The Gospel: Our Greatest Common Denominator

Two weeks ago, I shared my thoughts about Baptist Press throwing Mark Driscoll under the bus. One particular point that has been written about is the two competing visions for the future of the SBC.  Here is what I wrote:

There are two competing visions for the SBC going on right now: the Great Commission Resurgence under the direction of Danny Akin and David Dockery headquartered at SEBTS, and the Baptist Identity Movement under the direction of Paige Patterson and Malcolm Yarnell headquartered at Southwestern Seminary.  Prior to the Annual Meeting in Indy last year, the Baptist Identity boys were blazing the Internet with series of blogposts talking about Baptist distinctives and in particular “ecumenical compromise.”  From the Annual Meeting forward, however, the Great Commission Resurgence has won the day, leaving the Baptist Identity crowd in the wake full of a separatistic, landmarkist agenda.   Having Driscoll (and Mahaney) who do not share the same ecclesiology and distinctives lead Patterson and his camp to consider the actions of Akin and SEBTS as Baptist compromisers.   The BP article on Driscoll is an indication, in my mind, of an attempt to discredit the leadership of Akin and undermine the Great Commission Resurgence movement in the SBC.  Fortunately, most Southern Baptists are not buying it.

Last week, Tom Ascol explained these competing visions with further detail.  During this time, the Baptist Identity group have sought to capitalize on what they see as a major fault of the Great Commission Resurgence camp by having Mark Driscoll speak at SEBTS’ chapel and collegiate conference. This was, in their opinion, a perfect example of the “ecumenical compromise” reflecting a lack of commitment to Baptist identity.  The talking point quickly became the “lowest common denominator” implying that the cooperation they enjoy comes at the expense of upholding Baptist distinctives.

Most recently, Paige Patterson laments the increasing number of churches who don’t have “Baptist” in their name, attributing this to the new “postmodern ethos.”  He speculations that, if this generation gives up the name “Baptist,” what will the future generations “bargain away?”  One of the areas today where Patterson believes Baptists should take their stand is in the work of planting churches.  The article states,

Church planting is an additional area that would benefit from a return to Baptist roots, Patterson added, indicating his concern that partnerships be clearly defined with other Great Commission Christians who are not Southern Baptists (emphasis mine).

A return to Baptist roots is, in Patterson’s mind, a root to the Anabaptist tradition of separatism.  A clearly defined partnership with other Christians does not include the work of church planting.  Quoting Patterson, the article states,

“There a lot of things that we can do, even with others who aren’t Great Commission Christians,” he said, referring to standing against abortion or for family values with Roman Catholics. “[However], I am constitutionally opposed to doing church planting with anybody other than Baptists” (emphasis mine).

I’m not sure what Patterson means by being “constitutionally opposed” to church planting with anyone other than Baptists, but this confession clearly reveals his outright opposition to the practiced cooperation of Southern Baptist missionaries overseas serving and working with other Great Commission Christians.

In any case, what I want you to see is the striking difference between the two visions.  The Baptist Identity advocates refer to cooperation with non-Baptists as ecumenical compromise, theological triage as an erroneous construction, and gospel-centered fellowship with other Great Commission Christians as the “lowest common denominator.”

While I am a convinced and confessional Baptist, I am also an evangelical, and here is where I have serious disagreements with the Baptist Identity vision and why I’m committed to the Great Commission Resurgence.  The gospel is not the lowest common denominator; the gospel is the greatest common denominator.  The fact that unity around the gospel and invitations to speak because of the gospel are considered as lowest common denominators and compromising doctrinal fidelity is clear indication of how much we have assumed and truncated the gospel in Southern Baptist life.

