Mark Dever For "Regulative Principle?"
It seems Mark Dever is at it again. Brother Bob Ross asks if Brother Dever is running for another office.Charles
See also Why Did Mark Dever Lose at the Southern Baptist Convention?; Mark Dever vs. the SBC and Charles H. Spurgeon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bob to Charles:
It seems, Charles, that Mark Dever of the Founders may be "running" for the office of "Regular Principal" of the SBC.
By now, you have probably read Dever's recent gripe about the SBC's rejection of the Founders' proposal -- which in effect would call for SBC church membership rolls to be depleted of members who are not in compliance with what the Founders consider "scriptural" church attendance -- whatever that is.
The "paradoxical" thing about the Founders' proposal is that the Founders have already pronounced the SBC to be "an unregenerate denomination."If that be so, should not all the "unregenerates" in the memberships of SBC churches be depleted from the churches' membership rolls? Why cut-off only those who are non-attendees?
Why limit the "discipline" merely to those who are in non-attendance? Will excluding the non-attendees serve to "regenerate" the other "unregenerates" who are still in membership and do attend?
Wonder why the Founders' limited this proposal to church attendance when they have so many other grounds of condemnation for SBC churches? And if the Founders had had their way on this proposal, what would be next?
What would Dever propose to be the "proper age" for baptism? Should one be allowed in membership who is not baptized in accord with the "proper age" idea?
How about tithing? Should one be a member if he does not at least tithe?
How about "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinism? Should one be a member who does not believe in "born again before faith"?
How about "5 Point Calvinism"? If 5PC is the one-and-only expression of the Gospel, should a less-than 5PC be permitted to be a member of the church?
What about public invitations? Should one be a member of an SBC church if he approves of the use of public invitations?
What does the Founders' "Regulative Principle" call for, and who will be the "Regulative Principal" to expound it to us?
Will Mark Dever be one of the "chosen ones" to tell us what the RP authorizes?
posted by Charles @ 3:13 PM
38 Comments:
Dever's article has NOTHING to do with calvinism and regulative principle of worship,
Many non-calvinists have said AMEN to Ascol's proposal on integrity in membership. To make this about calvinism or the regulative principle of worship, is an exercise in missing the point.
This discussion has come up because of a generational shift in convention and a difference in opinion on what in means to be loving.
I'm hearing an older generation, say that its unloving to remove people from the rolls. They say challenging their profession will only make them mad and then we will never get them to attend.
I'm hearing a younger generation saying that it is unloving to let people go to hell who are likely unconverted.
This view is found in the exerpt from Dever's article
"Friends, "prospects" are in the phone book, in our family, in our neighborhood, at work. Church members are not "prospects". Church members are supposed to be our brothers and sisters in Christ .... If they (members) give no evidence of it, we're playing a high stakes game here with the souls of those we claim to love"
Both views are based on love, and since there is a mutual desire to show love, I think there is room for discussion on the subject.
I think we should avoid charicaturing the OTHER SIDE, and using straw men.
I believe Bob's desire was to lampoon what he thinks the Founders are about. Unfortunately, in the process of mocking the founders, he borders on mocking Christ's teaching on Matt. 18, by trivializing the discussion.
Questions:
Under what circumstances is Church Discipline justified in your church?
Does your church practice discipline? If not, why?
What is your strategy for engaging those on your rolls, for example, who have not attended in 30 years?
"STRANGE BAPTIST FIRE" PROMOTES
STRANGE HYBRID CALVINISM
Bob to Charles:
I scanned around, Charles, on the SBF blog, manned by five who all appear to be Hybrid Calvinists -- including the verbose, rambling, Gene Bridges, whom we have refuted on so many points on the Flyswatter.
They are embellishing the likes of Hybrids James White, Mark Dever, and baby regenerationists, and of course deprecating Billy Graham, Bobby Welch, a few others who are named, and putting down the use of invitations.
I would say, Charles, this is "typical" Hybrid Calvinism thinking, and is about as edifying as a James White debate.
One of the "funny things" about SBF is that while they stoke the fires about demanding a "regenerate church membership," they paradoxically embellish the "Reformed" baby regenerationists who primarily add to their membership rolls by enrolling unregenerate babies as members on the assumption that the babies have inherited "regeneration" as a "covenant" blessing.
WHAT ARE THE FOUNDERS ABOUT?
1 pointer said...
I believe Bob's desire was to lampoon what he thinks the Founders are about. Unfortunately, in the process of mocking the founders, he borders on mocking Christ's teaching on Matt. 18, by trivializing the discussion.
