Comments on Founders Ministries Blog: Former President of the SBC misrepresents opponent...

I always find it interesting that guys like Trovol...

2006-08-22T21:22:00.000-04:00

I always find it interesting that guys like Trovolfan007 don't ever have a blog or profile of their own.

Tom, you have more patience than we do at Fide-O.

Well, after suggesting that SBC'ers would choose t...

2006-08-17T22:33:00.000-04:00

Well, after suggesting that SBC'ers would choose to continue harping on alcohol rather than focus on the serious problem of obesity in the church, Baptist Press released an article "Vaccinating our Indulgences" It even addresses the problem of obesity in the pulpit.

Truthfully, I've struggled with a weight problem (though I've lost 23 lbs in the last 3 months) and wouldn't want to add to anyone's feelings of condemnation. However, it's bothered me for years how those in SBC leadership just leave this problem off their radar while picking on the guy that has a glass of wine every now and then. Maybe if these pastors would have a glass of wine to ease their mind they wouldn't reach for that third piece of pie and 5th piece of fried chicken.

By the way, I understand one of the pragmatic church growth gurus came out with a new cookbook.

How To Double the Size of Your Pastor in Two Years.

I can just hear someone bragging at a future convention, "yeah we've baptised 100, seen 30 profess that Jesus is really cool, and have added a total of 4,000 lbs to our church body this year."

Volunteer fan double-O 7, my brother,I wish you we...

2006-08-17T19:28:00.000-04:00

Volunteer fan double-O 7, my brother,

I wish you well. You obviously love the Lord and you love the Word, even though you add to it by your traditions. I've done worse, I am sure.

I do not want to argue with you. We agree that drunkenness is foolish and sinful. We agree that abstinence is a wise choice. We oppose promoting alcohol.

You don't seem to think that I agree with you on those propositions, but I do.

All I am really upset about is adding rules to Scripture and slandering good men.

Let's leave it at this, Vol Fan. You have refused to answer my question, and I will not answer yours. No hard feelings. Just you and I should not be debating.

I wish you well and remain

Amicus (Friend)

Who here is awe-struck by the fact somebody read t...

2006-08-17T18:10:00.000-04:00

Who here is awe-struck by the fact somebody read the Bible through thirteen times?

Reading it through thirteen times is not shabby, but by no means does it confer on one the right to say "I know more Bible than all of you do."

I know of a man who reads it through that many times in a year.

It really doesn't matter how many times you read the Bible if you skip over Deut 14:26 (or any other verse) every time you come to it.

amicus,how much of today's liquor do you have to d...

2006-08-17T11:29:00.000-04:00

amicus,

how much of today's liquor do you have to drink to be drunk? i am not talking about what our govt. says is drunkeness....i am talking about how much is too much? and, how can one know?

also, if smoking weed were legal...would you say that it's ok to smoke a little weed?
the bible does not clearly say that smoking weed is wrong.

i would say that it would not be a sin for someone to take a drink of todays liquor...foolish..but not sin. anyone who drinks alcohol is doing a foolish thing according to proverbs. if you drink undiluted, fermented, intoxicating drink...then you are being foolish.

drinking diluted grape juice was not foolish in ot times...nor would it be for you and me. if you are using alcohol for medicinal purposes...nothing wrong with using drugs for medicine. if you soak your steak in jack daniels, and then you cook it out....i guess there would be nothing wrong with that...because it would not make you high.\

the bible teaches that we are to be high on Jesus...full of the Spirit....the joy of the Lord is our strength.
we are not to be high, or drunk, on wine.

i used to drink and party all the time. my life is so much better now that Jesus saved me and i have life in Him....not in weed nor in alcohol. all praise to the Lord.

also, about my approach to the bible....i hold to what the bible clearly teaches..in its context...thus, i dont preach that things like gambling, nor smoking cigs are sin. its not in the bible. i do encourage people to not gamble and waste God's money. i do say that its foolish to gamble, just as its foolish to drink intoxicating drinks for pleasure...to get high...or happy, as you translate deut. 14. i do say that to quit smoking would be good for a person...financially and health wise....but its not a sin.

my bro., i preach the bible from my pulpit just as it is...i preach verse by verse thru books of the bible. i try my best to preach and teach it just as it is. i have always...my whole ministry...tried to abide by the clear teachings of the bible...and not get hung up on my own personal convictions. i try to not be legalistic, or more narrow than the bible. i hope that clears things up for you.

still not sipping any moonshine,

volfan007

pastorleap,what are the requirements of joining yo...