As Southern Baptists, our greatest common denominator is not the Baptist Faith & Message (2000); it’s the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Without the gospel, we do not have the believer’s church, and the fact that such baptist distinctives as regenerate church membership and church discipline are lost today are not due to loss of “Baptist Identity” but a loss of the gospel.  And when I speak of the gospel, I am not talking about a Calvinist gospel or Arminian gospel; I’m talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are facing a much greater problem today than churches who don’t carry “Baptist” in their name.  Indeed, we have far more churches that have lost the gospel than have merely lost the Baptist name.  We have far more pulpits preaching Christless sermons than churches filled women or homosexual preachers.  To advocate the recovery of idea of being Baptist before the idea of being distinctively Christian is putting the cart of ecclesiology before the horse of soteriology.

The recovery of any form of Baptist Identity simply cannot come about apart from a full recovery of the gospel and its implications in our lives and churches.  In other words, Baptist Identity is a consequence of gospel recovery; you cannot have the former without the latter.  One look at the Annual Meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention in years past will reveal how desperately we need the recovery of the gospel today for a Great Commission Resurgence for tomorrow.

Consequently, the fact that convictional and confessional Southern Baptists can cooperate and learn from non-Southern Baptists (e.g., Mark Driscoll, C.J. Mahaney) does not manifest compromise but a shared commitment to the gospel.  The very thing we need to revive our true Baptist Identity and the marks of true churches will not come by any other means than a comprehensive understanding of a gospel-centered ecclesiology.  What lies before us today is not asking Southern Baptists if they are Baptist enough, but it is asking if they are Christian enough.  The absence of our greatest common denominator will only result in greater division within a splintering denomination.

The generation of which I belong want to be identified with a Jesus movement, not a dying denomination.  That is why networks like Acts 29 and Sovereign Grace, both of which hold to a robust commitment to gospel and mission, result in planting healthy churches.  That is why you will find 5,000 of my generation at a Together for the Gospel Conference and 50 of them at a SBC Annual Meeting.  That is why the heroes of my generation are, in large part, found outside the SBC rather than those inside the SBC.

And you guessed it.  The common denominator behind all of this is the gospel.

Explore posts in the same categories: Gospel, SBC

Tags: , , ,

Responses are currently closed, but you can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

43 Comments on “The Gospel: Our Greatest Common Denominator”

  1. Andrew J. Nicewander Says:

    “To advocate the recovery of idea of being Baptist before the idea of being distinctively Christian is putting the cart of ecclesiology before the horse of soteriology.”

    Amen, Brother.

    And quite frankly, I’m thankful for Gospel-Believing and Gospel-Proclaiming Believers who are NOT Baptist. A world of southern baptists would be a scary place indeed!

  2. Thomas Twitchell Says:

    “I am not talking about a Calvinist gospel or Arminian gospel; I’m talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

    Amen. That is what I was talking about. And why I reacted to Reid as I did. The finger pointing and invectives, we need to learn to live together with, and not restrict the platform for disagreement but rather encourage open debate with true academic fervor.

    The spirit of the SBC is capture in the ideal of local autonomy and even the BFM encourages the cooperation with churches of like faith. Not exact faith, but like. I attend a PCA for the very reason that I can have differences with them and not be considered a non-christian. I did not find that true in our SBC church. For all the rhetoric about openness and freedom of conscience, it was not the case. What was implied was that without certain concessions, I was not a believer. And when I began to look around the internet, I found that that was the case elsewhere in the SBC. I came to realize that the symptoms of my local assembly we the result of an infection from outside it. And attempted to expose it. The unfortunate result was that the majoritarians would not hear it and they proceeded in their crushing of opposition.

    At first, after learning of the DoG, I advocated a “purity of doctrine.” It was through people like TA that I further understood the kind of organization that the SBC was. My mistake, like that of the BI, was to conclude that it was a denomination, an ecclesia, rather than a convention. And though I would still have a more defined confessionalism if it were up to me, that would change the nature of the SBC. It has been the construction of the SBC that has made it the dynamic missional tool it is. To go the way of the BI, which would even surpass the PCA in exclusivism, would be to kill that.


