<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sam Storms on the SBC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/</link>
	<description>Trusting God :: Treasuring Christ :: Triumphing the Gospel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:22:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eleven Posts For The Weekend &#124; Said at Southern</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-42862</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eleven Posts For The Weekend &#124; Said at Southern]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 02:52:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-42862</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Sam Storms on the SBC also from P&amp;P [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Sam Storms on the SBC also from P&amp;P [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: In the Blogosphere&#8230; &#171; Kingdom People</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-12545</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[In the Blogosphere&#8230; &#171; Kingdom People]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-12545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] the&#160;Blogosphere&#8230;   Timmy Brister aptly summarizes some of Sam Storm&#8217;s thoughts on the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the&nbsp;Blogosphere&#8230;   Timmy Brister aptly summarizes some of Sam Storm&#8217;s thoughts on the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Kummer</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4555</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Kummer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4555</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Timmy,
I just started another fire - I hope - on the Said At Southern blog. Here is the link since it definitely relates to this post:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://sbtsbloggers.blogspot.com/2007/04/handwriting-on-wall-do-declining.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Handwriting On The Wall – Do declining Baptisms signal the doom of the SBC?&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Timmy,<br />
I just started another fire &#8211; I hope &#8211; on the Said At Southern blog. Here is the link since it definitely relates to this post:<br />
<a href="http://sbtsbloggers.blogspot.com/2007/04/handwriting-on-wall-do-declining.html" rel="nofollow">Handwriting On The Wall – Do declining Baptisms signal the doom of the SBC?</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brittney</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4148</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brittney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim, I totally agree with this guy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, I totally agree with this guy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G. F. McDowell</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4072</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[G. F. McDowell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4072</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interestingly, I think the issue of glossolalia/ cessationism is far more important on the mission field than in a local church.  I can accept a non-cessationist in my local church, but I would never send him out to the unchurched.  I have seen firsthand in unchurched Quebec, Canada how not taking a firm line on the gifts of the Holy Spirit has obliterated at least one church plant.  When the original church planters left after a year or so, a false prophet, who claimed to be receiving revelations directly from God, infiltrated the congregation, and within three months there was no longer a church there.  Those sheep were susceptible to what even a non-cessationist would recognize clearly to be a wolf in sheep&#039;s clothing, because their former pastor had been soft and amorphous on the issue of the Holy Spirit, and these were babes in the faith, who figured that if God could reveal himself in a direct way 2000 years ago, why not today, as well?  We are in a spiritual battle here against a mortally wounded, cornered Serpent whose head has been crushed, but is enraged and trying to take as many souls as he can with him to Hell.  We do not send our weakest men to fight a war, but our strongest.  Non-cessationism presents a unique set of challenges in a missions context, and is particularly vulnerable to the onslaughts of the Evil One.  I agree with the decision to exclude them from missions, even if I would include one in my local church.  I think the way the IMB has gone about it is completely wrong-headed and amounts to the heresy of Donatism.  Believer&#039;s Baptism is based upon the faith of the one baptized, and not upon the faith of the man (!) administering the sacrament.  Otherwise, when a pastor apostasizes, his whole church would presumably have to be re-baptized.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interestingly, I think the issue of glossolalia/ cessationism is far more important on the mission field than in a local church.  I can accept a non-cessationist in my local church, but I would never send him out to the unchurched.  I have seen firsthand in unchurched Quebec, Canada how not taking a firm line on the gifts of the Holy Spirit has obliterated at least one church plant.  When the original church planters left after a year or so, a false prophet, who claimed to be receiving revelations directly from God, infiltrated the congregation, and within three months there was no longer a church there.  Those sheep were susceptible to what even a non-cessationist would recognize clearly to be a wolf in sheep&#8217;s clothing, because their former pastor had been soft and amorphous on the issue of the Holy Spirit, and these were babes in the faith, who figured that if God could reveal himself in a direct way 2000 years ago, why not today, as well?  We are in a spiritual battle here against a mortally wounded, cornered Serpent whose head has been crushed, but is enraged and trying to take as many souls as he can with him to Hell.  We do not send our weakest men to fight a war, but our strongest.  Non-cessationism presents a unique set of challenges in a missions context, and is particularly vulnerable to the onslaughts of the Evil One.  I agree with the decision to exclude them from missions, even if I would include one in my local church.  I think the way the IMB has gone about it is completely wrong-headed and amounts to the heresy of Donatism.  Believer&#8217;s Baptism is based upon the faith of the one baptized, and not upon the faith of the man (!) administering the sacrament.  Otherwise, when a pastor apostasizes, his whole church would presumably have to be re-baptized.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timmy Brister</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4050</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Timmy Brister]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:17:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[G.,

First, when I mentioned &quot;we,&quot; I had in reference the entire SBC, not Calvinists.  Sorry for the vagueness.  No, as I mentioned to someone in the media today, Calvinists are not on pushing Calvinism; they are on pushing back against the caricatures, straw men, etc.  Some chrnological analysis and document would verify this.  I was speaking of the &quot;fighting&quot; mentality which is so pervasive in the SBC.  We will fight over almost everything, even fighting for the right to fight.

