though, turned into a living organism right before their eyes and this organism, known by its confession, was hated…not because of its orthodoxy, but because of its Head. Acts is an amazing testimony of the hard changes that were taking place in this traditional Jewish society.
Acts 2:14-18 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. (15) “For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; (16) but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: (17) ‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; (18) EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.
What became remarkable to these new coverts was not any organization, it was the life they had in common with the others that repented and were baptized recognizing their identity with Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was the motive of desire to serve, and well beyond what any organization can regulate or arrange. This new organism (the church) began to recognize each other by the love of Christ which shown in their hearts so that we….
Ephesians 3:18-19 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, (19) and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
I believe if we teach predominately that the church functions as an organization, we fall into the same traditional ditch the Apostles were mired in during the years they were disciples of Christ’s earthly ministry,… and yet we should realize as the Spirit took control of their hearts and minds, they realized what Christ meant as He pours forth his Spirit. The organization turned into a living organism ,a body, living stones, a vibrant spiritual house known as the ones called out by God, the church. Now we lead and teach that we are a living organism….as you have said, ready to serve and edify in the life of Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
# August 11th 2009 at 6:39 pm

54
Ben Stratton said:
I guess you are trying to make a point by including a picture of a Catholic priest along side the title to this post. That’s alright. If I had a blog I would write a post on “Why Dave Miller’s View of Baptist Churches is Unbiblical, Inconsistent, Illogical, and Unhistorical” and then I would put a picture of the Lone Ranger beside it!
# August 12th 2009 at 7:12 am

55
Tim Rogers said:
Brother Dave,
I know that I am dense sometimes when it comes to these debates, but I honestly believe you are splitting hairs on the issue when you distinguish between “sole” and “fundamental”. I believe Brother Wes would use those synonymously in the context of which we debate. I believe particular use as you have stated it is one of many functions and Brother Wes would say the main function. Something the definition of the word “fundamental” allows when used adjectivally.
Are you saying an individual with a Bible and the Holy Spirit cannot interpret scripture? Should Martin Luther have yielded to the authority of the local church as he searched scriptures?
No one has said that an individual with a Bible and the Holy Spirit cannot interpret scripture. You then give Martin Luther as your example. A member of a local body begins teaching that PPL is a doctrine that is still practiced today. The local body begins a study to determine if they are cessassionist or continualist in their doctrine. The result is a vote of the church to determine if they believe in a PPL. The body has spoken as to the interpretation of the scripture, one individual has not forced their individual interpretation on the entire body. The individual is then free to leave, but if he stays, he understands that the view the body will promote is that PPL is not accepted. Any teaching to the contrary should be condemned by the body as teaching contrary to scripture.
My church’s established policy is that divorced men cannot serve as deacons. Yet, I have written here that I believe that is a wrong interpretation of scripture. Am I in sin because I am saying that my church’s established policy is wrong?
If you voiced your views to the search committee and church before you came and they knew you would be teaching the scripture allows for divorced men to serve as deacons then no you are not violating an interpretation. However, if this was not discussed and you are now doing this then you are in violation of the covenant that you entered into with the church knowing their interpretation of that particular doctrine is different from you own. Would I say you are in sin? I believe Romans 14:23 would be your guide to the answer for that question.
Brother Chris,
I am not sure how to answer your question. It seems that you and Brother Benji have entered into dialog on that so I will only say one thing and then allow you two to carry on. I do not see how anyone can separate the local church from the universal church. I believe the local church is the visible organism that we call the universal church. The universal church is not completed and neither you nor I can produce a list of names in that universal church. As a matter of fact, I only know one name on that universal church list and it is not yours, it is mine. :) I would like to think that your name is on that list, but I do not know it is. I know, that I know, that I know that I know, my name is on it. Oh, one more thing about that universal church list, there is a list of names that will be revealed and that will take place when we are seated in heaven.
Blessings,
Tim
# August 12th 2009 at 7:33 am

56
David Rogers said:
Tim,
If I am understanding you correctly here, Paul, in Romans 14:5, instead of:
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
should have written:
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. All the ones who consider one day more sacred than another should go and form their own congregation; all those who consider every day alike should also go and form their own congregation.
Yet, for some reason, I cannot imagine Paul writing something like this. It seems to me to be totally inconsistent with his vision of the church.
Am I misinterpreting you on this? Is there another explanation?
# August 12th 2009 at 8:36 am

57
Dave Miller said:
David – well-stated as always.
Tim, fortunately, my church does not enforce conformity on issues. We can disagree on the issue of divorced deacons without crisis. I follow the policy while I try to change hearts and minds.
Conformity and control are not necessary to have unity. I guess that is where our views diverge. I see no need for the church to enforce conformity on issues on its members – except on fundamental issues.
It is not threatening to allow people to have freedom if they have the power of the Holy Spirit working in them.
# August 12th 2009 at 9:11 am

58
Dave Miller said:
Obviously, by “issues” I meant secondary and tertiary issues like I mentioned above. We expect all members to maintain the fundamental doctrines of the faith.
# August 12th 2009 at 9:15 am

59
Chris Johnson said:
Brother Tim,
“I do not see how anyone can separate the local church from the universal church.”
Thank you for the answer…. I believe you are correct and even biblical :) to come to that understanding through the power of the Holy Spirit. I guess it really comes down to the perspective of what Christ said He was doing…. Did He (a.) say that He was prioritizing a constitution of this first “local” church or did he (b.) command the church He was building (called out ones) by the power of the Spirits leading, to obey His commands and form as churches to expand the commission from Jerusalem and beyond?
You may be a bit coy stating you don’t know how to answer the question, when it appears you did just fine. I like the way you covered all bases of your argument on “universal church” (an interesting term) when you said “the universal church is not completed” (certainly not in our understanding of time)…and then “one more thing about that universal church list, there is a list of names that will be revealed and that will take place” (certainly will). I rather enjoyed that play on what the Apostle Paul let us know…that he knew, that he knew, that he knew….
Ephesians 1:3-4 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, (4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.”
It seems the Apostle Paul knew like you know that his name is on it…yet he goes a bit further stating that “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world”. Some folks have a tough time with that reality as well.
Brother Ben brings up an interesting comparison…. I personally do not believe Wes is working his way into a collar, and I don’t think Dave is saying that he is. It appears to me at least that Dave was trying to shed some light on a tender subject for “organizational” seekers as if organizations are the reason that Christ exists for the church,…. thus some would say that Christ came to found an organization.
Blessings,
Chris
# August 12th 2009 at 9:17 am