  3. Good word, Timmy. We must never forget that denominations are man’s invention (under the sovereign plan of God, of course). From Heaven’s perspective, we are either “in Christ” or not “in Christ.” There are differing interpretations of Scripture, but salvation is the main issue.

    I think we are arrogant when we talk with pride about our “baptist heritage” or our accomplishments as southern baptists as though we’ve actually achieved something for God. Why do we assume God is in Heaven smiling at our baptist identity instead of frowning at our claims of exclusivity, refusing those whom he has accepted? I think BI accurately describes some, because they seem to be more proud and gain more significance from being a southern baptist than being a Christian.


  4. It seems to me that Dr. Patterson has a legitimate point. I might be willing to go a little farther than he is in the way I cooperate, but not much. Even considering the T4G guys, they demonstrate a great degree of cooperation, but you don’t see Mark Dever planting Presbyterian churches or Ligon Duncon planting Baptist ones.

    Just because Dr. Patterson has a clear sense of where and how he draws the lines of cooperation does not mean he is more committed to Baptist Identity than the gospel. It may simply mean he is an a-typical Evanglical in that he actually believes that ecclesiology isn’t an indifferent thing.


  5. And that is the whole in a nutshell. I am almost standing as I read your post today. Thank you for saying what should be said clearly and concisely.


  6. Kyle,

    No one is saying that ecclesiology is an indifferent thing. What people are saying is that as evangelicals, we can cooperate together in preaching Christ in the expansion of His Kingdom. There are things that Baptists can learn and benefit from Presbyterians or other non-Southern Baptists. That does not mean that we will plant non-baptistic churches.

    When Patterson says that “we’ve been pretty successful” that church planting, is he talking about NAMB? Compared to other church planting networks and organizations, NAMB is a dismal failure. Danny Akin believes that his students can learn and benefit from Mark Driscoll and rightly so. I personally recently spent a week at a church planting conference led by Presbyterians, and I received better teaching and training in that one week than my entire experience in seminary in the Billy Graham school at SBTS.

    When your vision of Baptist Identity eclipses or precludes your ability to cooperate with non-Southern Baptists in Great Commission enterprises, then I believe you have serious problems. There will be millions of people in heaven who were never Southern Baptists, so we don’t need to pretend like that’s true here on earth.

    And I say that as a convinced and confessional Southern Baptist committed to the Great Commission. 🙂

  7. Chris Poe Says:

    Timmy,

    Besides events like T4G, Band of Bloggers, etc. what kinds of Great Commission enterprises do you think that Southern Baptists should cooperate with non Southern Baptists (or even non Baptists) on?

    Do you agree with Dr. Mohler’s triage? Are those the categories that you work with, or do you have some differences with it?

    Also, what is your definition of Landmark?

  8. volfan007 Says:

    Timmy,

    BI guys are for the Great Commission Resurgence. Where did you get that they are against it? Or, that there is some battle going on between the GRC and the BI guys?

    Also, BI guys are not Landmarkists? Where did you dream that one up?

    This is the kind of stuff that causes division and strife in the SBC. You, sir, are the guilty one.

    David


  9. […] to know what is the latest issue being talked about concerning the SBC, then be sure to check out Timmy Brister’s post and follow the links he […]


  10. Chris,

    There are several things SBCers can learn and benefit from others, such as church-based theological education models from BBC (Minneapolis) and Covenant Life Church (Gaithersburg), church planting systems (GCA, Acts 29, etc.), expository preaching (McArthur, Piper, Begg, etc.), missional living (Austin Stone, The Crowded House, etc.), and reaching the younger generation (Mars Hill Seattle, among others). There’s some for starters.

    Yes, I agree with the Mohler’s theological triage.

    Regarding Landmarkism, I will have to address my views in a separate post. Too big of a topic to cover in the meta of this post.


