Prayer and the Doctrine of "Free Will".

(This post is taken from a conversation being held over on Wade Burleson's Blog)

-------------------

Prayer is simply incompatible with the doctrine of “free will”.

Someone (I cannot remember who) once said; “We are all Calvinist on our knees.” If I am praying for God to save my child, I am asking God to violate his “free will”. It cannot be otherwise.

If I truly believe in the doctrine of “free will” then what exactly am I asking God to do for my child? Anything God does that will influence my child in the slightest way will be a violation of his “free will”. Anything God does that will influence the will of my child that he does not do for all children (no matter how small the influence) is an act of “Election”.

However, if I start with the understanding that the will is not free, but that the will of my unregenerate child is in bondage (a slave to sin) then that changes everything. Then my prayer to God for my child is that God will “free” the will of my child; so that my child may indeed, of his now “freed” will, choose to embrace the grace of God.

The best treatment of this subject is not Luther in ‘The bondage of the will’ but instead John Calvin’s ‘The Bondage and Liberation of the Will’, subtitled “A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius” published by Baker Academic. Notice that subtitle! Calvin is defending the doctrine of “Human Choice”.

If you do not have this book and you are an honest seeker of truth then I highly recommend you purchase it and read it with Bible and pen in hand. You can pruchase it from monergismbooks.com at the following link.

http://www.monergismbooks.com/Bondage-and-Liberation-of-the-Will-p-16201.html

Grace Always,

Greg

Alcohol and the Authority of the Word

I recently received an email from a very articulate young Baptist Pastor who has a BA from Boyce College, an MDiv from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is currently working on a Phd in OT at Southern. (I am withholding his name because this post is not about this young man; this post is about the honest questions he asked.)

Here is the email that I received:

Greg,

I want you to know that I greatly appreciate your interest and interaction with our ________ blog. However, there is something that concerns me and I wanted to point it out to you.

All of your replies to my recollection involve one common theme, alcohol. Even posts that seem to have nothing to do with alcohol elicit responses from you about alcohol. I am curious as to why you are so concerned about this one issue that it consumes all of your posts? This almost seems to be a first tier issue for you.

I want to be clear that I don't believe the Bible supports a position that says that every drink of alcohol in every setting at any time is a sin. We might disagree on the wisdom of alcohol consumption in some cultures or settings but certainly the Bible doesn't condemn every sip of alcohol that one might take. With that said I'm still curious why this so big for you? Why are you so concerned to change the convention's view of alcohol? Why are you more concerned with that
than cooperation around missions, church planting and ecclesiology, training of ministers, etc?

Please help me to understand.

In Christ,

Xxx Xxxx


Greg Alford Replies:

Xxx,

Thanks for the email... I have enjoyed reading your articles on xxxxxxxxx blog lately.

What motivates the words and actions of others is indeed sometimes very hard to understand, so I will try and answer your question with as much honestly and clarity as I can…

I do not bring up the issue of alcohol in many of my comments because I often partake of alcoholic drinks. Quite the opposite is true… On rare occasions I will have a glass of wine with an evening meal, at the Christmas gathering with my family, or at a wedding.

Brother Xxx, with humility of spirit and abiding love for all things Southern Baptist… I often bring up this issue in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Florida Baptist Convention because I am greatly burdened to speak out.

God alone is qualified to give unto man the standard by which he should live and be judged. He has done this by means of his Holy Word, which alone is Sufficient for such a great task as this.

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” – (Article I. BFM2000)

Now, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Florida Baptist Convention have set themselves up as the givers of the Law, and have condemned both God and Christ for their conduct…

Just a few points concerning wine:

• It was commanded of God to be given as an offering in the O.T.
• It is said in the O.T. to make glad both the heart of man and God.
• Jesus turned water into wine, (not Welch’s).
• Jesus and every single one of his disciples drank wine at the Last Supper.
• It is one of the two elements of communion (Is it proper to make substitutes for the Biblical pattern of any ordinance? Remember we Baptist will accept no substitutes for the Biblical patter of the ordinance of Baptism.)
• Jesus told his disciples that he would partake of wine with them in Heaven.

Xxx, I hope you can see my heart and great concern for my Southern Baptist Convention in this matter… If the Word of God is not “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” then what is or “who” is? This is not a matter of opinion; it is nothing less than a matter of setting ourselves up as the supreme standard by which all human (and God’s) conduct should be tried… And that my friend is a very grievous sin indeed.