What "the Founders are about" -- I "think" -- is that they are about proselyting people to Hybrid Calvinism. That is all I have seen the Founders to be about since Ernest Reisinger created the sect. He wanted to "reform" the SBC and turn it into a "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinist denomination.
Their habitual anti-SBC digs, such as branding the SBC "unregenerate," then paradoxically proposing the so-called "integrity in membership," is, I "think," a pious hot-air balloon.
How can Dever and the Founders hold on the one hand that the SBC is an "unregenerate denomination," yet out of the other side of their mouth call on the SBC
to exercise "integrity in membership?" The legs of the lame are not equal. How can an "unregenerate denomination" exercise "integrity in membership"? ("Physician, heal thyself"?)
Since when do Mark Dever and the Founders -- or any others -- have the right to tell autonomous Baptist churches how to exercise their discipline concerning the issue of "non-attendance"?
Until Dever, Ascol, and other Founders have cropped off every "unregenerate" in their own sect, they apparently are simply saying no more than, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Until Dever and the Founders stop their hob-nobbing with baby regenerationists who pack their own churches with unregenerate babies on the presumption of their being "regenerated" in infancy, what do Dever and the Founders know about a "regenerate church membership"?
STRANGE HYBRID FIRE: WHERE IS SCOTT MORGAN?
Brother Bob, Hello!
You said, I scanned around, Charles, on the SBF blog, manned by five who all appear to be Hybrid Calvinists -- including the verbose, rambling, Gene Bridges, whom we have refuted on so many points on the Flyswatter.
Yes, it looks like Gene "No longer a Southern Baptist but I still want to tell them what to do" Bridges, Timmy "UPS" Brister, Nathan "I was publically rebuked by my Pastor Johnny Hunt but I Have No Shame" White, and a few others run the blog. I believe your analysis of it is on target.
Brother Bob, you'll remember that this is the blog that Scott Morgan was blabbing about. On April 17, he wrote, "Be ready soon to check out our new website."
Like you, Brother Bob, I "checked it out." I didn't see any articles from Scott Morgan. He's not listed on the "blog roll." The way he was blowing and going here, he gave the impression that it was going to be his blog. I guess Gene Bridges and the other hybrids/hyper Calvinists read his stuff over here and decided he was not up to snuff.
On March 5, Scott said, "I'm currently working on a site that will expose the weak arminian churches that are held high." "This blog site will rock the world of the SBC if God permits it to be. I will let you have a first preview."
Brother Bob, did you see any articles by Scott Morgan on Strange Hybrid/Hyper Calvinist Fire? Neither did I.
I guess his wife wouldn't let him.
Charles
Bob said, "How can Dever and the Founders hold on the one hand that the SBC is an "unregenerate denomination," yet out of the other side of their mouth call on the SBC to exercise "integrity in membership?"
truly amazing, and that's not just your mixing of metaphors.
How are they speaking out of both sides of their mouths?
They say (1) The SBC has a lot of unregenerate people on the rolls, perhaps a majority AND (2) the solution to that is to practice Christ's teaching about people who are unrepentant about their sin.
It's not that complicated.
It's not about calvinism.
It's not about calvinism.
It's not about calvinism.
Bob said, "Since when do Mark Dever and the Founders -- or any others -- have the right to tell autonomous Baptist churches how to exercise their discipline concerning the issue of "non-attendance"?
Do you understand how the SBC works? Anyone can make resolutions that are not binding. Just like the Boycott of Disney or a resolution against alcohol. Many resolutions are past each year, none of which are binding. As a part of the convention messengers have a right to give their opinion. And each church has a right to weigh that opinion and accept or reject it.
Are you proposing that at the Convention we have no resolutions because resolutions violate church autonomy?
Why is attendance so important?
Non-attendance may not be the most egregious sin know to man, it is a portal to greater sin.
Because if you don't show up you cannot love the brethren, support the brethren, worship with the brethren, mourn with the brethren, rejoice with brethren, teach or be taught by the brethren, sit under the preaching of God's Word with the brethren, etc.
In other words, attenance is pretty HONKIN important.
QUESTION: What kind of sin did Jesus have in mind in Matthew 18?
Are you saying that someone who never goes to church DOESN'T QUALIFY for the Matt. 18 process? And it is a process in which we hope and pray for repentance.