  11. David Worley,

    Well, welcome to my blog. Initially, I must say, aside from being so dogged in assigned guilt, how it is that you know the BI guys so well?

    I can assure you that nothing of which I have spoken is “dreamed up.” I am all about having a healthy discussion on matters pertaining to my post, and I welcome your thoughts. Next time, try to not be so bombastic. Thanks.

  12. Dr. Paul W. Foltz Says:

    Great, concise post. well stated.

  13. Brad Jones Says:

    Timmy, extremely well said. My heart really breaks for our fellowship to be less about “First Baptist” and more about gospel.

  14. Alan Cross Says:

    Yes! Amen! Absolutely! You are right on, Timmy. We are so concerned with Baptist Identity that we have lost the gospel to our ecclesiology. No matter how closely we try and tie them, they are not the same. Our ecclesiology flows from the work of the gospel, it is not synonymous with it, just like works flow from faith and are not synonymous with faith. We have gottent he cart before the horse, to be sure.

    The BI guys are good people. I have gotten to know them and they are not my enemies. I just disagree with them on the order in which they line things up as Baptists. There is very little talk of Jesus and His glorious gospel and much talk of Baptist distinctives and Baptist Identity. Perhaps they consider Jesus and His gospel to be a given, but it is not when you are dealing with denominatoinal confusion.

    Thank you for this post.

  15. Robert I Masters Says:

    Timmy,
    Are you the future leader of the Founders Movement?
    As someone who self identifies as a Reformed Baptist I find your defense of Mark Driscol somewhat odd as of late.

    You didnt call out Bill Hybels for throwing Mark under the bus.

    http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2007/04/bill_hybels.html

    You did not call out Jeff Noblit for throwing Rick Warren under the bus…btw I agree with both Jeff and Ken Silva.

    http://www.foundersconference.org/past/bbcon.html

    You did not call out Steve Camp for throwing Mark under the bus

    http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/search?q=Mark+Driscol

    You did not call out Danny Akin when he said that “anybody who touches that stuff is a FOOL. He repeated it again saying…”anybody who touches that stuff is a FOOL.
    A prominent country singer that everyone in America would know had a interesting comment….”I think he just called Jesus Christ a FOOL”. Stuff here being Alcohol.

    The above event happened at Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nasville

    Also did you not just throw Dr Rainer, SBTS, and NAMB under the Bus

    I personally recently spent a week at a church planting conference led by Presbyterians, and I received better teaching and training in that one week than my entire experience in seminary in the Billy Graham school at SBTS.

    I guess what Iam trying to say is that if your “models” for
    Great Comission Resurgence includes people like Driscol over men like Jeff Noblit, Paul Washer, Roy Hargrave, R.C Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler …then your I want know part in that Resurgence!
    I also hope this is not the future of the Founders Ministry.

    From the Southern Baptist Geneva
    Robert I Masters

  16. Robert I Masters Says:

    Correction…No part..

  17. Robert I Masters Says:

    BTW …..Where can I Find Acts 29 in the Bible?

    From the Southern Baptist Geneva
    Robert I Masters


  18. Robert Masters,

    How do you know that I did not disagree (whether privately or publicly) with those whom you mentioned? Many of them are personal friends, including Jeff and Paul and have regular correspondence with Drs. Akin, Rainer and other profs at SBTS (btw, Thom has not been there for about four years). Furthermore, Founders is not about me. I am grateful for what it has done and to be a very small part of it.


  19. Alan,

    Great to hear from you. You said:

    There is very little talk of Jesus and His glorious gospel and much talk of Baptist distinctives and Baptist Identity. Perhaps they consider Jesus and His gospel to be a given, but it is not when you are dealing with denominational confusion.

    I think one of the biggest challenges is getting over the gospel assumption. The gospel is not an accessory to Baptist Identity, but it should be the very heart of it.


  20. Brad,

    What’s going on my long time Cracker Barrel friend? Are you still in FL?