2006-08-17T11:12:00.000-04:00

pastorleap,

what are the requirements of joining your church? do you require people to go thru a new members class before they can be a member? i know that a lot of five pointer churches require this....if you are one of those...where is this in the bible? or, in your opinion, is this something that is legalistic? would this not be extra biblical?

also, would you allow a man who hung out at casinos and gambled a lot to be a church leader...a deacon, or an elder? nowhere in the bible does it say that you cant gamble. just wondering.

volfan007

Yes, it's really me, the guy who has been pleading...

2006-08-16T15:23:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's really me, the guy who has been pleading for understanding. But there comes a point... (Some time right after one has received Faith & Values and SBC Life on the same day...)

Bethel,
It has been 24 hours since Tom very charitably suggested that you had misspoken. Now Cliff has done the same. Maybe these brothers know you, although your profile leads nowhere. Did you misspeak? Or are you an actual hypercalvinist? Know, in that case, that we who are reformed have no more in common with your views than with Volfan's. A heart that does not care for the lost is not a heart that is well acquainted with the sovereign God of grace.

Or are you really an Arminian posing as a Calvinist, seeking to discredit the doctrines of grace?

Volfan,
I have tried to explain to everyone that you are not a bad guy. But please answer this question, which your assertions keep begging:
You keep saying that drinking for pleasure, to get high, is a sin. What about the many who drink wine for pleasure but not for the "pleasure" of getting drunk, high, or tipsy? It is a distinction that you assume is impossible, because of your own sick experience, but that Scripture makes all the time. The two are not at all necessarily the same thing. Compare your favorite verses in Proverbs (and there are many more that condemn drunkenness) with Deut. 14:26; Psalm 104:15; Eccl. 9:7; and Song 8:2.

I am not "promoting the use of alcohol". Nor did Tom at the Convention. Dr. Welch's comments in SBC Life look so much nastier when one sees them in print rather than on the computer screen. Something about holding slander against your brothers in your own hands. Forgive me, Tom, for even seeming, in my previous posts, to minimize the wrong that was done to you - although I know it was not for your own honor that you were indignant.

Everybody,
Volfan's "arguments" are not much of a threat to the cause of the sufficiency of Scripture. His hermeneutics are so messed up he doesn't have the foggiest idea how to carry on a discussion about the Bible. Dr Richard Land, on the other hand, makes an articulate defense of Res 5 in his paper (Faith and Values). Dr Land is nothing if not articulate. What is supremely scary about his article is that he frankly admits that he does not have Scripture on his side, but appeals instead to an impressive array of Baptist precedent and tradition. Pius XII, in establishing the doctrine of Immaculate Conception of the BVM, used much the same method.

On the other hand, Brother Leap, let's not get too dramatic here. They're not going to be passing rules against tatts or long hair any time soon. Alcohol has a very special place in the hearts of Southern Baptists. If we will just compromise on sufficiency in this one little area, things will settle down.

Or not.

Pastorleap,Here is the start for ideas for a consi...

2006-08-16T13:04:00.000-04:00

Pastorleap,

Here is the start for ideas for a consistent solution...maybe...
http://reformatabaptista.blogspot.com/2006/08/southern-baptists-alcohol-resolution.html

Mark

Bethel,I'll let you borrow my snow shoes; or bette...