60
Dave Miller said:
Chris, I just ignored Ben’s comment.
But, as I have said above, I am not accusing Wes of being Catholic. I see a similarity between his view and the Catholic Church’s authority. Both deny the individual the ability to read, study and interpret scripture on their own. The Catholic church reserves that right for the hierarchy. Wes (and Tim and perhaps others in BI?) reserve the right to determine truth to the local congregation.
They are similar in one point only – they put a mediator between the believer and Christ (and his truth). One makes the church catholic the mediator. The other makes the local congregation the arbiter of truth.
Neither is acceptable.
I would love to see Tim (and I thank Tim for continuing to engage us here) respond to David’s point above. If Wes’ view is right, then Romans 14 should leave the decision on disputable matters in the hands of the church rather than the individual.
# August 12th 2009 at 9:48 am

61
Dave Miller said:
Tim, one more thing.
You said, “No one has said that an individual with a Bible and the Holy Spirit cannot interpret scripture.”
I believe that Wes said precisely that.
He said, “But an understanding of the proper role of the church in baptism will lead us to realize that this isn’t a question that can be answered in a comment thread; you need a church to answer it.”
only the church can properly answer questions (from the Bible).
Comment 11, quoted above, makes Wes’ view clear. “My point in referencing your post is that you may have an opinion, and I may have an opinion, but neither of those opinions is able to answer the question. Only the local church can answer the question, and to speculate on it as individuals only feeds our individualistic tendencies.”
We can have opinions, but only the church can answer questions. To study and form opinions on our own is “individualistic.”
It can hardly be argued that Wes’ comments deny the right of the individual to answer biblical questions on his own.
# August 12th 2009 at 10:16 am

62
Andrew Wencl said:
I haven’t weighed in yet, so I guess I will now (though I may be covering some things we’ve already discussed).
I listened to a 3 hour seminar lecture from D.A. Carson about how to define an evangelical this weekend. Kudos to David Rogers for sending the link. One of the things Carson talks about was believers reforming each other’s beliefs. He mentioned a big get-together of some theologians from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe where they were tasked with writing up documents on various issues and then getting together again to reform each other’s work to be more in line with scripture.
On one subject, two people from different countries (I think it was America and Kenya) each wrote a paper on a subject and one was entirely focused on the individual and the other was on the community. After working through the different documents, they managed to come to considerable agreement, saying that, yeah, this one is individual, no, this one is for the community.
I think that the big question we’re asking here is what falls under the realm of the individual and what falls under the realm of the church. Some things are clearly ecclesiastical, such as the commands to meet together or to excercise church discipline. Others are not (if the call to evangelism only applies to the church as a corporate body, then I don’t need to share my faith with anyone unless it is a church-sponsored event). Also, determining what is prescribed versus what is permitted comes into play. Perhaps it would be good to look at many of the verses in question and submit ourselves to the Word for understanding. Maybe both sides could learn a thing or two.
# August 12th 2009 at 10:21 am

63
Dave Miller said:
Andrew, that is what I meant above when I said, “both/and” instead of “either/or” – we must walk a fine balance between rampant individualism and ecclesiastical control and domination. Good words.
# August 12th 2009 at 11:08 am

64
Benji Ramsaur said:
A few thoughts:
1. I think the more I read the N.T. the more convinced of congregationalism I become: Christ said to tell it to the church [not to the church *through the elders*]. The congregation needs to deal with Jezebel. No elitism–all priests and brothers. One anothering dominates the landscape. All Spirit-indwelt. Can’t repeat Acts 15 [the Apostles are dead]. Can’t repeat a Timothy/Titus relationship to Paul for Paul is dead. Leaders not to Lord it over [1 Peter 5:3], but be persuasive [Heb. 13:17--check first word in Greek]. Jesus is directly the head of the church [not indirectly]. Elder managing his house well metaphor is limited so the argument that “what family can vote out their father?” doesn’t work. Writings frequently addressed to entire church. No clergy/laity distinction found in the N.T.
2. Unless one wants to claim that Christ is fallible, then the view that “the church speaks with the authority of Christ” implies the infallibility of the church. But God in Christ has already spoken with finality in the New Testament Scriptures [Hebrews 1:1-2]. Therefore, Christ is not “still” speaking today for He has already spoken. Hence, to claim that the “Living Word Christ” is speaking to the individual as a higher authority than the “written word N.T.” or to claim that “Jesus through the church” is speaking today are both in error. Jesus has already spoken through the Apostles. When Paul speaks, Christ speaks. When Peter speaks, Christ speaks. When John speaks, Christ speaks. THAT is the objective standard that the church and the individual Christian must deal with.
3. We need to meet each other where we are at. If we try to meet each other some place else, then we will not meet, but divide. If we think the church [or SB denomination] is the place where highly charged politics are to take place in a quest to win over a majority in order to ramrod our agenda through, then I think we do not have the mind of Christ.
God Bless,
Benji
# August 12th 2009 at 11:31 am

65
Chris Johnson said:
Brother Andrew,
You have also just explained Acts 15 to some degree. It is important to reason out our responsibilities to the church, being members one of another.
Blessings,
Chris
# August 12th 2009 at 11:36 am