  21. Patterson: “Baptists are paying for it so it ought to be a Baptist church that is planted. That ought to be true in Kenya, and it ought to be true here; it ought to be true everywhere. If we’re going to pay for it, and we’re going to put the people out there to do it, we ought to plant Baptist churches.”

    How do Dr. Patterson’s comments here address whether or not we learn from other Evangelicals about church planting? He is speaking specifically about the kinds of churches that Baptists should plant.

    As an interesting side note to this conversation, it appears that Dr. Patterson was sharing the platform at this event with a Presbyterian elder.

    I’m willing to grant that you might know something about Dr. Patterson’s views on these things that I don’t. But I just don’t see how his comments in this article amount to Baptist provincialism.


  22. Kyle,

    Patterson’s views are not Baptist provincialism but Baptist separatism. Have you not heard of the “slippery slope of ecumenical compromise”? Any by ecumenical, it is not Christians with Catholics or Muslims or Mormons whatever. It is Baptists with other evangelicals. If I am wrong, can you or anyone else show me that Patterson cooperates with evangelicals in Great Commission enterprises?


  23. Timmy,

    I wonder if you might unintentionally be importing meaning into Patterson’s words. I don’t think he is saying that cooperation cannot exist between Great Commission Christians, just that Southern Baptist money should go to plant Southern Baptist Churches. Southern Baptist missionaries should plant a Church that maintains the distinctives that their sending agency holds to.

    The issue the seems most concerned about from that article is the fact of a believer’s church. A church that holds that only those who have repented, trusted in Christ, been baptized by immersion upon profession of faith, and who are walking in the faith can be members.

    That is the only distinctive that matters to me regarding other denominations. If they believe the Gospel like I do, then yes I will cooperate with them, even in evangelization, but not in building a Church if they do not hold to that key distinctive.

    I am a Baptist inthe same way that I am a Calvinist, because that is what the Scriptures teach.


  24. I really don’t know much about Dr. Patterson’s practice of cooperation. My brief Googling has only lead to more blogs discussing the issue and nothing factual about Patterson himself. Honestly, I don’t care to spend much time defending him. I just didn’t see how your quotes in this article formed the basis for your argument. It is obvious to me now that you’re taking some other things into consideration as well.


  25. Kyle and Jeremy,

    My conclusions are formed by the continued vision of the BI group led by Patterson, not exclusively via this article though it is informative. If you can go back, listen to Patterson’s “seminary report” at San Antonio’s annual meeting, read past BP articles and “white papers”. Look through the archives of BI blogs. The argument I am making is based on about two years of following this vision historically based in the Anabaptist tradition (“return to our baptist roots”) and evidenced in Baptist isolationism.

    I agree that we should be planting Baptist churches, but does that mean that we can receive assistance, training, and support from non-Southern Baptist networks or organizations? In other words, would it be wrong for a SBC church planter to be trained through GCA and assessed & coached through A29? I would like to hear the BI answer to that question.

  26. volfan007 Says:

    Timmy,

    Maybe you need to read the latest post at SBC Today. You will be much more informed. The BI guys have been for a Great Commission Resurgence for some time.

    Also, for you and Alan to say that the BI guys dont talk very much about Jesus, and dont have the Gospel at the heart of what they are about is not only wrong, but it’s a lie. And, it verges on slander to someone, who loves the Lord and preaches the Gospel like these fellas do. It’s very sad and unfortunate that you two fellas would be so divisive and strifeful with your comments.

    Seems like I remember you standing up at a conference at Union U. and calling everyone in the room “liars” who misrepresented five point Calvinists. Now, here you are misrepresenting the BI guys. So, what does that make you?

    The BI guys are not Landmarkers. I noticed how you dodged that question for proof. Where’s your proof for this accusation? The proof is not there, because they are not Landmarkists. So, if you have proof, let’s hear it.