Bob,
If you want to make autonomy the issue then PLEASE live by it! You are the typical SBCer who puts convention above the local church until an issue comes up that Convention doesn't want to deal with then it becomes a matter of the individual church.
Do you even understand the SBC and your own belief system and what is Biblical and what is not?
Why do you always avoid answering the hard questions?
LIVING UNDER A ROCK?
Jeffro said...
Please show me where the leadership of the Founder's movement, any of them, have said that the SBC is unregenerate? I would like documentation.
Have you been living under a rock? Or are you simply new to this site?
You can check with Jim Eliff or Tom Ascol of the Founders, and they will be happy to educate you on the SBC as an "unregenerate denomination." I think the Founders even have his article on this website.
Also, if you will, document for me the "baby regenerationists" that the Founder's are hobknobbing with? I don't know any Presbyterians that believe that their infants are regenerated by baptism.
We have already documented that several times on this blogsite. Just check our Archives for quotations from several baby regenerationists, wuch as Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, Frame, Grudem, etc. The Founders have had several baby regenerationists on their programs.
A REPLY IN GENERAL
Bob to Charles:
I see no need, Charles, to respond invidually to some of the comments being made about the SBC, non-attendance, autonomy, etc. by obvious pro-Founders and less-than-informed posters.
The point with regard to the Founders is simply that they are hypoctrical
about their so-called "integrity resoltuion." Attendance and non-attendance in the SBC churches is the least of their interest.
In the first place, according to the Founders, the SBC is an "unregenerate denomination."
http://www.founders.org/library/elliff1.html
If that's so, then why are Founders churches still in an "unregenerate denomination"?
Secondly, the Founders' Hybrid Calvinism theological view has the majority of SBC church pegged as "Arminian, synergist, free-willers," etc.
So why are the Founders feigning and making an issue about "non-attendance" on the part of churches of that category in an "unregenerate denomination"?
If the Founders are really interested in integrity, they should withdraw from the SBC. Instead, they want to be a leech, a parasite to proselyte, and have dreams of "taking over" the SBC "machinery" like the "conservatives" took over in the past. They would like to "clean house" of the "Arminians" and make the SBC a "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinist denomination.
THAT WAS MY POST
Bob to Charles:
That post on "Friday, August 18, 2006 2:43:22 PM" which began --
>>
Anonymous said...
LIVING UNDER A ROCK?
>>
was my post, Charles. I don't know what occurred, but somehow it got away from me before I had filled-out everything. -- Bob
Bob doesn't get it when he repeats
"If that's so, then why are Founders churches still in an "unregenerate denomination?"
Asked and answered already.
The Founders believe the SBC and their founding principles are worth fighting for and are not ready to give up. One guy, wrote one article once calling the SBC an unregenerate denomination, implying that many on the rolls, NOT ALL, are lost, and we need to do better.
It's not that complicated.
It's not about calvinism.
Unanswered Questions for Bob:
What kind of sin did Jesus have in mind in Matthew 18?
Do you believe that someone who never goes to church DOESN'T QUALIFY for the Matt. 18 process? And it is a process in which we hope and pray for repentance.
Come on man, let's talk about the Bible.
Bob said,
"I see no need, Charles, to respond invidually to some of the comments being made about the SBC, non-attendance, autonomy, etc. by obvious pro-Founders and less-than-informed posters."
Sorry that not every commentor worships the ground you walk on, like Charles. It's definitely more fun preaching to the choir and not being asked simple straight-forward questions about Matt. 18
Granted that Jeffro wasn't in the know about the unregenerate article or founders association with pedo-baptists. You are still avoiding good points that have been made.
Bob said,
"They would like to "clean house" of the "Arminians" and make the SBC a "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinist denomination. "
The opposite is actually true. Now that the convention has been purged of liberals, Calvinists are now public enemy #1.
Anually many sermons during the Pastor's Conference of the SBC charicature and rip on Calvinism. Articles in the SBCLife magazine warn of young calvinists, and resolutions have been proposed investigating it, and prominent SBC leaders are traveling and preaching against calvinism.
I guess there is no room for guys in the SBC who agree with many of the founding leaders of the convention.
BTW, THE founders would agree with the founders on church discipline as well.
FOUNDERS vs Founders?
SBC said...
BTW, THE founders would agree with the founders on church discipline as well.
Well, you offered no evidence of that assertion, and considering how far removed the Founders are from the founders on the new birth, I won't hold my breath till you validate your assertion.
Bob must be under the impression that Church Discipline orginated with Dever and Ascol. Embarrassing.