66
Benji Ramsaur said:
I think I want to modify/further explain one thing I said above. Can’t repeat a Titus relationship to Paul IN WHICH TITUS APPOINTS ELDERS today for Paul is dead [unless someone wants to claim that somehow that authority has been given to himself by Paul or if I have misunderstood what "appoint" means from the Greek]. However, I think I’ll scratch Timothy from the above comment.
# August 12th 2009 at 11:50 am

67
David Rogers said:
Just in case anyone else is interested, here is the link I sent to Andrew, with the talk from D. A. Carson, on “What is Evangelicalism.” I highly recommend it:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-audio/carson/what_is_an_evangelical.mp3
Here is a condensed version (a little over 1 hour) of basically the same talk:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-audio/carson/080128_what_is_evangelicalism.mp3
HT: Andy Naselli, on Justin Taylor’s “Between Two Worlds” blog
# August 12th 2009 at 11:53 am

68
Chris Johnson said:
Brother Benji,
Good modification….
What is exposed in scripture, many times over, is that God provides many Elders in His congregations. The Elders provide an important function in the body, yet they do not Lord it over anyone else in the congregation. It is clear that the Jews understood this concept (overseeing) very well, where we tend to struggle with it today because of poor teaching and our individualistic / democratic philosophies.
We (the church), as disciples of Christ, can follow the same principles to appointing many Elders as is normal in all the churches. If a church moves away from this principle they are demonstrating a new or liberal view of scripture by doing something that is foreign to the scriptures in an act of disobedience, and can end up in a Catholic style structure where men are deemed capable to speak “as” God.
It is always beneficial to understand and obey the scriptures.
Blessings,
Chris
# August 12th 2009 at 12:18 pm

69
Wes Kenney said:
Dave,
Apparently, there is no end of the ways in which the things I have said and which I believe will be mischaracterized, taken out of context, and twisted.
You said, “No one has said that an individual with a Bible and the Holy Spirit cannot interpret scripture.”
I believe that Wes said precisely that.
This is utter nonsense. It is precisely because I, as an individual, CAN read the Bible, and be led by the Holy Spirit in my understanding, that I can say that the question (at what age can a child make a credible profession of faith and be baptized), while interesting, ultimately cannot be answered by an individual. Baptism is a church ordinance, and so a church would need to consider the child’s maturity, sincerity, and testimony of faith in Christ and then make that determination.
I really grow tired of the mischaracterizations, and especially your suggestion that I am somehow redefining what it means to be Baptist. In an earlier comment here, you expressed dismay that a group of teenagers could not come together outside the context of a local church and partake of the Lord’s Supper. Your dismay is evidence that you are in frank disagreement with the Baptist Faith and Message, which defines a church, and states unequivocally that the ordinances of Christ are church ordinances. Stop saying that I am changing what it means to be a Baptist, when you are the one actually doing it.
I’ll be checking out of this conversation. Unless there is basic agreement on the things “most surely held among us,” I see little point in continued back-and-forth.
# August 12th 2009 at 12:45 pm

70
Dave Miller said:
I’m sorry you feel you have been mischaracterized. I still believe that I have dealt with what you said and the comments you made. You are welcome to reconsider your pique and try to clarify your comments and deal with the issues we have been discussing.
# August 12th 2009 at 1:12 pm

71
Tim Rogers said:
Brother David,
Your comment #56 has really confused me. I do not know if I understand what you are asking. I referenced Brother Dave with Romans 14:23 concerning his question of sin. Your response was for a statement Paul used concerning sacred days. So, I do not really know where you are coming from with the question. That being said, let me just take your question at face value like it is coming as a fresh question without all of the baggage behind it.
First, I believe you err when you presume to interpret Paul’s statement. It seems that you forget that Paul is writing scripture and any decision that Paul places before us is scripture. Our interpretation of that Scripture should not violate other scripture. Thus, where do you see my interpretation that if one does not agree with their local church’s interpretation of scripture should go and start their own church. If I have said that, I do not remember it. If you are interpreting something that I have said as that, please reference the place. I am saying that if a church meets on Saturday and you believe that it should be on Sunday, why would you consider being a part of that fellowship?
Second, you ask; “Am I misinterpreting you on this?” Yes, you are misinterpreting me. I am by no means calling for churches to split. However, if one decides that a doctrine the local body of believers hold to they have one of two choices. Either keep their mouth shut and abide by that doctrine, or (as I heard your Dad say on many occasions) saturate that church with their absence.
Brother Dave,
#57 I see no need for the church to enforce conformity on issues on its members – except on fundamental issues. You are using doublespeak (I do not mean that negatively, I am merely trying to say you are using one comment but in reality you are practicing something you say you do not) in this comment. Your doublespeak occurs when you say the church does not enforce conformity. If your church does not ordain divorcees for deacons then you are enforcing conformity on the issues. If you say that they do ordain divorced deacons because you are teaching that, then you personally have made a decision of what the church believes and you have enforced your views on the church.
Brother Dave,
#60 It seems that the Apostle Paul in Romans 14 was petitioning the Judaizers that were trying to invoke their personal opinions on the church at Rome. I do not think Paul was writing this to the Church at Rome. It seems he was directing this portion of Scripture toward the individuals that were confusing the congregation with their personal interpretation. So, let me ask you a question. Do you interpret Paul’s instructions of Romans 14 for the individual to stop pushing that on the church or to the church leaders for them to instruct the church members because everyone could decide for themselves?
#61 I believe that Brother Wes has answered that for himself. (see #68)
Blessings,
Tim
Blessings,
Tim
# August 12th 2009 at 1:28 pm

72
Dave Miller said:
Did I just get a double blessing, Tim?
I think the point both David and I were trying to make about Romans 14 is pretty simple. On disputable issues, Paul put the decision-making not in the hands of the local church, but the conscience of the individual. Each person should decide for themselves.
What David said, and I reiterated, was that if the only the local church could make such difficult decisions, then the passage should have put the decision-making in the hands of the church.
We are arguing for the validity of the individual conscience, which I know you would affirm, but which I continue to believe Wes’ viewpoint denigrates.
Referencing the previous discussion at SBC Today, you might want to keep the “doublespeak” trick in the bag. Perhaps it would be better to say, “Dave, your view has internal consistencies.” I’m not offended, but doublespeak inherently implies deception, and I think you made it clear you don’t mean that.
Thanks again for the double-blessing.
# August 12th 2009 at 1:49 pm

73
Dave Miller said:
As to your questions, Tim:
When I say we do not enforce conformity, I mean conformity of the mind. I constantly tell every person that they should speak their convictions, even if no one else agrees. In the scriptures, the one is often right against the crowd.
I believe that it is tradition (perhaps even legalism) that motivates the prohibition against divorce men serving. I’ve made that clear in other posts and we don’t need to argue it here. I continue to advocate my position even though the zeitgeist of the church is not in line with my belief.
No one has to agree with my position to be a church members and I don’t have to agree with the majority to be pastor. that is what I meant by “we don’t enforce conformity.”
As to your second question, I do not see it as a church vs individual thing. The passage is talking about such things as Sabbath-keeping and dietary laws. What Paul is saying (echoing teachings in other passages) is that each of us lives under the Lordship of Christ to whom we must individually give account. I must decide for myself whether to observe the sabbath or eat a special diet (or meat sacrificed to idols, or wine consumption, etc). It is a decision I make under the Lordship of Christ. I should then allow every other Christian to make a similar decision, even if it differs from mine.
# August 12th 2009 at 2:05 pm

74
Scott Gordon said:
Double, double. Toil and trouble. There is only one double more troubling than has been mentioned here…double predestination.
:-D
SG!
# August 12th 2009 at 2:09 pm

75
Dave Miller said:
Scott, you win the baseball award today.
That comment came out of deep left field.
# August 12th 2009 at 2:33 pm

76
David Rogers said:
Tim,
Let me see if I can clear things up…
Taking your illustration about PPL, if a local congregation takes a vote, and determines that anyone believing in or practicing PPL is persona non grata among them, and I happen to believe in or practice PPL, then I have no choice but to either: 1) leave the church; 2) change my belief and/or practice; 3) continue in the church undercover; or 4) make a big stink, and try to force the church to change its decision. If I choose option #1, yet I still want to belong to a church, I must either: 1) find another church that allows for my belief and practice, and join it; or 2) begin another church (together with others who are agreeable to my belief and practice). If no church agreeable to my belief and practice currently exists, option #2 may be my only real option.
Basically, most denominations today, and many church splits, began as a result of people carrying out options #1 (of the first set of options) and #2 (of the second set of options).
Perhaps there is a better way, though. Perhaps it is not necessary for local churches to determine what someone must believe or practice regarding PPL. Perhaps, in some churches, there is room for those who disagree with each other regarding their belief and practice of PPL. Perhaps, just like opinions over belief and practice regarding holy days, different beliefs and opinions regarding PPL are not necessarily matters of sin, but merely differences of opinion.
# August 12th 2009 at 2:41 pm

77
Chris Johnson said:
Brother Scott,
That is what is referred to has a seven point Calvinist. Perfection…I love it! ;)
Blessings,
Chris
# August 12th 2009 at 3:20 pm

78
Dave Miller said:
7-Point Calvinist TULIPLH
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverence
Love the Yankees
Hate the Red Sox
# August 12th 2009 at 5:31 pm

79
Scott Gordon said:
Dave,
TULIPLH!
Now that’s a brand of Calvinism with which I can Identify!!!
# August 12th 2009 at 6:59 pm
80
Podcast Episode 3 :: SBC Today said:
[...] Dave Miller’s second sbcIMPACT post [...]
# August 12th 2009 at 11:04 pm

81
Ron West said:
Dave,
Thank you for giving us a clear and accurate presentation on this important issue. I agree completely with the comments made by you and David Rogers with one big exception. You felt it necessary to add the obligatory endorsement of the CR by making the statement, “Where have the concepts of soul competency and the priesthood of believers gone? I will grant that these historic Baptist doctrines were twisted and misused by the moderate/liberal faction during the conservative resurgence, but they are important doctrines.” You stated it exactly the opposite of the true facts. The SBC I was involved in before the CR supported your views completely. Everything I heard at the Baptist college I attended or the Baptist seminary I attended or at the mission board where I work agreed completely with what you are saying. It was many of the CR leaders who began to twist and misuse these concepts in the way Wes is doing here on this blog. His voice would be more in line with what the CR leaders were saying. Most of this was in order to increase the view of the pastor as ruler of the church and the concept of priest of the believers as opposed to priest of the believer. You ask where have the concept of soul competency and priest of the believers/believer gone. The CR you supported changed it.
Dave, it is still hard for me to believe that someone as intelligent as you and with your common sense attitude still maintains the belief that the CR was about theology and not about power and control.
# August 16th 2009 at 6:25 pm

82
Dave Miller said:
Ron, my experience at a Southern Baptist college was completely different. I had professors mock every fundamental doctrine of the faith, including the blood-atonement of Christ. they were all grads of Southern or Southeastern. They continued as professors at Southern Baptist Seminaries and colleges.
So, for me, it was theological. I am sure that, for some, power became the focus of things. But a lot of us got involved in the CR because we saw, firsthand, the liberalism that was growing in at least two of our seminaries.
I saw the effects it had on my friends as they went through college. I saw young men filled with a zeal for Christ enter college and liberal skeptics leave.
The study at Southern done by one grad student (Hollaway? Hollowell? Holiday?) proved that the longer a student stayed at Southern, the less likely they were to believe the fundamentals of the faith.
Did we want our schools evoking disbelief and heresy, or teaching the Word?
We had a real Spiritual, theological problem – one I experienced firsthand. Was someone else in it for power? I don’t know. I never wanted power. But I did want seminaries that held to the fundamentals of the faith and taught young men the Bible, not leading them to disbelieve it.
We now have those kinds of schools. I would recommend Southeastern to anyone seeking education right now. I would not have done so 30 years ago.
So, for me, I thank God for the CR. Were there innocent victims? I’m sure. Did it get ugly? Yes, on both sides. Did it accomplish good? Absolutely. Just visit Southern or Southeastern and see.
# August 17th 2009 at 10:00 am