Speaking of conversion paradigms, if you have any interest in this, you should check out an upcoming post where I will be live-blogging with the theme being &quot;the miracle of conversion.&quot;  Let me know if you have any interest.

Regarding women in ministry, this is a big issue, and one that I cannot adequately speak to in this comment.  I will just say that I share your concerns.  One of the practical issues comes where churches are being planted in regions of the world where there are no men to lead the &quot;church.&quot;  The issue of women elders is much more relevant on the mission field than the immediate context of traditional SBC churches.  My guess is that there are several church plants in regions of the world that are being led by women because there are no men to lead.  

Finally, how many Southern Baptists have actually read the entire BF&amp;M you think?  I would say that, if out of 16 million we have 6 million in church on Sunday, we have less than 5% of that crowd who have read it.  How many in the SBC could articulate a basic understanding of the doctrines of grace?  It may be true that only 10% of the SBC are &quot;five-point Calvinists&quot;; but it may be equally be true that 80% of Southern Baptists are uninformed (if not misinformed).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>G.,</p>
<p>First, when I mentioned &#8220;we,&#8221; I had in reference the entire SBC, not Calvinists.  Sorry for the vagueness.  No, as I mentioned to someone in the media today, Calvinists are not on pushing Calvinism; they are on pushing back against the caricatures, straw men, etc.  Some chrnological analysis and document would verify this.  I was speaking of the &#8220;fighting&#8221; mentality which is so pervasive in the SBC.  We will fight over almost everything, even fighting for the right to fight.</p>
<p>Speaking of conversion paradigms, if you have any interest in this, you should check out an upcoming post where I will be live-blogging with the theme being &#8220;the miracle of conversion.&#8221;  Let me know if you have any interest.</p>
<p>Regarding women in ministry, this is a big issue, and one that I cannot adequately speak to in this comment.  I will just say that I share your concerns.  One of the practical issues comes where churches are being planted in regions of the world where there are no men to lead the &#8220;church.&#8221;  The issue of women elders is much more relevant on the mission field than the immediate context of traditional SBC churches.  My guess is that there are several church plants in regions of the world that are being led by women because there are no men to lead.  </p>
<p>Finally, how many Southern Baptists have actually read the entire BF&amp;M you think?  I would say that, if out of 16 million we have 6 million in church on Sunday, we have less than 5% of that crowd who have read it.  How many in the SBC could articulate a basic understanding of the doctrines of grace?  It may be true that only 10% of the SBC are &#8220;five-point Calvinists&#8221;; but it may be equally be true that 80% of Southern Baptists are uninformed (if not misinformed).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G. F. McDowell</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4032</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[G. F. McDowell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Timmy, the sbc is in a precarious position now, and we didn&#039;t start the storm.  If published numbers are to believed, the SBC is growing at a smaller rate than the population.  It is precarious because we are shrinking and nobody recognizes it.  A flawed conversion paradigm of easy-belief-ism has undermined the concept of regenerate church membership, but the only solution I heard was more of the same.  Their bogus conversion paradigm is what is killing our denomination.  Neither our desire to peacefully coexist as Calvinists in what was once a calvinist denomination, nor our desire to return our churches to the historic Baptist faith should be seen as a threat.  Quite the opposite.

How are we the ones who started the storm?  How can an act of self-preservation at this year&#039;s annual meeting cause a storm?  Just look at how closely Mark Dever lost the race for 1st VP, and how they had a snap-runoff between business sessions.  A few dozen concerned people can make a big difference in the ballots.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Timmy, the sbc is in a precarious position now, and we didn&#8217;t start the storm.  If published numbers are to believed, the SBC is growing at a smaller rate than the population.  It is precarious because we are shrinking and nobody recognizes it.  A flawed conversion paradigm of easy-belief-ism has undermined the concept of regenerate church membership, but the only solution I heard was more of the same.  Their bogus conversion paradigm is what is killing our denomination.  Neither our desire to peacefully coexist as Calvinists in what was once a calvinist denomination, nor our desire to return our churches to the historic Baptist faith should be seen as a threat.  Quite the opposite.</p>
<p>How are we the ones who started the storm?  How can an act of self-preservation at this year&#8217;s annual meeting cause a storm?  Just look at how closely Mark Dever lost the race for 1st VP, and how they had a snap-runoff between business sessions.  A few dozen concerned people can make a big difference in the ballots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G. F. McDowell</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4030</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[G. F. McDowell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:17:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Timmy, I just read the article, and Storms seems to think that Women pastors is an issue on which the bible is silent.  I may be able to eat his meat and spit out the bones, but that is a big bone.  I don&#039;t like the soft approach the Burleson crowd seems to have toward women in ministry.  The bible is explicit on women not being allowed to teach or have authority over men in a  church setting.  It cannot be more clear.  We may disagree with scripture, but we should not say it is silent on that issue.  I sense a softness throughout the SBC on the issue of women in ministry.  The failure to get WMU to fish or cut bait in Greensboro is the tip of the iceberg.  Sure, there is a statement about women in ministry in the BFM 2000, but if southern baptists read that document, there would be no Calvinism debate today.  Let&#039;s get southern baptists to read their statements of faith and their bibles.  Then let&#039;s debate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Timmy, I just read the article, and Storms seems to think that Women pastors is an issue on which the bible is silent.  I may be able to eat his meat and spit out the bones, but that is a big bone.  I don&#8217;t like the soft approach the Burleson crowd seems to have toward women in ministry.  The bible is explicit on women not being allowed to teach or have authority over men in a  church setting.  It cannot be more clear.  We may disagree with scripture, but we should not say it is silent on that issue.  I sense a softness throughout the SBC on the issue of women in ministry.  The failure to get WMU to fish or cut bait in Greensboro is the tip of the iceberg.  Sure, there is a statement about women in ministry in the BFM 2000, but if southern baptists read that document, there would be no Calvinism debate today.  Let&#8217;s get southern baptists to read their statements of faith and their bibles.  Then let&#8217;s debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timmy Brister</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4029</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Timmy Brister]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[G., 

Should the SBC go the route to marginalize or remove Calvinists from the SBC, the SBC will left with very little of their offspring.  I sincerely hope that the SBC can stop the splintering and factious spirit which is so contrary to the heart of Christ in his prayer that we may be one.  We need leaders who can chart a new course with a new map, setting the sails while plugging the holes of a sinking ship.  If this doesn&#039;t happen, we will become shipwreck by the storms we ourselves have caused.  This is the fate of fundamentalism - a fate I hope doesn&#039;t become ours.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>G., </p>
<p>Should the SBC go the route to marginalize or remove Calvinists from the SBC, the SBC will left with very little of their offspring.  I sincerely hope that the SBC can stop the splintering and factious spirit which is so contrary to the heart of Christ in his prayer that we may be one.  We need leaders who can chart a new course with a new map, setting the sails while plugging the holes of a sinking ship.  If this doesn&#8217;t happen, we will become shipwreck by the storms we ourselves have caused.  This is the fate of fundamentalism &#8211; a fate I hope doesn&#8217;t become ours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G. F. McDowell</title>
		<link>http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4026</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[G. F. McDowell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:50:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmybrister.com/2007/04/10/sam-storms-on-the-sbc/#comment-4026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is time to issue the call:  We must attend the annual meeting.  All of us.  This is more important than last year.  The committee to investigate the effects of Calvinism on the SBC will be giving its report.  This could be the beginning of a very dark hour in the SBC.  The Burleson thing was a distraction.  The Firetruck-Font pastor was a distraction.  We need to get back to the gospel, and double-quick.  A loss of the gospel in the &quot;conservative&quot; direction is far more damaging to the flock than a loss of the gospel in the liberal direction, because liberal theology is just so wrong on its face, and easy to discern.  When conservatives lose the Gospel, look out!!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is time to issue the call:  We must attend the annual meeting.  All of us.  This is more important than last year.  The committee to investigate the effects of Calvinism on the SBC will be giving its report.  This could be the beginning of a very dark hour in the SBC.  The Burleson thing was a distraction.  The Firetruck-Font pastor was a distraction.  We need to get back to the gospel, and double-quick.  A loss of the gospel in the &#8220;conservative&#8221; direction is far more damaging to the flock than a loss of the gospel in the liberal direction, because liberal theology is just so wrong on its face, and easy to discern.  When conservatives lose the Gospel, look out!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