A few references that Baptist used to agree with Christ on Church Discipline.
--The charleston declaration of 1774
--Apostolic Church Polity 1874
--Corrective Church Discipline by P.H. Mell
--The Glory of a True Church by Benjamin Keach 1679
Your turn to answer the simple questions that have been asked a couple times.
What kind of sin did Jesus have in mind in Matthew 18?
Why don't you believe that non-attendance qualifies for the Matt. 18 process?
Does any sin qualify for the matthew 18 process? Or was Jesus wrong to teach what he did.
Bob,
You can now hold your breath.
Bob has "officially" been swatted away on the subject of Church Discipline.
MORE RESOLUTIONS COMING?
SBC said...
Bob must be under the impression that Church Discipline orginated with Dever and Ascol. Embarrassing.
I was browsing a few of the Hybrid blogs, and the Founders are now chattering about more "Resolutions."
It seems the "game" is on and the "fair-i-sees" are crawling out of the woodwork. Of course, Matthew 18 will no doubt be invoked as the "prooftext" on every transgression and aberrancy -- "Tell it to the Convention."
For instance, I saw references to potential resolutions on Gluttony, Adultery, Divorce, etc. etc.
"Slim" Johnson will perhaps present the "Gluttony" resolution.
Alex Eunuch might be a qualified choice to present the one on "Adultery."
Hosea Jones might like to do the one on "Divorce."
I would suppose that the "Purtanized" segment of Hybrids would welcome one on "Sabbath desecration."
The Anti-dispies might want to present a Resolution on "left behindism."
Someone from some State other than NC, KY, and VA may want to present an anti-tobacco resolution.
Scott Morgan might like to propose a resoltuion in opposition to watching Joel Osteen.
Gene Bridges might like to present a resolution against reading The Calvinist Flyswatter.
Tom Nettles and Al Mohler may want to sponsor a resolution against railing against our Presbyterian "baby regenerationists" brethren.
Who knows what evils might be thwarted or hindered by making these and similar items the subjects of resolutions at the next SBC?
DISCIPLINE
RosSwatter said...
Bob has "officially" been swatted away on the subject of Church Discipline.
I have no objection to church, but I do not have any use whatsoever for Founders' discipline nor SBC messengers' discipline -- nor for either one of them trying to butt-in on my church's discipline.
You can tell "officially" to "Go soak his head in a lister bag."
Our church looks to nothing humanly higher than itself, and if we decided to do otherwise, I can assure you it would not be to either the Founders or the SBC messengers who meet once a year at the convention. I would not trust either one of them to take my dogs for a walk.
WORSHIP?
Gravitas said...
Bob said,
Sorry that not every commentor worships the ground you walk on, like Charles.
If you thought you were going to harass me, Gravitas, you failed. Let me tell you something about Charles.
Charles is perhaps the bravest and most reliable blogster in blogdom that I have read. After being forbidden to comment by some of the Hybrids who feared his commentary, he accepted the "suggestion" to put up his own blog so he could express his opinions.
Charles has since developed one of the most informative anti-Hybrid Calvinism blogs on the Internet, and his blog has gained accreditation and been commendably recognized by several significant sources.
What convinced me of the courageous character of Charles was when he used some of my own writings. "Bob L. Ross" is not a much appreciated name by advocates of "regeneration before faith" Hybrid Calvinists. Other than Campbellites, Preterists, Hardshells, and Landmarkers, I suppose that Hybrid Calvinists have the most dislike for my writings. Hybrid James White will not even accept my email! And Gene Bridges calls me a "trouble-maker" and other choice designations. These are appreciated "badges" of my success in refuting Hybridism.
Charles had the courage to use my writings, and that revealed to me that he was indeed "Charles the Brave." For once at least James White told the truth!
If there is any "worship" to done, I would be the one "worshipping" rather than Charles. He has helped spread my writings exposing Hybridism more extensively than I could have ever done on my own.
Thanks, Charles, and I know the "drunks" who are inebriated by the "White Lightnin'" and other forms of Hybrid Brew will not hinder you a bit in your dedication to contend for the Faith.
Bob,
You seem to have trouble having a simple talk about the bible, without making references to blogs, white lgihtning, hybrids, or pedo-regenerationists.
Let's pretend for 5 minutes that I have never heard of the founders or dever or white or hybrids, and just engage me on the text of scripture?
AGAIN
What kinds of sin did Jesus have in mind in Matthew 18?
Why don't you believe that non-attendance qualifies for the Matt. 18 process?