83
Dave Miller said:
Ron, as best I can tell, you don’t seem like some far out liberal or anything. I don’t completely understand your antipathy to the CR. I could understand why someone might say that a particular person or strategy was over the top. But why condemn the whole thing.
The CR was very personal to me. I lost good friends to skepticism because of the liberal teachings they heard in college, from SBC profs. I suspect your story is a personal as well.
Can you share it? I would love to dialogue about it. i think you have my email if you don’t want to talk publicly.
# August 17th 2009 at 2:33 pm

84
Ron West said:
Dave,
Thanks for saying I don’t seem like a far out liberal or anything. Actually the fact that you would make that statement shows what a terrible influence the CR has had on good people like yourself. Nothing I have said would imply I am a liberal but because I question the actions and methods of the CR there is a knee jerk reaction to bring in the liberal label.
You didn’t respond to my comment above that your beliefs on soul competency and priesthood of the believer/believers is more in line with traditional Baptist doctrine that was prevalent before the CR than that of Wes who echoes many of the CR leaders. Your statement that these traditional beliefs were twisted by those opposed to the CR is not true. You also used the term moderate/liberal to refer to those who oppose the CR when most of us who oppose the CR are theological conservatives who oppose the CR because of its unbiblical methods.
I would gladly support the CR if it was truly a conservative theological resurgence. Unfortunately I can find little that they have done that has anything to do with supporting conservative theology. When Damon Shook was chairman of the trustees at SWBTS, he criticized Russell Dilday by saying the teachers he was hiring were theological conservatives but not political conservatives. By that he meant they were not part of the CR political organization. Russell Dilday was fired not because of theology but because of the desire to get jobs for political supporters of the CR.
Dave I am sorry that you attended a liberal Baptist college. I didn’t. I am sorry you lost good friends to skepticism because of liberal teachings. I wonder how well grounded in scripture they were to begin with. I had solid theological conservatives teach me at Ouachita Baptist University and SWBTS. Why should my schools have to suffer because of mistakes you and your friends made. They have been attacked by CR supporters who have made blanket charges of liberalism against all SBC schools that are not true.
The study you referred to at Southern was by a young man named
Holyfield. I read the information being passed around by supporters of the CR years ago and I was disturbed enough that I went to Southern and got a copy of the thesis. It did not prove anything. It was poorly written and researched. In typical dishonest CR fashion, I found out the wording on the questions being passed out by the CR supporters was different than the wording on the original thesis. The number of students responding to the questions was less than 200 maybe less than 150. I don’t remember the exact number. There were over 2,000 students at Southern at the time. I don’t know if it was a representative survey or not. You also have to remember this was done in 1976. This was just after Watergate, and the close of the Vietnam war. There was much rebellion and questioning going on in society and this filtered into the seminaries also. I am sure some of the students attended seminary partly to avoid the draft. I still have the thesis if I need to elaborate on this.
The CR has been personal with me also. You have been in Iowa away from the some of the battle ground states like Texas and Arkansas where I have lived. You have also been pastor of a local church while I have been employed by the IMB whose trustees have been chosen by leaders of the CR. I have had to listen as CR appointed trustees have accused of us of being heretics, liberals and neo-orthodox. When I asked trustees and CR supporters such as yourself to prove these charges, they did not have the courage to discuss them openly. None would speak out in support of our missionaries. Everyone is afraid to offend the CR leaders because they want to be appointed a trustee or get a good committee or a good job and collect a salary from the cooperative program money. Look what happened to Wade Burleson when he questioned their actions. For the 30 years I have been with the board we have faced constant attacks on our theology. We were just as conservative theologically 30 years ago as we are now. It has all been about power and control not theology.
I cannot support the CR because they placed a man as chairman of the IMB who called us liberals but he was an adulterer. The placed a man as chairman of SWBTS trustees who led the fight to fire Dilday but he was an adulterer. They placed a man as chairman of the NAMB who helped start all the mess there now but he was adulterer. The placed a man as head of the Peace Committee who kept it from honestly looking at what the problems were and he was an adulterer. Do you see any reason why I should trust their selection of leadership. What about Sam Currin, Coy Privette, Russ Kammerling. I could go on and on about trustee selection.
It is personal with me because even though my home state was theologically conservative, Joe Atchison and Ronnie Floyd and their followers have for years made attacks on our convention and its leaders. We have many excellent highly qualified conservatives who could serve as SBC trustees but they have controlled the appointment process and appointed people who Arkansas Baptist would never choose to represent us. Ask our friend Jimmy B if you don’t believe me.
I could go on and on about why the CR is about power and control and not theology. Was Loyd Elder forced out at the Sunday School board because of theology or politics? Were the leaders at BP fired because of theology or politics? Did Al Mohler fire Paul Debusman because of theology or politics? Did Danny Akin fire CB Scott because of theology or politics?
Did the CR accomplish good? Very little. Did it do harm. Absolutely. Look at the NAMB, SWBTS.
The main reason I do not support the CR is it has taken our focus away from the Gospel and the Great Commission and the Bible. CR supporters spend so much time attacking the WMU, the Cooperative Program, our missionaries and each other that you don’t have time to fight Satan. I spent 5 days last week on an island in a fishing village where the people are almost 100% idol worshipers. My wife and I were the only Westerners there. I watched the handful of Christians on that island struggle to share the gospel with their neighbors and wished that some of you CR supporters could see where the real battle is.
Dave, Dan R. told me you are a good guy and I have great respect for his opinion. I am not going to give up on opening your eyes to the truth.
# August 17th 2009 at 10:13 pm

