Go to criswell.edu to download the MP3′s.

Thanks for the insight on Baptist history. Your commentary and analysis is correct in my understanding. I was under the impression that Boyce stressed the need for writing the Abstract because during that time more and more individual declensions were taking place, and he want to ensure the doctrinal integrity of the Philadelphia Confession. I also wonder what role W.B. Johnson played in his anti-credal statement.

The debate will turn on whether the BF&M is understood either as a minimalist document or maximalist document. Also, I think the Chapman vs. Mohler part has to do with whether the final arbiter of theological or confessional decision lies in the hands of the Convention messengers or the trustees of that respective entity. Those two points I see to be central to the debtae over the motion.

I really like your ideas about getting the word about regenerate church membership. We need to find some way to translate the truths into more than mere statistics and help Southern Baptists see the crucial aspect of integrity in church membership. I really hope we can unite under this Baptist distinctive.

1. Regarding Dr. Patterson calling Calvinists “liberals,” what was actually said is that the enemy the SBC faces include liberals. He also talked about 3 evils from which to steer clear as one proceeds downstream: liberalism on the left, neoorthodoxy in the center, and conservative ecumenism” on the right. Personally, if that’s the course, either (a) the stream is an obstacle course or (b) he thinks we need to pick up the boat and carry it on land!

2. Regarding the early SBC and diversity. The early SBC was composed from messengers who hailed from churches holding the Philadelphia Confession. You can find plenty of associational minutes where associations would lament declension from the confession (or a suitable abstract thereof) in their churches, even calling for repentance and discipline of the church.

I might point out that most people do not know, regarding local church autonomy, that the Sandu Creek Association was known for strict discipline. Stearns was somewhat of an autocrat, and the Regular Associations that united with the SCA did so on the condition that the SCA give up its autocratic control of the churches. That can be found in Paschal, Volume 1, I believe, in case anybody disputes that.

The early SBC was forged in the 19th century, when many of the problems and declensions of the day had not yet come into the churches. The first was the Campbellites. Campbell obtained an exemption from the confessional standards of his association and then used that to preach his heresy. The result was a wide movement that destroyed many of our churches. FBC Nashville was cast out of their own facility and had to find another, for the majority went to the Campbellites. I would point out here that this should illustrate two truths that pull in opposite directions:

1. Exemption from confessional standards leads to declension and license.
2. Confessional standards do not guarantee orthodoxy in any local church. The confession is no good if (a) the people are not taught it (b) they do not believe it (c) they can be persuaded from it so easily and (d) the eldership does not exercise discipline for declension at either the associational or local level.

So there is a tension in Baptist confessionalism.

There was no uniform confession for the seminaries. SBTS used the Abstract. SWBTS chose the New Hampshire (which is why SWBTS uses the BFM in its latest form…it is an iteration of the NHC).
There was no uniform confession for the churches, though there was general agreement between them on the Philadelphia/Charleston, (see above).

There wsa tolerance for some declensions from these confessions and abstracts. For example, the Sandy Creek did not approve of Arminianism or Amyraldianism openly, but they would allow for some variance when it was useful. They would urge those persons to amend their views, however. In the 19th century, Graves, in the 1880′s was openly contradicting the doctrines of grace, yet he was not, to my knowledge reprimanded, although he was by then out of favor anyway. So, when it suited the Convention, they allowed leeway but within certain bounds, but on a case by case basis.

3. Regarding the failure of Tom’s Resolution.

I suggest the following:

a. All Baptist bloggers supporting this measure should spend the next year discussing this subject on the blogs. This is not a Calvinist-Arminian issue, and there is widespread agreement between us regarding this. We have been adversaries in some ways, but we have a real opportunity here to unite over this. We should take advantage of it. This will effectively keep it in the public eye too, and it will demonstrate unity around a common goal, which is something greatly needed.

b. We should write our state papers lamenting the failure of this resolution for a second year in a row.

c. We should petition Dr. Ascol and Dr. Akin to include a speaker/worshop on regenerate church membership / integrity in membership at Ridgecrest. This originated in the Calvinist camp (yours truly is the one who actually first suggested the resolution and Tom ran with it) so it is logical to begin doing this at Ridgecrest. The goal here is to start a grass roots campaign.

d. Apropos c, we should also collate as much written information, blog articles, seminar notes, presentations, online articles, etc. and make an info packet for distribution @ Ridgecrest. I have already volunteered to man the table or booth to hawk the material there. It would help if a non-Calvinist would help in that regard, again, showing unity at the conference. I would gladly form a posse to go room to room to sit and talk with each person about this material if necessary. If somebody would fly me to Glorietta and put me up for another conference, I’d do it there too. I feel that strongly about this. By the way, the reason I feel so strongly, isn’t because of any proprietary interest in the resolution; rather it is because I believe that a regenerate church membership is THE key Baptist distinctive from which all others come. Without this, we are doomed as a denomination, Calvinist and nonCalvinist, moderate and conservative alike.

e. That same material should be put into .pdf format and posted on the internet for anybody to download and read and distribute. Packets should also be sent to the appropriate state agencies if possible with a letter urging them to get with the DOM’s on this to get it to the churches to educate their people, esp. next year’s messengers. They could have a speaker like Brother Voddie do the state evangelism/pastor conference circuit and preach on this too. If he came to NC in Feb., where this is usually held at my home church in Winston-Salem or a sister chruch in Charlotte, I would distribute material there too!