    Also, Alan, it’s so good to see you in here applauding Timmy’s post which is not only WRONG, but it verges on slander. And, yet, here you applaud it. Why?

    David


  27. David Worley,

    At least you didn’t refer to me as “hyper, extreme, aggressive, and militant.” 🙂 But I have to hand it to you, you are two-for-two in ad hominems. There are several other guys offering different points-of-view, many who disagree with me on certain points. Why can’t you learn to dialogue like they do?

    Thanks for the SBCToday commercial. I have already read what they said about “what one commentator” said “in a post published yesterday.” 😉 Have a good day.


  28. I think that is a question you should put to them. As I have stated before, I don’t know which side of this wholde debate I’m on. On the one hand all my hereos and Calvinist brothers are on one side, but on the other, I don’t see in the other side what they have been accused of.

    I wonder if I can be a part of both movements? Can I cooperate with all Gospel believers and still maintain firm Baptist distinctives? Why does it have to be an either/or question. The ‘either’ being the Church Universal, with the ‘or’ being the Church Local. Why can’t I strongly affirm my Baptist beliefs even in the context of cooperation with Presbyterians or Conservative Methodists (if there are any left)?

    I don’t think this view is isolationism, but rather a holding of the line within our denominational boundaries. In my opinion, the ‘evangelicalism’ (small ‘e’ in contrast to ‘E’vangelicalism) of the past fifty years is a failed movement precisely because denominations failed to guard their distinctives. The GCR will end the same way if denominational distinctives are not maintained.


  29. Interesting, is it not, that the BI blogs simultaneously have come out with the same talking points (“invisible divide”) a day after I write my blogpost, the same way they had the same talking points about “common denominator”. A little too predictable.


  30. I’d be interested to hear the answer to that question as well. Do you know any “Baptist Identity” proponents well enough to ask them?

  31. volfan007 Says:

    Timmy,

    I see that you’re still dodging my questions. Interesting.

    David


  32. Wherever you stand on this stuff, this audio from Russell Moore on the SBC Today Website is very helpful: http://sbctoday.com/resources/audio-resources/russell-moore/

    It’s kind of clunky the way they have it divided up into 20 min segments, but it works.

  33. jimmy long Says:

    Since the recent BtT, Founders, and P&P blogs have been published, the BI guys have been playing nothing but serious defense lately. SBCToday has even shut down commenting for their most recent post.

    Interesting considering VolFan has demanded that you engage his questions (in your house), yet his buddies as SBCToday will not allow anyone to engage them.

  34. volfan007 Says:

    JImmy,

    I have nothing to do with SBC Today. I am friends with Robin and Wes and Scott Gordon, but I’m not a part of SBC Today. What they do is up to them. It’s their blog.

    But, I am talking with Timmy over here about his misinformed allegations? or, intentional misrepresentations? about him throwing out these accusations without any proof whatsoever.

    Jimmy, does that bother you?

    David

  35. volfan007 Says:

    Timmy,

    Yes, I do consider you to an aggresive, extreme, five point Calvinist…as are a lot of Founder’s types. I do admire your walk with God. I appreciate the strong stand that yall take on the Bible. I love yall in the Lord. But, I believe that it was Dr. Akin that coined the term “Aggressive Calvinist” to describe the five pointers out there who are set on converting Christians and Churches and the SBC to the five points. I had always called yall extreme Calvinists, or even militant Calvinists. I mean, I know that yall are not hyper-Calvinists, but I was trying to come up with a term that fit the Founders crowd. So, aggressive, extreme five pointers seemed to fit.

    But, that doesnt mean that I dont appreciate you fellas and your walk with God.

    David

    PS. I get along fine with regular ole five pointers. Just ask Scott Gordon.

    David

  36. robert Says:

    Timmy,
    Volfan is asking for evidence of your observations. Makes me wish I had saved all my discussions over on SBCtoday. SInce I didn’t, I have no written evidence, but my experience on the blogosphere leads me to agree with your observations.