Blessings,
Greg Alford


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:


Greg,

I still am perplexed by your response. You spent most of your email defending a position that I already conceded was biblically defensible. My question is why is this such a huge issue for you. You think that someone who takes a teetotaler position is being anti-biblical or not trusting in the sufficiency of Scripture? Is this your concern? There are a lot of other issues that you could raise that bring into doubt our convention’s practical stance on the sufficiency of scripture, why this one and why so fervent? I never meant to imply with my email that you love alcohol or drink it a lot personally. It was just a question as to why you talk about it so often. I understand that the Bible doesn’t condemn all drinks of alcohol and has some good things to say about alcohol. Again, I stated that in the last email. I understand that your concern is that someone or something (i.e. SBC) is bypassing the Bible as the supreme standard with the various resolutions on alcohol. However, I do want to state that the issue might not be black and white. The Bible does have some clear warnings that it gives concerning alcohol and not just warnings about drunkenness (Proverbs for example). Are raising principles of being concerned for not seeing weaker brothers stumble from 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 completely inadmissible here in your opinion? Again, I don’t want to get into an argument over alcohol, b/c as I said I don’t think a teetotaler position is mandated by the Scripture. I guess my question is why are you so “burdened” by this particular issue when there are others that could be brought up? What do you think it is about this particular issue that so burdens you?

Again, I appreciate you responding to my email. I am simply curious.

Xxx Xxxx


Greg Alford Replies:

Xxx,

Let me try again,

I do not think that someone who makes the personal decision to be a teetotaler is being anti-biblical or not trusting in the sufficiency of Scriptures at all. That is a personal choice and can be made for many valid reasons.

However, let me clearly say that I do think that it greatly questions the authority of Scriptures for anyone to insists (as John Sullivan has done in the Florida Baptist Convention) that all those who do not hold to the teetotaler position are unfit for service. To me the actions of John Sullivan and the Florida Baptist Convention are just as great an attack upon the Scriptures as any liberal has dared make in my lifetime.

One’s position on alcohol has become in some state conventions an extra-biblical litmus test used to exclude otherwise solid conservative Baptist from cooperation and service. And there is an ongoing effort to make this a policy throughout the SBC so that no one who does not hold a teetotaler position on alcohol can serve in any position in the convention at all………… That is why this is such a huge issue for me.

It really comes down to one simple question…

“Is the Bible our final authority or not?”

Grace Always,


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:


Greg,


I will think thru your response and I do sense this is a big issue for you because you think convention leaders are adding to the Bible.


However, Greg it is a gross overstatement to equate John Sullivan's policy or any state/national convention's policy on alcohol with liberals who have denied the resurrection, condoned homosexuality, etc. That is going way too far!


Xxx


Greg Alford Replies:


Xxx,

Are you sure you are qualified to make the decision of just what is an acceptable denial of Biblical teaching and what is not?

For that matter, who among us "mortal men" is qualified to say one departure form what the Bible teaches is far worse than another? Who decides Xxx? Me? You? Who then?

No... there are no small departures from what the Bible teaches...

Blessings,


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:



Greg,

Yet you are making the decision to view all 'departures' the same. Who gave you that office? Honestly, I find it unfathomable that you would equate a position of not being in leadership because you think it is ok to drink alcohol with a denial of the resurrection. One of those departures is FAR worse. Denial of resurrection means a person is not a believer at all!

I appreciate you taking time to respond to each of my questions but at this point I will not continue the conversation further.

Xxx


Greg Alford Replies:


Xxx,

Communicating by way of email is sometimes very difficult... It was not my intent to offend you in any way during this discussion... My questions in the last email were designed to stir you to think seriously about the issue of the authority of God's Word in the Southern Baptist Convention. If I have indeed offended you I do apologize and hope that we end our discussion as Brothers.


Blessings,


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:


Greg,

You did not offend me and certainly we will always conclude discussions ad brothers. All I meant by my final email was that we are absolutely called to make decisions about which departures of scripture are most heinous because some rise to the level of heresy and others only misinterpretation, misapplication, etc. Theological triage is important for all kinds of reasons having to do with levels of cooperation and so forth. I think Paul's words in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 imply that there might be issues of application we disagree on like alcohol and others that shouldn't matter as much, and yet 1 Corinthians 15 there are other issues like the resurrection that are life and death. I was not offended. I simply and vehemently disagree with you on comparing a stance on alcohol with a stance on the resurrection.

Also, we have had some kind exchanges but the truth is we are not getting anywhere with them. You believe one thing and I believe the other. I simply started the email exchange because I wanted to try and understand why this was hill to die on for you. I think I understand why and we will simply have to disagree that one's stance on alcohol reveals their confidence in scripture's sufficiency.

In terms of how to deal with the alcohol issue itself my dad is releasing a blog that I would encourage you to read. His view will be close to mine. At this point I just don't want to talk about alcohol anymore.

I do pray God's blessing on you, your family and your ministry. Thank you for taking the time to interact with me. I'm sure you're busy.

In Christ,

Xxx Xxxx


Greg Alford Replies:


Xxx,

I would agree that some departures from Scripture are more heinous than others, however I would add that no departure from Scripture is acceptable...

You have made the comment several times now that I have made a big deal out of the alcohol issue... indeed I have commented on it several times, and will likely continue to do so, but I must strongly disagree with this statement. It is not I but John Sullivan and the Florida Baptist Convention that has made a big deal out of alcohol by making it of first tier importance... and it is they who have decided to dis-fellwoship anyone who does not agree with them concerning alcohol. Actually I can cooperate with those who believe it is always wrong to drink alcohol and those who do not see it as a sin.