85
Dave Miller said:
Ron, the best we can probably do is agree to disagree on some of these issues. I would say the following things:
1) I was not in Iowa during the CR. Mostly, I was in Virginia, a battleground state. I saw things on both sides of the battle that I did not think were right.
2) I said at the time (during the CR) that the biggest mistake people in the CR were making was equating political moderates with theological moderates.
Here’s what I believe happened. Perhaps we can categorize the SBC in the 70′s and 80′s in this way.
*a small cadre of truly liberal people concentrated primarily in the seminaries – and especially at Southern, Southeastern and Midwestern. My personal experiences, mentioned above, convinced me of the presence of this liberal faction.
*a large percentage of theologically conservative Baptists who either did not see the problem, or did not believe it was serious enough to do anything about it.
*a slightly larger percentage of theologically conservative Baptists who saw that there was a problem that needed to be dealt with. I put myself in this category.
*a small cadre of radical conservatives who adopted a “win-at-all-costs” strategy.
Within the ranks of conservatives, I used to advocate for reaching out to the broad middle, the second group above (conservatives who did not support the CR).
We had some noble statesmen among the CR leaders (Adrian Rogers comes to mind) but we also had some firebrands and hotheads.
3) I know that there are others sides to some of the stories you mentioned above. I think it is just as wrong for you to paint all conservatives and all CR supporters with the broad strokes you use as it was for some to paint all who did not support the CR as liberal.
I could tell stories of some bad things done by moderate leaders at the time. We are all sinners with failings.
4) Most of us who were CR group troups were not in it about power, we genuinely believed that the SBC had a growing liberalism problem – that which I saw myself.
Would you not agree that Southern, Southeastern and Midwestern are much improved schools of Bible than they were before? Forget SWBTS for now. I’m a graduate of SWBTS, and I heard some things I disagreed with. But if the other schools had been like SWBTS, the CR would have never happened. There was a real problem with the theology in those schools that needed to be addressed.
5) Both sides erred in this thing. The Moderates erred by denying the reality of liberalism, which many of us had experienced firsthand. The CR folks erred by painting political opponents as theological suspects.
6) I don’t know much about the Dilday thing. I’ve heard both sides and do not know where the facts are. I read things that made me believe that Dilday had some liberal leanings, but others have said in no uncertain terms that he was conservative. Never met him. Never studied under him.
The fact is that he was a casualty in a war. Was it worth it? We may never agree on that.
7) I know there is something else I was going to say, but its late and I forgot!
So, Ron, lets keep the dialog open. I’m sure we are not that far apart. I’m not saying the CR was perfect, or that its leaders were sinless. I just see enough good having come out of the CR to have made it worthwhile. You, obviously don’t.
# August 17th 2009 at 11:29 pm

86
Dave Miller said:
As to your question about soul competancy and Priesthood, I believe in those doctrines and their importance. I strongly diagreed with the moderates though in their application of the doctrines.
Soul competancy and POB do not mean that each of us is free to do as we please and believe as we please. These doctrines were held up as the reason that we could not hold liberals in our seminaries accountable.
So, while I cherish the doctrines, I did not believe what I was hearing from the moderate wing about them.
One more thing – don’t believe everything Dan says!!
Its your turn now!
# August 17th 2009 at 11:33 pm

87
Dave Miller said:
I remembered what I forgot!
I see the current problems in the SBC as a departure from the noble aims of the CR. We wanted to return to being a people of the book. Now, some have gone way too far with their power and authoritarianism.
But know this. While we may have stood on opposite sides of the fence back in the days of the CR, I think I am one the same side as you now. I want an SBC that is theologically conservative (you agree with that, right?). I want an SBC with godly leaders with a passion for the Great commission. And I want to see power pass from a small group of SBC power-mongers who have tried to control things in recent years.
You will probably continue to see these folks as the natural fruit of the CR. I see them as corrupting its noble purposes. On that we may never agree.
But, I suspect that you and I would agree pretty strongly on what needs to happen from here.
# August 17th 2009 at 11:39 pm

88
Dave Miller said:
2nd paragraph should read, “I am ON the same side as you…”
# August 17th 2009 at 11:48 pm

89
Ron West said:
Dave,
I do agree with you that we probably see eye to eye on what direction we need to go from here. We will probably always disagree on the past. I think we are on the same side now except possibly in trying to make excuses for people like Bart Barber. I do not believe all CR supporters were wrong, I believe the movement was wrong and corrupt from the beginning. I have told you before, I believe there was a liberal problem in certain seminaries, colleges and other places. I agree that the true conservatives in our convention were too slow to see and react and the movement was taken over by politicians like Patterson and Pressler. Your experience in Virginia is a good example. I do not know what the situation was like when you were there but now there are two conventions. T. C. Pinckney was active in starting the pseudo-conservative one. On his website he once described the Arkansas Baptist State Convention and one of our officers as liberals. Of course he didn’t even know the people involved. I challenged him to prove his charges of liberalism and in typical CR cowardly fashion he wouldn’t respond. John Upton is the current leader of the BGCV. He and I served together in Taiwan. I remember visiting him when he was starting a church over in a fishing village on the east coast near Taidung. He has a heart for missions and evangelism and speaks the truth. He would not be afraid to answer a challenge like I made to Pinckney and would apologize if he was wrong. Based on their leadership I would say that the BGCV is the theologically conservative organization and Pinckney’s group is the liberal organization.
Even noble statesmen can be wrong. Adrian Rogers and Jerry Vines and Charles Stanley’s encouragement of the firing of Russell Dilday through their surrogate, Owen Collins, was a perfect example of why the CR is about power and control and not theology.
Let’s look at the results of the CR. Many supporters of the CR say that the SBC was drifting into liberalism or was controlled by liberals before the CR started to get control in 1979. Not true.
The FMB/IMB was not conservative or drifting into liberalism before 1979. Even though the IMB is still strong and doing many good things it has been weakened by CR politics. Specifically constant dishonest charges of liberalism by CR leaders and cowardice by CR supporters who are afraid to speak out in support of our missionaries. Also the campaign by Paige Patteson and Keith Eitel to undermine Jerry Rankin by sending letters to trustees and placing sympathetic trustees on the board.
I won’t go into details about the NAMB but it is obvious the NAMB is a disaster area and the blame belongs entirely to CR inept leadership and politics.
You said if all the seminaries had been like SWBTS there would have been no need for the CR. Then why has the CR reserved their most vicious attacks for SWBTS and its president. SWBTS is weaker today because of the CR. They ran off many strong conservative teachers and replaced them with CR hangers on like Eitel. They have to prop up enrollment by creating a homemaker degree and an undergraduate school.
So answer this Dave. How can you say the CR has been good when our two mission boards and our largest seminary have been weakened by the CR and in each case it had nothing to do with theology but only power and control?
I have said nothing about the state conventions that have been thrown into turmoil by the carnal political activity of the CR and had their conservative members blocked from serving on trustee boards by partisan political appointments by our SBC presidents.
Come on Dave. Open your eyes. Listing past problems does not excuse the harmful actions done in the name of the CR.
# August 18th 2009 at 5:50 pm