2006-08-16T12:36:00.000-04:00

Bethel,

I'll let you borrow my snow shoes; or better yet; just give me your neighbor’s address. Honestly, what you said is the most disturbing thing I've read in this comment section today and is exactly what the non-Calvinist majority of the SBC fears. However, I'm am assuming you were simply trying to make a point and mis-spoke. I do that ALOT! LOL :)

What Tom said...

Leap, Byronic, others...really guys...take to heart what "to obey is better said" in the comment section. You keep showing up at a nonsense convention with reasoned rational arguments. If you keep doing so; the rest of us will be forced to question your wisdom. Not your intelligence mind you! Good grief you guys are so much more intelligent & articulate than I. Perhaps though it is time to exercise wisdom.
Joy,
Cliff

Volfan, Your analogy (would I let someone teach wh...

2006-08-16T09:19:00.000-04:00

Volfan,

Your analogy (would I let someone teach who believed in falling from grace) is like comparing apples to oranges. This is so for a number of reasons:
1. Eternal salvation is a matter of theological orthodoxy, the issue of social drinking is not.

2. Eternal salvation is clearly a matter that is adequately attested to in the scriptures, and once again...the issue of an occasional drink is clearly NOT. That's why there is so much argument over it.

3. Eternal salvation is an issue of doctrinal orthodoxy clearly attested to in the bible which is also clearly spelled out in our statement of faith (BFM 2000), whereas the boundries of Christian liberty are not spelled out legalistically the way that some SBC leaders would like it to be. In other words, the doctrinal statement which our church holds leaves some room for interpretation in the area of liberty, but none in the area of eternal security.

So no, I wouldn't let that person teach, but you are no closer to proving your argument because the analogy is not valid. Too many inconsistencies.

Also, I got my issue of "Family Faith and Values" yesterday (from the ERLC), and surprise, surprise...guess what the lead article is on??? The "drinking controversy" among SBs. Richard Land gives his insight on the issue. Guess the word has clearly come down from the top that this is a "serious attack" that must be addressed by all the heavy-hitters. Guess some others (who will remain unnamed) will also soon be preaching rallying sermons on the subject to stir up the base.

And here I thought we were all about soul-winning?!?!

isaiah,i dont know what a bot is...but i aint one....

2006-08-16T07:41:00.000-04:00

isaiah,

i dont know what a bot is...but i aint one. i am a man!

volfan007

anybody else getting the sneaking suspicion that v...

2006-08-16T00:30:00.000-04:00

anybody else getting the sneaking suspicion that volfan is a bot?

Bethel:I hope you mispoke. Your willingness to let...

2006-08-15T13:05:00.000-04:00

Bethel:

I hope you mispoke. Your willingness to let 5 feet of snow keep you in your warm, comfortable house instead of witnessing to those who are lost betrays a far different spirit than that of the Apostle Paul. He prefaces his most ardent teaching about God's absolute sovereignty in salvation with these words,

“I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,”
(Romans 9:1-3).

If that spirit doesn't live in us--or if we do not at least aspire to it--then it is doubtful whether we hold our theological convictions with the same insight that Paul did.

volfan007,It sounds like you have never studied th...

2006-08-15T12:38:00.000-04:00

volfan007,
It sounds like you have never studied the 5 points of Calvinism. Go back and review those points again. There is a big difference between your views and mine. When it is 5 feet of snow on the ground, you will have to wade through it to witness to someone because you might say something to change their thinking about Christ. Yet when it is 5 feet of snow on the ground, i can stay home in the nice, warm house because I don't have the pressure to win someone in order to report a number to the SBC like you do.

brist,would you want a weed smoker to teach a ss c...