Does any sin qualify for the matthew 18 process? Or was Jesus wrong to teach what he did.
BTW, Matthew 18 is not a PROOF text, it is the WORD OF OUR LORD.
Charles,
Sorry for my hyperbole, you do not worship Bob.
But, is there anything you can think of that you two disagree about, Biblically?
MATTHEW 18 AND NON-ATTENDANCE
Gravitas said...
Why don't you believe that non-attendance qualifies for the Matt. 18 process?
I think that is what Brother James would call "eisegesis," isn't it? Reading something into the passage which is not really there?
But I suppose that if "non-attendance" by brother #1 is judged to be a personal "trespass" by brother #2 against brother #2, then brother #2 could process his complaint against brother #1 according to Matthew 18:15-17. I have never heard of this
"interpretation" before, but you can run with it if you choose.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with "Tell it to the Convention," do you? Seems to me that the offending party is to be contacted first by the offended party, even before any further action.
SUPERFLUOUS
Gravitas said...
BTW, Matthew 18 is not a PROOF text, it is the WORD OF OUR LORD.
Your comment is superfluous. It is also inappropriate, for anytime a biblical passage is proposed as substantiating a teaching, it is appropriate to be classified as a "prooftext."
Hello Again,
I didn't fall off the planet, we've just had much death and sickness in our church since this weekend.
Thanks for finally interacting on Matthew 18. And you only mentioned James White once. That's great.
Bob said earlier, "Matthew 18 will no doubt be invoked as the "prooftext" on every transgression and aberrancy"
Then Bob said, "anytime a biblical passage is proposed as substantiating a teaching, it is appropriate to be classified as a "prooftext."
So when you use the term prooftext, you are or are not using it as a negative?
TELL IT TO THE CONVENTION
Bob said, "But I don't see how that has anything to do with "Tell it to the Convention," do you? Seems to me that the offending party is to be contacted first by the offended party, even before any further action."
What the heck are you talking abotu "tell it to the convention"?
Who is proposing that the matt. 18 process includes the convention?
You've implied that a couple of times, where are you getting that from?
Bob said, "But I suppose that if "non-attendance" by brother #1 is judged to be a personal "trespass" by brother #2 against brother #2, then brother #2 could process his complaint against brother #1 according to Matthew 18:15-17. I have never heard of this
"interpretation" before, but you can run with it if you choose.
I'm getting from you that Matthew 18 is only about a certain type of personal sin?
Would a member then who was addicted to drugs or who slept with many women in town not be a candidate for the matt 18 process, because the sin was not personally against a member of the church? I would say that it is personal, because their actions reflect poorly on Christ and His church.
What could be more personal than a member of the church body choosing to withdraw their fellowship, love, support, encouragement, gifts, etc.?
I really don't understand why you believe that non-attendance is such a non-consequential, impersonal thing.
One more time, "What are examples of sin that you think that Jesus had in mind in Matthew 18?"
Just trying to draw out the nuances of your disagreement.
RABBIT TRAIL
gravitas said . . .
I really don't understand why you believe that non-attendance is such a non-consequential, impersonal thing.
I surmise you may be a little "cornfused."
Your approach has strayed off from what this "non-attendance" discussion was at the outset -- it really had nothing whatsoever to do with non-attendance being "non-consequential," nothing to do with Matthew 18, "an impersonal thing," etc.
It originally had to do with the Founders' resolution presented at the recent SBC. Go back and read the Flyswatter Archives before the Convention.
Now, you tell me -- how does Matthew 18 have anything to do with making "resolutions" at the SBC on anything?
Did Jesus say, "If thy brother trespass against thee, tell it to the convention"? "If a member is in non-attendance, tell it to the convention?"
Who should govern or even instruct a local church about attendance matters -- the local church, or the "messengers" who gather once a year at the SBC? Where does the SBC "messengers" get the right to "speak down" to tell a church or all churches how they should handle their membership rolls as to "non-attendance"?
FYI, the SBC is simply a gathering of a relatively small number of members of Baptist churches. They do not constitute a "presbytery" or "episcopacy."
They have no authority from the Bible or the churches to establish practices for Baptist churches to follow on any doctrine or policy.
WHAT YOU'RE GETTING
gravitas said...
I'm getting from you that Matthew 18 is only about a certain type of personal sin?
What you should be getting is that the Founders' resolution at the SBC has nothing to do with Matthew 18, and vice versa.