90
Ron West said:
The first sentence in the paragraph on the IMB should say the IMB was conservative and not drifting into liberalism.
# August 18th 2009 at 5:54 pm

91
Dave Miller said:
Ron, I wrote a comment about Keith Parks and the FMB, but decided to delete it and send it to you by email, just because of the personal nature of what I said there. Feel free to respond here.
# August 18th 2009 at 8:33 pm

92
Dave Miller said:
I know TC Pinckney. He calls me every year to ask if our convention officers are conservative or not. I pretty much tell him the same thing every year. “We don’t have anything but conservatives here in Iowa. We do not talk about convention politics here, so I do not know the political stands of anyone in the state but me.”
TC is a decent enough guy, but he is a prime example of what I talked about above. You can believe in inerrancy, be as conservative and faithful in doctrine as Paige Patterson himself. But, if you do not support the politics of the CR, he sees you as liberal or a liberal-sympathizer.
I never felt comfortable with the positions of fellows like that.
# August 18th 2009 at 8:41 pm

93
Dave Miller said:
You asked why I supported the CR. Here it goes, Ron. I expect you to respond as honestly as I am going to try to state my case.
1) I think inerrancy matters. I actually don’t care if you use the term. But I want the SBC to be populated by people who believe that the Bible is true.
We discussed the conservatives who did not support the CR – men like Dan Vestal, Winifred Moore, Richard Jackson. They were good men, but they protected the men in the seminaries who needed to be excised. I did not want men like my college professors teaching at our seminaries.
I want to be part of a denomination that is founded on scripture. I am not saying that the men above did not believe the Bible. But they were not willing to hold our seminary professors (and I think primarily of those at Southern, Southeastern and Midwestern here). I have heard horror stories (pretty credible stories) about the moral and spiritual conditions at those three seminaries prior to the CR.
I supported the CR because I believe that inerrancy is important and the CR supported inerrancy (imperfectly, okay – but it did it).
2) I supported the CR because I think it actually improved our institutions at first. I saw differences in Lifeway (Sunday School board) materials. I thought they were much better, more biblical. I saw improvements in NAMB (HMB) in the early years of the CR. I have always thought a lot of Rankin and thought his leadership at IMB (FMB) has been outstanding.
It is obvious that SWBTS has not prospered, if the numbers I hear are correct. And there are some actions and theological positions that I do not agree with. And I am in full agreement with you that Paige Patterson’s interference at the IMB was shameful. But these actions do not negate the good.
I saw great improvement in several of our boards and agencies (in my humble opinion) until recent years. I think that in the last 5 to 10 years, a problem has been growing. Not content to just enforce inerrancy, a small cadre of CR leaders have tried to enforce some kind of authoritarian leadership.
Where we differ on this is that you see it as part and parcel of the sickness of the CR. I see it as a departure from the success of the CR.
Ten years ago, I would have told you that you are wrong in your assessment of the SBC agencies. I thought NAMB was effective. I really like Rankin. Lifeway was cranking out Blackaby and TW Hunt stuff. Things were rolling and I thought all was well.
It is only in the last 5 years or so that problems have arisen.
3) I supported the CR because of the clear testimony of history. Every denomination that took a step or two on the liberalism road has sacrificed its spiritual vitality. United Methodists. Presbyterians. Episcopalians. We were 50 to 75 years behind them. They had embraced liberalism. We were just flirting with it. But I did not want to go where they went.
I’ll probably think of something else.
But, now, its your turn.
# August 18th 2009 at 9:00 pm

94
Dave Miller said:
You said, “Come on Dave. Open your eyes. Listing past problems does not excuse the harmful actions done in the name of the CR.”
I would turn that back around on you. The CR started 30 years ago and was effectively over 20 years ago, at least on a national level.
I might say, “Come on, Ron. Blaming every currect issue in the SBC on the CR of 30 years ago is not right.”
# August 18th 2009 at 9:05 pm

95
Dave Miller said:
One more question, Ron, then I have work to do. I hope you will continue the discussion.
Were you are missionary under previous administrations? I don’t know how long you’ve been on the field.
I know the world is much more difficult now. I know that things are tough for missionaries. But can you really say that things are worse now for the IMB than they were in the old days?
On what basis would you say that? BFM 2000? Those (silly) policies the IMB voted? I think the WORLD or Jerry Rankin. I like much of what he has done.
# August 18th 2009 at 9:10 pm