2006-08-15T12:21:00.000-04:00

brist,

would you want a weed smoker to teach a ss class? or, to be a deacon? there is nothing in the bible against smoking a little weed.

also, every church is autonomous, and it decides things like who the pastor will be...what style of worship they will have....where they will stand on the communion issue...what kind of baptisms they will accept and those they wont....what color the carpet will be...etc.

i agree with you that the church....every church...ought to base what it does on the clear teachings of the bible. but, there are many things that the bible is not crystal clear about. on those things....a church must decide what they are gonna do. baptists do certain things one way...presbyterians do it another...some bible believing methodists do it another way.

and, that's ok. yall may want to baptise in a creek only...no baptistry in the church. yall may feel strong about that...ok. that's fine. baptise in a creek. there's nothing in the bible about that. there's nothing wrong with that. i like having a baptistry myself...but whatever. your church would have to decide on that, and would have every right to do so...on non essential..unclear things.

the sbc also has the right to say that we dont want to have arminians in leadership positions...or that we dont want drinkers being missionaries....that its that important to us. we are not saying that they are not saved...no one is kicking them out of the sbc...we just dont feel that they should be leaders.

i will bet that your church has some things that are not clearly spelled out in the bible...but yall feel that its important. like, some churches make people go thru a new members class before they can join. where's that in the bible?

also, there's nothing skewed about getting to go to heaven. i want to go to heaven...dont you?

also, Jesus never drank intoxicating drink for pleasure... never...the bible teaches that it's foolish to drink fermented, undiluted grape juice. i for one will not call Jesus a fool. maybe you will....i wont. Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and He is holy.

well, enough...i have got to get back to work,

volfan007

Volfan,I think you are mistaken on two points:1. Y...

2006-08-15T01:55:00.000-04:00

Volfan,
I think you are mistaken on two points:

1. You seem to be applying Rom 14-15 to groups (like a local church body) when it is talking to individuals within a local body. Paul is telling individual Christians that they are not to judge others IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY concerning their use of wine, food, holy days, etc. So once again, according to Scripture (being the Biblicist that I am), the local church has not right to tell another individual (teacher or not) whether they can use a good created thing or not. The church is the mouth of God when it speaks His Word. When it doesn't, it loses all authority.

2. The issues you bring up of how a church (as the body) conducts a corporate worship issue has nothing to do with what we are talking about. This has to do with what a man is allowed to use in life (in his own home), not what the church as a gathered assembly will do on such and such occasion.

Finally, I wanted to mention that I think your view of salvation is skewed to mean "I get to go to heaven." Salvation is redeemed to become like Christ. How does one become like Christ? Through faith. Can your Sunday School teacher be like Christ if he has faith and drinks wine (not in order to get drunk) at dinner? If you say "No," then you have fallen into the error of the Galatian Judaizers and the Gnostics, since you now are denying that one becomes like Christ through faith and not the abstention from using created things. If you say, "Yes," your argument falls apart. One like Christ should be able to become pastors, ss teachers, presidents of the SBC, etc.
Before you say Christ would never be foolish and drink wine for pleasure, it would be a good thing for you to review the Wedding at Cana.
Your view of salvation also seems to be merely vertical and lacks the horizontal reconciliation between us as brothers. If salvation means I fellowship with and accept Christians with all preferences as equal in Christ (and judge them by their faith in Christ and not their responsible use of things), then I will accept and fellowship with pastors, ss teachers, etc. in my own congregation, and this will not be an issue. If I think you are like Christ based on your use of created things (like Gnostics and Judaizers), then I will not want you as my pastor, ss teacher, SBC president, etc.

So which one is it?

Forgive the off-topic question (well, not complete...

2006-08-14T19:36:00.000-04:00

Forgive the off-topic question (well, not completely off topic):

Does anyone know if and where the SBC Annual Reports can be found online? PDF would be wonderful. Thanks ahead of time,

Scotty

Volfan007:1 Timothy 5:1 (WEB)Don’t rebuke an older...

2006-08-14T18:33:00.000-04:00

Volfan007:

1 Timothy 5:1 (WEB)

Don’t rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father; the younger men as brothers;

I apologize for my harsh tone. I read the Scripture above and felt convicted. Though we are going to disagree on some things, that's OK. May you find all of your satisfaction in Christ alone, brother.

--
Byron

pastorleap,it's nice to see you without the anger....