Matthew 18 has to do with the local church, not to resolutions presented to the "messengers" who attend the Southern Baptist Convention once a year.
PROOFTEXT?
Gravitas said...
So when you use the term prooftext, you are or are not using it as a negative?
When a Scripture is used as if it teaches a certain truth, that is commonly referred to as a "prooftext."
Whether it does or does not support something may be "debatable."
For example, "Church of Christ" debaters offer Acts 2:38 as a prooftext for their view on baptism. I disagree with them on the use of that verse as supporting their view.
Baptists offer verses such as John 3:18 as a prooftext to teach salvation by faith alone. "Church of Christ" debaters disagree with us.
So a "prooftext" is nothing more than a passage which one thinks supports his view on a matter. It may, or it may not, support him.
Bob said, "They have no authority from the Bible or the churches to establish practices for Baptist churches to follow on any doctrine or policy."
Bob,
So are you agaist all resolutions in the SBC or just the founders resolutions? See other sbc Resolutions here.
Resolutions are passed all the time and have been passed for generations, each resolution makes some moral judgement or another and expresses a desire for churches to hear it and do something. The convention accepts or rejects it. If it accepts it, the churches have the right to disregard it or take it to heart and do what is suggested.
None of which are binding, but are recommendations to autonomous churches. If you will look at the founders resolution you will see that it doesn't demand the churches to do anything. It encourages, urges, and pleads, but IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE CHURCHES. Surely if we can pass dozens of resolutions about alcohol, disney, homosexuality, war, etc. We can pass a resolution about being honest and having integrity in your membership roll.
BOBS QUESTIONS
Now, you tell me -- how does Matthew 18 have anything to do with making "resolutions" at the SBC on anything?
I do not understand what you are trying to twist the resolution into. NO ONE HAS MADE A RESOLUTION that the convention be an active part of the matt. 18 process. No one has said that Matt. 18 is the biblical foundation for resolutions.
The only thing that has happened is a resolution encouraging churches, pastors, and leaders to be obedient to matthew 18.
If it had passed, churches wouldn't be expected to contact the SBC before removing them from the roll. If that is what you think, then you haven't read the resolution or you don't understand how resolutions work in the SBC.
RESOLUTIONS?
gravitas said...
So are you agaist all resolutions in the SBC or just the founders resolutions?
You have jumped track again. You were using Matthew 18, and I said it has nothing to do with resolutions at the SBC annual convention.
Do you agree with me?
As for "resolutions," they may frequently go beyond the bounds of Scripture, as if to "speak down" to local churches on issues that strictly belong to the sphere of the local church.
I see the Founders' resolution as an effort to get the convention to intimidate local churches in regard to what the Founders think they "ought to do" about non-attendance -- an issue which is in the province of each church to decide, not the Founders and not a few "messengers."
GOOD SENSE
gravitas said...
The only thing that has happened is a resolution encouraging churches, pastors, and leaders to be obedient to matthew 18.
If it had passed,. . .
It did not pass -- which shows that there were enough messengers with the good common sense and biblical understanding to realize the resolution was out of place.
MATTHEW 18?
gravitas said...
I do not understand what you are trying to twist the resolution into. NO ONE HAS MADE A RESOLUTION that the convention be an active part of the matt. 18 process. No one has said that Matt. 18 is the biblical foundation for resolutions.
I tracked back on this thread, and unless I missed something, here is how Matthew 18 was brought into the discussion:
>>
Honker said...
QUESTION: What kind of sin did Jesus have in mind in Matthew 18?
Are you saying that someone who never goes to church DOESN'T QUALIFY for the Matt. 18 process? >>
I did not bring up Matthew 18. I was "hounded" about it and so I have subsequently made some comments, showing that it is not talking about "non-attendance."
Bob,
The resolution itself was about church discipline. Church Discipline was brought in the discussion when the post went up.
You said that it was good that the resolution failed, well the resolution was primarily about Church discipline.
There would be no need for "hounding", bless your heart, if you would answer questions from the get go rather than dancing around them.
Here's the resolutions that led to this whole discussion. Which is, in my opinion, outstanding.
RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18), and be it further
RESOLVED that we plead with pastors and church leaders to lead their churches to study and implement our Lord’s teachings on this essential church practice, and be it further
RESOLVED that we encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, especially when such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally
RESOLVED that we commit to pray for our churches as they seek to honor the Lord Jesus Christ through reestablishing integrity to church membership and to the reporting of statistics in the Annual Church Profile.
Post a Comment
<< Home