The ultimate goal is NOT to just pass the resolution in Indianapolis. The goal is to get the churches to act on it! The letter should be signed by many persons from many parties, including, uut not limited to: Dr. Ascol, Dr. Akin, Dr. Yarnell, and whomever else of note from as many of the diverse “parties” as possible.

f. Somebody should also do the legwork and get ACP stats from “flagship” churches from each state. We’re told these are our examples to follow, and often the Pastor’s Conferences/Bailey Smith Conferences/State Evangelism Conferences crowd pat each other on the backs for jobs well done that aren’t well done. I think we need to name the churches and show their ACP stats. Dare I say, the disparities will be shameful, but if that’s what it takes to jolt people to attention sobeit. This isn’t to attack those churches, rather it’s to point out that this is not an imaginary problem, and it is systemic.

Advocating Pastoral Plagiarism:

I’ve read a bunch of stuff lately, so I cannot remember exactly where I saw it, but from what I can remember, the interview was done by Jerry Johnson, president of Criswell, who also held the other two debates. I don’t know if he mentioned specifically Calvinists being liberals, but the whole idea of kicking liberalism out of the Convention has been spoken of by Patterson has been commented by more than just a few people.

Thanks for reading my blog, and I do hope you find it helpful to you. Thanks for commenting.

I’ve never commented on a blog site but I have read yours and others for quite some time and find them beneficial to the body of Christ. Thank you for your work and dedication to bring forth information that many would not have been exposed to apart from this blog site. In that vein, I have seen at least two comments in this thread stating that Patterson has called Calvinists “liberals.” Could you let me know where I can find this interview? Thanks for the help!

For Steve:

http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/

For Joe:

http://www.joethorn.net/

Some have argued that the next step in the Conservative Resurgence was to deal with the charismatics in the SBC, then the Calvinists. Last year’s Convention in Greensboro had a lot of attention paid to Calvinists. This year it is the Calvinists. Paige Patterson is calling for another cleaning house of sorts as he explained in an interview this week (calling them “liberals”).

From the beginning, Southern Baptists have been embroiled in controversy. I think the battle is what will win out in the SBC – cooperation or controversy? Some are focusing their energy on cooperation and others are trying to stir up more controversy. I think that is what Morris Chapman was talking about yesterday. Basically, he was telling them to stop dividing and causing needless controversy because it is affecting our ability to work together for the gospel. And that is what I was speaking to in my earlier post (“The Outsourcing of the SBC”) regarding the hard work of calling out men who are busy burning bridges while others are building them. If there is more ash and smoke than brick and morter, you will know what has won the day.

The “etc.” stuff can either be our bragging point of distinction or our contribution to the broader evangelical world. Some had made that to mean that we cannot cooperate with other conservatives in the evangelical world (a la Patterson and Yarnell), but others are saying that it is what makes our involvement important and necessary in the evangelical world (a la Mohler and Dever). We must know who we are (identity and distinctives), but we also must know how we present ourselves to the Christian community around us.

I missed Dr. Mohler’s address. I look forward to hearing it. Right now, it is not archived so I can’t watch it. So all I know is what others are telling me.

I did not get to see what went down this morning regarding Tom’s resolution, but as I understand it, the committee did not allow it to be voted on because it “infringed upon the autonomy of the local church.” The only way I understand it is to say that autonomous churches have the right to be un-Baptistic, yea have the right to be unbiblical. We must respect the churches who do not respect the integrity of church membership. And when this is the message being sent from those leading our denomination, don’t wonder why our Baptist Identity in the world is shaped by our dogged convictions about alcohol and lethargy about God’s Church. Don’t wonder why our world is not being reached with the gospel. Don’t wonder why churches are being split by unregenerate church members who are allowed to have their way.

Everyone I have listened to in the past year recognizes that regenerate church membership is THE biggest issue right now in our Convention. At the Baptist ID conference, EVERY speak addressed it and called for its recovery, including Rainer, Patterson, and Dockery. Yet, with all the heavy hitters in agreement on this, we can’t even get a vote on the floor for it. Last year it was disappointing. This year it is an indictment.

My friend, notice what resolutions that get passed. Pay attention to what the committees allow to “infringe upon the autonomy of local churches” (such as their right not to hold to abstentionism). Here’s Tom’s post this morning which share his thoughts on the rejection of his resolution:

http://www.founders.org/blog/2007/06/every-number-has-story.html

And, for good measure, let me also include Mark Dever’s “Southern Baptist Mistake.”

http://blog.togetherforthegospel.org/2006/08/southern_baptis.html

That’s true. I guess it’s what SWBTS wants to be known for. The Calvinists at SWBTS are not a storefront display if you know what I am saying.