96
Ron West said:
I did not say that things were worse now for the IMB that they were in the old days. I said, “Even though the IMB is still strong and doing many good things it has been weakened by CR politics.” By that I meant that we would be even stronger today if not for CR politics. I then gave the example of Patterson’s meddling and trustees calling us liberals and heretics. Do you think these things have made us stronger or weaker??
I was appointed in 1978 and served under Baker James Cauthron, Keith Parks and Jerry Rankin.
ANSWERS IN CAPITALS
You said, “ I think inerrancy matters. I actually don’t care if you use the term. But I want the SBC to be populated by people who believe that the Bible is true.” I AGREE COMPLETELY. THAT IS WHY I OPPOSE THE CR. MATT 7:15-20. TOO MANY OF THE CR LEADERS TALK THE TALK BUT DO NOT WALK THE WALK.
We discussed the conservatives who did not support the CR – men like Dan Vestal, Winifred Moore, Richard Jackson. They were good men, but they protected the men in the seminaries who needed to be excised. I did not want men like my college professors teaching at our seminaries. I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT. HOW DID THEY PROTECT THE MEN IN THE SEMINARIES? THEY WERE NOT SEMINARY PRESIDENTS. THAT IS JUST OLD CR RHETORIC. I HAVE HEARD THAT SAID A HUNDRED TIMES AND IT IS NOT TRUE. THE CR LEADERS ATTACKED THEM BECAUSE THEY DEMANDED THE CR LEADERS BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CHARGES OF LIBERALISM.
I supported the CR because I believe that inerrancy is important and the CR supported inerrancy. I SUPPORT INERRANCY AND I OPPOSE THE CR BECAUSE I DO NOT THING THE CR SUPPORTS INERRANCY. SEE ABOVE.
The CR started 30 years ago and was effectively over 20 years ago, at least on a national level. ANY THEOLOGICAL ACTIONS WERE PROBABLY OVER 25 YEARS AGO BUT THE CR CONTINUES TODAY JUST AS STRONGLY AS EVER. IT IS CONTROLLED THROUGH THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS BY THE SAME PEOPLE OR THEIR DISCIPLES. PATTERSON, MOHLER, HUNT, FLOYD,ETC.
It is only in the last 5 years or so that problems have arisen. WE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS TODAY THAT WE HAD IN THE BEGINNING . IT IS JUST MORE DIFFICULT TO HIDE THEM TODAY BECAUSE OF BLOGGING AND THE FACT THAT THE OBVIOUS FAILURES OF THE CR LEADERSHIP IN THE AREA OF MISSIONS, EVANGELISM AND COOPERATIVE PROGRAM SUPPORT ARE SHOWING UP.
# August 18th 2009 at 11:24 pm

97
Dave Miller said:
I do not deny that some (many) in the CR have talked more than they have walked the faith. I was never powerful enough to hang out with the big names (Dad knows some of them), but I know a lot of the folks were genuine, godly people who were concerned about the trouble in the seminaries (primarily the three mentioned above).
I think you paint with too broad of brush strokes as you condemn all who were in the CR.
I KNOW the CR was about inerrancy, at least for a lot of us. I don’t know the hearts of people and I’m not sure how you do. But for me and many others like me, we genuinely wanted a conservative SBC with inerrantist professors.
And, I believe you are wrong about the idea that the SBC is controlled by anyone these days, especially some sort of CR cabal. That might have been true in days gone by. But the election of Frank Page sort of put an end to that (or began the end). Now, with blogging and the information and technology boom, it is hard for anyone to control things.
I know that some of our leaders did some things that were not right – words and actions. And in recent days, I have been pretty upset with some of the people I regarded as heroes.
But I think you are on dangerous ground to speak of people’s motives and purposes. I know there were a lot of us who showed up in Houston and Dallas and San Antonio and St. Louis because we cared about inerrancy and were truly concerned about the liberalism that we saw growing in some of our seminaries.
# August 18th 2009 at 11:40 pm

98
Dave Miller said:
Before I head to bed, let me take one more crack at this thing. I think that most of us, Generals and ground troops, in the CR really did care about inerrancy and were honestly concerned about liberalism.
I think, though, that some adopted a “the ends justify the means” mentality. If you stood in the way of our ends (eliminating liberalism) then it was okay for us to grind you down. I do think some of our leaders fell prey to this common thing.
I do not think you are right when you say that leaders of the SBC CR cared only about politics and power. But, I do think that much damage was done to innocent people by those who let our ends (which I think were noble) justify some of the means taken to reach those ends (which I said AT THE TIME were not godly).
As you said, I’m not sure we’ll ever see this the same way, and I guess it is ultimately up to a higher judge to review all our actions, motives, and attitudes.
I have enjoyed our discussion. I don’t want to prolong it if we are just going over the same ground, but I will continue to try to respond to questions and opinions you might have.
I’ve pretty much said all I know.
# August 18th 2009 at 11:46 pm

99
Dave Miller said:
Hi-ho, Hi-ho, its off to bed I go! God bless you, Ron, as you do the work. I really would like to get over to Taiwan sometime. Are there “mission trip” evangelism or pastor-training opportunities?
# August 18th 2009 at 11:49 pm

100
Ron West said:
YES! Besides Ed Stezer’s trip in September we could work out something for Taipei with my team or if you would rather go to Taichug I could put you in touch with the team leader there. Email me and we can get the ball rolling.
We’ve done enough on this for this blog post
# August 19th 2009 at 8:05 am

101
Dave Miller said:
Thanks for everything, Ron.
I’m impressed by one quote in your email from the ABP article that I would comment on, as we draw this to a close.
“Lewis, a former church planter and college president, said he tried to be a reconciler and believed that much of the splintering in the SBC could have been avoided if conservatives offered political moderates who were theologically conservative a place at the table.”
Amen to that. When the USA defeated Germany and Japan in the war, we then looked for ways to rebuild those nations. When the CR was victorious, we should have set up parameters of doctrinal participation, then attempted to reconcile with conservatives who did not support the CR.
I fully agree with that statement. Larry Lewis is the type we need more of in the modern SBC.
# August 19th 2009 at 11:28 am

Leave your response!