2006-08-14T18:04:00.000-04:00

pastorleap,

it's nice to see you without the anger. now, you seem like your pic...smiling. that's good.

i would not exclude a social drinker from being a member of my church. no. but, i would not want them to be a ss teacher or a deacon or a staff member. and, i would encourage them to not drink alcohol for pleasure...it's foolish. and, i would not really want anyone to be a fool....would you?

let me ask you another one. would you let someone who taught that you could lose thier salvation teach or be a church leader?

now, i must brave the hot, southern sun and cut my grass...not weed...grass...well, there are a few weeds...you know what i mean.
grace to you,

volfan007

Volfan, my dear brother, There you go again!!!...W...

2006-08-14T16:47:00.000-04:00

Volfan, my dear brother, There you go again!!!...WHAT ANGER AND BITTERNESS!?!?!?

Throughout the entirety of my earlier post, I was not angry or bitter...but I suppose you can make that empty charge and attempt to make me look bad If that helps your position.

BTW...We practice close communion. However, we do not exclude from our membership those who disagree. Nor do we keep them from leadership positions in our church. Better yet, we don't break fellowship with churches that differ with us on this issue. Because it is an area left open to interpretation, we don't seek to establish a law about how it is to be done. Judging issues of polity (how we do that which the Bible is not clear on) is different than judging someone unfit for service over a legalistic issue.

I answered your question, dear friend, now will you answer mine? Could a social drinker join your church? I already know how you feel about discussing the scriptures (from your last post...btw...why should a man with such great Bible knowledge NOT share it with the rest of us...and you accused ME of self-righteousness...geez) but will you at least answer a question about church-life???

Happily and lovingly yours in Christ!

pastorleap,wow, what a diatribe! i have just one ...

2006-08-14T16:14:00.000-04:00

pastorleap,

wow, what a diatribe! i have just one question for you...does your church practice, open communion, or close communion, or closed communion? which one?

now, this aint a requirement for salvation. i aint being legalistic. but, your church has certainly chosen one to practice, has it not? the bible didnt tell you which one to practice...your church chose to do it that way. correct?

your church is not adding to,nor subtracting from the bible to choose which way to do communion. it's up to you all's conviction on the matter..right? well, our sbc is not saying that people arent saved who sip a little ripple. we are just saying that we dont want them to be missionaries, nor be in leadership positions if they drink alcohol for pleasure...to get high, or happy. our sbc has every right to do this narrowing of the boundaries if we see that it's the best way for us to be...which we did. there's nothing legalistic about it. there's nothing mean about it. there's nothing wrong with it. it's how our sbc believed was what was best for our sbc. in our humble opinion(the 85 to 90%) of the people who voted for the resolution, we believe that the bible teaches that it's foolish to drink alcohol for pleasure..to get high...to get happy. we didnt want anyone who couldnt see that to be in leadership positions, no more than we'd want arminians writing our ss literature and saying that you can lose your salvation....no more than we'd want missionaries who didnt believe in immersion as the proper, scriptural way to baptise.

pastorleap,
i really dont understand all the anger and bitterness, bro. and, when talking about quoting verses and discussing them...what's the use? they have been discussed up one hill and down the other so many times that a trail has been beaten down. i could quote you verses and respond to the ones you quote from now til the sun sets and rises...and you will not change nor see it clear until the Lord opens your eyes.

well, enough...i have just about written as much as pastorleap.

love and grace to you,

volfan007

volfan007SAYS: I have studied the bible for hundre...

2006-08-14T16:09:00.000-04:00

volfan007
SAYS: I have studied the bible for hundreds of hours more than you have. i am not bragging....i am just telling you my qualifications. i have studied the bible for thousands of hours on sermons and lessons....in seminary...in personal study and devotion...i have read it strait thru thirteen times..working on the fourteenth.

SAD,SAD,SAD, That the HOLY SPIRIT
did not reveal GOD'S WORD to you and write on your Heart, from what one read in your comments.

A Brother for TRUTH

Volfan, your response was just about as I had expe...