  37. David Worley,

    If I am an aggressive, militant, extreme, hyper whatever, then I would not have allowed one comment of yours to be published on my blog. You neither know me personally nor have any personal knowledge of my ministry. If there is anyone who has been dogged and agressive in the comments here, it is you, sir. I am not going to play tit for tat with you, nor do I feel it incumbent upon me to answer every question you present. You are on my front yard, and I have opened the door. You are welcome to leave any time you’d like. But if you choose to stay around, I’d appreciate it if you showed the same hospitality and respect that they do on the hills of Tennessee.


  38. I’m from TN and I’m trying to play nice. Do I get a cookie?

  39. Alan Cross Says:

    David,

    I have not lied. I am being neither spiteful nor divisive nor am I slandering. Reread my comment. I never said that you or the BI guys do not love Jesus or preach Him. I said that there is far more talk on BI blogs about Baptist distinctives than there is about Jesus and the gospel. That is not a lie. That is absolute truth.

    I even gave you guys the benefit of the doubt that this could be occurring because Jesus and the gospel are assumed as being a given. Fair enough. But, that becomes a problem when we are dealing with these kinds of controversies. No matter how much we want to make it so, we cannot freely interchange Jesus and the gospel with “Baptist Identity” or “Baptist Distinctives.” That is my point. Some are trying to do that and I believe it to be a mistake.

    I am sorry if that offends you. Yes, I do agree with Timmy’s post and I think that the BI guys are in error on this point. I have said so on SBC Today. No one there would be surprised to know that I think that they are in error. But, I also consider them to be brothers and am glad that they are Southern Baptists. I would be happy to minister with them anywhere and think more of them personally and of their love for Christ than many that I agree with far more often on some of these issues.

    Don’t make this what it is not, David.

  40. volfan007 Says:

    Timmy and Alan,

    I’m still waiting on proof…evidence….on the allegations and accusations that were made about the BI guys being Landmarkists. They’re not. I know they’re not. Thus, Timmy and Alan, will yall apologize for saying such.

    Secondly, where’s the proof…evidence…that the BI guys are not for the Great Commission Resurgence. They are for it. They’ve been for it for a long time. Just check out the date on Jeremy Green’s resolution at the state convention in Texas. And, there’s more….if you’ll check it out.

    Thirdly, Jesus and the Gospel is at the heart of what these men do. They preach Jesus. They share the Gospel with lost people. They preach the Gospel from their pulpits. They do what they do in order to be obedient to the Lord Jesus.

    Please proof to me and others out there different.

    David

  41. Alan Cross Says:

    David,

    I’m not giving you proof of things I didn’t say. Who called anyone a Landmarkist? When did I call anyone a Landmarker? Why would I apologize for something I have neither said or thought?

    Are the BI guys for the GCR? I don’t know. I read what they ARE for and I have responded to that.

    I do not think that these guys are anti-Jesus or anti-gospel. I never said any such thing. I know that they love Jesus. I said such. Why are you defending them against things unsaid?

    David, you have accused me of lying, yet your own comments are full of false accusations that cannot be substantiated. All that I have said is that our ecclesiology as Baptists is not synonomous with the gospel. I have accused no one of not loving Jesus or of being a Landmarker. Either your reading comprehension skills are very poor or you yourself are lying.

    I choose to believe the best and assume that you are just mistaken.


  42. David Worley,

    You are a faithful apologist for your friends. I respect your loyalty to them. I disagree with their vision, period. This isn’t about “accusations” and “allegations.” I do not accept their version of the future of the SBC, and I have stated that plainly. You are bringing to this discussion your history of debates on this topic–debates of which I have not participated. Your friends preach Jesus? Great! Blog about that. Thanks.


  43. In the spirit of SBCToday, I am shutting down the comments to this post. Grace and peace.


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: