Burleson Resigns from IMB

His letter of apology... was that what that was? Could have fooled me.

 

Agreed. We are seeing our once powerful convention slowly going the way of the buffalo because of the narrowing parameters and ideological infighting that does nothing to advance the Kindgom.

What does it say about our convention when some of our largest churches want nothing to do with the leadership and future. We are a dying convention. Maybe that is a good thing.

 

What we have done: we have taken the great, sanctified Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, and made it to cover every damnable heresy that mind could imagine! The It’s a tragedy--it's a tragedy. Dr. W. A. Criswell

 

What damnable heresy does Burleson espouse?

 

Actually I should have quoted preachininjesus. I was refering to his "narrowing perameters" comment.

 

Oh ok. Apologies.

 

I was actually replying to Jimmy who properly voiced it before. I am alarmed at the fundamentalist shift in our convention that suggests peripherial issues are suddenly dogma. That frightens and saddens me. I'm a big tent SBC guy.

Since when is private prayer language a dogmatic issue?
Since when is the percentage my church gives over the total amount to the Cooperative Program a dogmatic issue?
Since when is where I got baptized (so long as it is by immersion) a dogmatic issue?
Since when is where I went to seminary as a credit for missionary work a dogmatic issue?
Since when is my stance on soul competency a dogmatic issue?
Since when is my personal preference on Calvinism a dogmatic issue?

These are the pressing issues of our convention that seem to narrow our parameters unduly. Why are they important? They aren't.

To suggest that someone who was baptized, by immersion in a faithful non-denominational church is unqualified for ministry because they weren't baptized in an SBC church that is narrowing the parameters unduly.

The push towards theological obscurity and the denial of theological diversity on peripherial issues is the push towards isolationism and denominational deprecation.

 

Very well said. :thumbs:

 

preachininjesus clearly outlined the problem. Over organization which leads to formalism is a very dangerous development. Also the outcome is easily predictable. Preachininjesus has called it "the way of the Buffalo" and that is exactly the way the over organized denominational church with committees which insist on being dictatorial will go.

 

I think the idea of the "priesthood of the believer" was true well before any formal, "sanctified", "baptist doctrine" was written.

Besides, as if heresy wouldn't be around anyways. I think the problem is becoming who defines heresy. It is no longer Scripture, but the "heady" academic "leaders". The more political the SBC gets, has gotten, the worse it is.

 

Theological obscurity comes when diversity over rules doctrinal importance. What I find interesting is how those who defend such a big tent act as if their personal views on the issues are just that and they reach no farther. This thought process is in complete error. A missionary who holds to the unnecessary and unbiblical doctrine of a private prayer language will undoubtedly teach that doctrine out in the field. I just use that as one example.

A lack of clarity comes when anyone can hold to any doctrine they want to and still be Southern Baptist. And it is either insincere or just plain ignorance to suggest that only recently have doctrinal parameters gotten narrower. Debates on doctrines have been part of the convention since its inception.

 

Great statement!

 

Isn't that what the BF&M is for? Is it ok now to purge Missionaries for issues not addressed in the BF&M? Are eschatological issues next? Will only the pre-mill,pre-trib Dispies be allowed on the mission field?

How about we amend the BF&M by vote before we kick people of the mission field because they weren't Baptized in a Baptist Church.

 

This is a red herring statement, it has no bearing on the conversation because it fails to engage my points at their basic level. Why must we have absolute uniformity on all matters, particularly extra-biblical ones, when the spirit of liberty is far more prescient to these issues?

Please engage my points above and particularly how they relate to our common confession. The truly harmful matter is that we have drifted from a communal confession of agreement into a creedal document of legalism in too many ways.

No it is not. The thought process that suggests we must control every jot and tittle of legalism is problematic. Seriously, where is it in Scripture that in order to serve God through my home denomination I must be baptized in a CP paying SBC church? Show me, that is extra-biblical.

Private prayer language is not unbiblical. I have friends who practice a private prayer langauge but do not teach it from the pulpits they occupy. The president of the IMB practices a private prayer langauge but has never taught it as normative doctrine. What I would be more concerned about is if our missionaries are teaching a pre-trib, pre-mill classic dispensational view as a foundational belief rather than saying it is doctrinal thing that we can freely disagree on.

This is great, I'm now "ignorant" for pointing out that the parameters are becoming increasingly narrower. For shame on your argumentation. This is exactly the course of the nattering-naybobs of negativism in the convention...label someone a liberal or ignoramous before they can point your error.

The spirit of generousity and liberty should exist in areas which aren't concrete biblical teaching. What is next, every person filling a position in the SBC must read from the Holman Christian Standard Bible? Or, women in the mission field must wear long denim dresses with wooden buttons and men shirts and ties when doing missions work?

I'm not the first one to say this. Frankly, it is alarming with major convention leaders have said previously...which has happened.

 

I hope not. That's a scary thought.

 

"Why must we have absolute uniformity on all matters" Hyperbole and inaccurate. I gotta tell you liberty is not all that important to me. Not for myself and not for others. A hyperbolic amount of attention gets placed on freedom. This is not the spirit that God has espoused. I am more concerned with a correct doctrinal stance and the righteousness of God than I am having liberty to espouse what ever heresy I want. The "legalism" word gets used by anyone who disagees with another.

More exageration of the situation. "Legalsim" (a libs favorite word) "jot and tittle" excessive language that destroys credibility. Show me where scripture says we must except someone into fellowship because they have been baptized in any old church. The truth is the church has the right to accept to deny anyones confession of faith and baptism.

It is found no where in scripture. And I doubt a preacher or missionary would hold to a doctrine that they do not teach.

Fact is you are wrong. History shows that such debates have been a large part of the SBC. If you cannot accept that you are lacking in information and hold to incorrect history then I cannot do anything about that. But it is not helpful to take a word like "ignorant" and work to exploit it so as to be able demonize those who disagree with you and have shown you what is truth. And the "narrowing" argument is the foundation on which libs like Wade base their whole argument on. It has no real weight as it is false. So when it gets disproven then the claws come out.

The reason we are willing to take a stand on tongues etc. is because it is concrete biblcial teaching. You being the first or the 1000nth has no bearing on this at all.

 

You have me interested. A couple of questions:

1. What kind of a stand needs to be taken regarding tongues?

2. Who is the "we" you are talking about?

3. Would Paige Patterson be part of that "we"?

4. If Paige Patterson knowingly had a member of his seminary faculty who openly acknowledged speaking in a "private prayer language", what do you think Paige Patterson would/should do?

 

One of the main reasons the initial Baptists left England to the US was because of persecution for their "different" beliefs by an authoritative church institution that restricted their religious freedoms and considered their beliefs to be "heresy". That is why soul liberty, autonomy of the local church and priesthood of the believers are considered such important Baptist distinctives.

 

Tongues as a self serving 'gift' is unbiblcial in any form. 1 Cor 14:22 clears that up. I do not care what Dr. Patterson does with his staff with regards to tongues. It is not relevant to this discussion.