2006-08-14T15:47:00.000-04:00

Volfan, your response was just about as I had expected…a lot of hot air lacking any substance. After claiming that “pastorleap doesn’t know what he is talking about,” you failed to respond to any of my observations. The only thing that you got right was pointing out that I was angry and blowing off steam, a point which I admitted in my post. As far as me being “self-righteous,” and “judgmental,” I neither exalted my own righteousness nor condemned you to Hades for your beliefs. It is called “dialogue” my friend. It happens a lot here at the Founders site and sometimes it gets heavy because we deal with heavy issues. I find it ironic that you do not hesitate to bring your cynical comments to the post and then proceed to speak your mind on positions, but then as soon as someone else does, you retreat to calling them “self-righteous” and “judgmental.” No volfan, as skewed as I believe some of your positions are, I do not “judge” you, nor “condemn” you, and I SURELY don’t think that I am some kind of super-righteous giant. I simply confronted your positions by stating mine. Here again, the irony is that just a few months ago, you were on here championing your hero Ergun “Pitbull” Caner, and arguing in his defense. My language was very tame compared to the caustic venom he spews forth toward all who dare oppose him, but you rebuke me as “self-righteous” and “judgmental” and believe Ergun is some kind of spiritual hero.

You constantly used the term “we” to describe those who supported the resolution and oppose Calvinism as if that means “the WHOLE SBC.” Obviously it doesn’t. There is great division on these issues and those who opposed the resolution were not some tiny minority. Please stop assuming when you talk that you represent the WHOLE of SB life; you do not. Again though, being in the minority on some of these issues does nothing to convince me that that minority position is wrong, it just proves to me that there is still so much teaching to be done in the average SB church.

I never stated that you made abstinence from alcohol a condition for salvation (so I didn’t read your post incorrectly), I was merely pointing out that some do. Further, when a denomination states that people cannot serve in leadership positions due to the fact that they hold to X (fill in the blank), when in fact X is something of a totally extra-biblical nature (i.e. long hair, KJV Bible use, social drinking, casual dress, etc…), then the denomination is absolutely establishing a LEGALISTIC precedent. I am not an antinomian either, I believe in the boundaries that scripture establishes, but this is precisely the point on the casual drinking issue…the Bible does not establish a boundary that says “thou shalt NEVER enjoy a fermented and/or alcoholic beverage.” According to Grenz’s “Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms,” legalism is defined as “the attitude that identifies morality with the strict observance of laws or that views adherence to moral codes as defining the boundaries of a community (i.e. SBC). Religious legalism focuses on obedience to laws or moral codes based on the misguided assumption that such obedience is a means of gaining divine favor.” (72) The SBC with this latest resolution has indeed sought to define the boundaries of its community by requiring adherence to a law that is extra-biblical. They have laid the groundwork for making it a clear test of fellowship in the SBC and even though it would never affect me personally (I told you, I don’t drink at all), it bothers me that they are seeking to establish this kind of legalistic precedent. Besides making us look like fools to the world, what good can come of it? Where will it lead to next? Will there be a resolution next year against tattoos? What about a resolution on Bible versions? When will there be a motion for a revision of the constitution and bylaws to exclude from SB fellowship anyone who drinks socially?

Why is it not plain enough to you volfan, that Paul’s weeping over Israel’s rejection of the Messiah in Romans 10:1-4 was based on the fact that they had missed God’s righteousness and sought to establish their own? Is Galatians 3:1-14 not plain enough for you? Do you not trust the Spirit of God to convict and lead where the Word of God is not abundantly plain? Do you really believe God’s words to Peter in Acts 10:15? Why does the leadership of the SBC call “unclean” or “common” individuals whom God has pronounced “clean” by the blood of Christ? Is the logic of Romans 14-15 really so difficult that you cannot comprehend it, so you instead establish man-made laws to “protect” God’s people? Did not Paul make himself clear by teaching these things a second time in I Corinthians 8-10?

I doubt that you will engage these questions, as you are notorious for dodging those pesky little scripture references that bother you so much. But I implore you to study them closely before you respond to me by blustering “pastorleap doesn’t know what he is talking about!” or “he is just venting!”

