Dear Dr. Frank S. Page,
Sincerely in Christ,
Dr. Wm. Dwight McKissic
Sincerely in Christ,
Dr. Wm. Dwight McKissic
posted by Arkansas Razorbaptist at 9/17/2006 09:38:00 PM
Sunday, September 17, 2006
posted by Arkansas Razorbaptist at 9/17/2006 09:38:00 PM
email.ArkRazorbaptist [at] aol [dot] com | copyright 2006, all rights reserved
17 Comments:
Thanks for posting this!
I hope you will keep us informed of reactions to this letter. I am also glad to see that this issue will be brought up at the next convention.
This is more absurd than Neville Chamberlain's PEACE IN OUR TIME SPEECH.
This will bring us no more "along the road to sanity" than did the Munich Agreement bring Eourpe in 1938.
cb
It has already made me so crazy I cannot spell Europe anymore.
So CB, you don't like McKissic's letter?
I think CB is is saying that he will vote for Winston Churchill in the next election.
I am the one that sold Winston the Tommy Gun used in the famous picture and I did write his name in for president of the SBC:-)
cb
Seriously I think it is foolish to continue to tamper with the BF&M. It is not the Bible and in reality binds no one before God. The Scripture is that which binds us.
If we start trying to find a "proof text" for everything we will delute that which truly holds us together. That being the Word which has no private interpretation.
We need to seek the truth from the Word and depend on the Spirit to seal that truth in our hearts.
An open Bible and an open mind (to the Spirit) really does bring people to unity in truth and love.
Churches always get in trouble when they start pulling out constitutions and Bylaws that are thirty or more years old rather than to let the Bible speak and then obey it in the power of the Spirit.
The more we play with the BF&M the more we become a creedal people and when we deny it as time goes on we will be hypocrites more so than we are now.
cb
cb,
That would be fine with me, not to mess with the BF&M, just as long as the IMB BoT rescinds those policies that went beyond Scripture and the BF&M
Glory Guy,
You will get no argument from me on that. That was a mistake not because they went beyond the BF&M but because they superimposed dogma over the Scripture. That is always a mistake, yet is seems to be very fashonable in post modern times such as in these we live. Would you agree?
cb
Brother CB,
I guess this is where you and I may find disagreement. Are you saying that our agencies are not able to impose policies and standards on personnell if it further defines the generic terms of the BF&M?
If that is the case, how did you and Robert Tenery do what you did at the SSB? What I am saying is that parameters were narrowed for the 1963 BF&M. I know we were trying to get those Ex's in charge to just get them in line, but whose theology did you adhere to with Durham's Commentary? Isn't that the same thing the IMB Trustees have done with PPL and Baptism?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
No, I am not saying that agencies are not to impose policies. I think that one problem is the lack of policies.
My point is that the BF&M is at best a secondary source for Christians and Christian institutions. The Bible is the primary source and should be used as such. This old garbage about the Bible speaking one way to me and another to you is heresay.
I cannot remember one time when Bob, CB or any other trustee that served with me pulled the BF&M to settle a theological problem. Someone always went to the Bible. One thing that has happened since 2000 is that the BF&M has been given too much "clout" among the folks that historically say we are a people of the "BOOK"
cb
Brother CB,
Really, wasn't the problem more that only designated employees were told they had to sign the BF&M63 and others did not? Also, those signing it were also not operating within the frame work of it. Also, when one was called back to the BF&M 63 it did no good because they would assign different meanings to the word, therefore the Bible was the standard we went back to.
Isn't that more in line with the way you all proceeded?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I promise we did not ask the employees of the BSSB (LifeWay) to sign the BF&M 1963.
cb
Anyway, Dr. McKissic's motion, if followed, will surely bring this issue to a head. Although, I suspect that he would have the same rude awakening that Dr. Rankin had when he pressed a vote with the IMB BoT. From my observation, the attendees of the convention are, by and large, far more apt to oppose this type of amendment. That is the problem with amending the BF&M in this way. Only a small number of people decide, and who are they anyway?
If a counter amendment was adopted, the result would be chaos and the destruction of the SBC. It would be better if things would go back to how they were and we let this lie. But, that time has probably passed.
You guys keep cooperating like you do and you'll find God not blessing the SBC.
sigh
Post a Comment
<< Home