The real reason that I posted was to hear your response on a number of issues that you failed to engage. Please consider them once again.
1. How is it that the total abstinence view is void of almost any support throughout church history? Except that is, for the support that is given by post-prohibition fundamentalists? Could it be that the “total abstinence to be truly spiritual” argument is relatively new and more of a cultural phenomenon growing out of American Fundamentalism than it is a long-held position of the church? I agree that not everything that is historical is correct, but red-flags go up in my mind when someone or some group holds a position that is largely unheard of previous generations of Christians! BTW…this type of arrogance is far greater than any self-righteousness I demonstrated in my post.
2. You still haven’t explained on just what grounds you were challenging me and others to “leave Baptist life and become Presbyterians.” How can I be a Presbyterian (even though I respect them highly) when I hold exclusively to regenerate church membership and congregational polity? How can I be Presbyterian when I reject their view of Covenant Theology?
3. Who on this blog holds closer to the historic confessions of Southern Baptists? You? Or the myriads of men and women who post here who study and defend our historic confessions, which are unarguably Calvinistic, Evangelical, and Baptist?
4. BTW…why don’t you just join a Nazarene church? They are much more legalistic than us “sipping saints” and they are thoroughly Arminian. I genuinely thought they would suit your taste better than Baptists?!
5. By the same logic you use to assume that all of us who opposed the resolution are “sipping saints,” how can all of those who opposed the integrity in membership resolution escape the judgment of God for supporting the continual practice of lying and misrepresentation? (btw…I realize they didn’t do this, but it is logically consistent according to Volfan’s logic!)
6. Can a professing Christian join your church if they announce up-front that they enjoy an occasional glass of wine with their meal? Can they serve in leadership positions in your church? If no, then you are not dealing with an issue of “autonomy” (as you put it), but you are rather adding to the gospel something that is not required by the scriptures and something that should be left up to the leadership of the Spirit. Could they?
7. Would you also support a resolution banning from leadership in the SBC all those who overeat? Smoke? Have tattoos? Hold to 5-point Calvinism? (I just couldn’t resist that one) What is next for the SBC?

Until you are willing to deal with these questions and address these scriptures, please don’t come blustering back about how “self-righteous” and “judgmental” we Calvinists are. Just deal with these real issues, and we will all be enlightened.

one salient,you really need a new pic, bro.i belie...

2006-08-14T09:42:00.000-04:00

one salient,

you really need a new pic, bro.

i believe that bible with all my heart. i would imagine...from looking at your pic....that i have studied the bible for hundreds of hours more than you have. i am not bragging....i am just telling you my qualifications. i have studied the bible for thousands of hours on sermons and lessons....in seminary...in personal study and devotion...i have read it strait thru thirteen times..working on the fourteenth.

but, yall in here are much smarter than i am. you all have studied and are smarter....i am just a plain ole hillbilly with a country boy's understanding of the bible. but, i do know the Lord and i love Him and i beleive His book.

and, the Lord has led me away from the extreme of five pointism. and, the Lord has taught me...from verses in proverbs 20 and other places...that a fool drinks intoxicating drink for pleasure..to get high. all the alcohol of today is far more intoxicating than what they had back then. but, if you want to mix your mogan david with four or five parts water....go for it. you and granpappy will have a great time. he will bring a liquid substance that resembles water....but boy......it's not!

love and blessings,

volfan007

Funny how Volfan and his ilk do not interact with ...

2006-08-14T03:18:00.000-04:00

Funny how Volfan and his ilk do not interact with the Bible at all.

Deuteronomy 14.22-26 gives Israel permission to make wine and other fermented drink.

Psalm 104.15 states that God gives wine to gladden the heart of man.

All the anti-wine verses are not anti-wine, they are anti-drunkeness.

The bible's message is clear - you can drink alcohol if you want to, but if you get drunk you're sinning.

Anything else is not biblical. Volfan does not believe the bible.