You said you started this conversation in order to try and understand my opinion in this matter... now I would like to understand yours. Do you agree with the actions of John Sullivan and the Florida Baptist Convention in making alcohol a first tier issue?

Grace Always


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:


Greg,

This will probably sound like a cop out but honestly I don't know the situation well enough to have an opinion either way. Sorry.

I have supported resolutions on alcohol passed on the convention floor but I cannot speak to this specific issue.

Xxx


The conversation ended with the last reply from this young pastor who has a BA from Boyce College, an MDiv from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is currently working on a Phd in OT at Southern.

I really would like to know how others view this topic (Alcohol and the Authority of the Word). Anyone have any thoughts on this exchange?

Grace Always,
Greg

Strong Coffee - No Longer Welcome in the SBC?

Ken Coffee has written a short, yet powerful, article that askd the question:

“DOES THE SBC STILL WANT ME?”

I do not know Ken Strong, but nevertheless, you should read this article… below is my response that I posted to Kens site.

-----------------------------------------

Brother Ken,

These are some pretty hard words coming from a professed Conservative Southern Baptist:

There is a lot of discussion on other blogs about whether or not the conservative resurgence was worth it in the Southern Baptist Convention. Put me on the side of those who think it was not.

Many of us feel that we in the SBC are morphing into a group of intolerant religious bigots… We are becoming more “Cambellite” than Baptist.

This resurgence everyone in SBC leadership is so proud of has become a huge, bigoted conglomeration that shows no tolerance of anyone who has a different point of view.

My conservative credentials will match up with anyone out there, but these credentials stop at drinking the Kool-Aid and giving up my right to think for myself.

I would love to continue to call myself a Southern Baptist… The big question in my mind is, do Southern Baptist still want me? Frankly, I am not sure I am welcome in the SBC any more.

As I said above, these are some pretty hard words brother and I hope you are quite prepared to defend them… But not to me, I agree with “almost” everything you have said (being a non Kool-Aid drinker I reserve the right to not fully agree with anyone except our Lord) :-)

I have been warning my fellow Conservative Southern Baptist for years of the dangerous influence of the leaven of the “Landmark” (Cambellite) fringe of the SBC. The Cambellites (in small numbers) have always been there among the ranks of the Conservative Resurgence… Smiling… Drinking the Kool-Aid… and Waiting. However when the Conservative Resurgence (eager to boost their numbers) embraced Liberty (Cambellite) University… their time had come.

O, they do not call themselves “Cambellites” anymore… that would not be wise in a Convention that was once split by the Cambellites… No they march under the banner of “The Baptist Identity Movement” today, and they set on almost every Trustee Board in the SBC. The Cambellite TAKEOVER of the IMB should be a wakeup call to all Southern Baptist… CR no longer stands for the Conservative Resurgence, but instead CR stands for the Cambellite Resurgence.

The Takeover of the IMB is only the first trophy of the Cambellite Resurgence… more will follow! The influence of Liberty University is growing throughout the SBC. (What a horribly deceptive name is “Liberty” for a Cambellite University) I now receive a free copy of their monthly magazine, and I could not help but notice that the Leadership of Liberty University is being pushed forward as guest speakers at small Baptist Colleges and State Conferences throughout the SBC. I must assume this is a planned strategy to increase their exposure to all Southern Baptist pastors.

Brother Ken, this is far more than I intended to say… thanks for letting me speak out. If more Conservative Southern Baptist do not stand up and speak out, and soon, more and more of us will find that we are no longer welcome in the SBC.

Grace Always

The Anti-Calvinist!

Pastor John Sneed of Davenport, Iowa, writes on the clear and present danger of the Anti-Calvinist in our midst...

You really should read this article!

http://semperdeogloria.blogspot.com/2008/06/anti-calvinists-it-is-humbling-and.html

Grace Always,
Greg Alford

SBC "One Size Fits All"

“One Size Fits All”: An Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone!

The last 25 years of commercial DBMS development can be summed up in a single phrase: “One size fits all”. This phrase refers to the fact that the traditional DBMS architecture (originally designed and optimized for business data processing) has been used to support many data-centric applications with widely varying characteristics and requirements.

In this paper, we argue that this concept is no longer applicable to the database market, and that the commercial world will fracture into a collection of independent database engines, some of which may be unified by a common front-end parser. We use examples from the stream-processing market and the datawarehouse market to bolster our claims. We also briefly discuss other markets for which the traditional architecture is a poor fit and argue for a critical rethinking of the current factoring of systems services into products.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you are a Database Manager and a Software Application Developer like me (Yea... I'm a Computer Nerd in my other life) then the above paragraphs probably mean absolutely nothing to you.

But as I read this paper by Michael Stonebraker it occurred to me that much of what Michael was saying about the database market is also true about the SBC... “One Size Fits All” is an Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone!

Like it or not Southern Baptist are a diverse group of believers... and as someone recently said concerning the diverse group gathered at the 2008 Annual Convention in Indianapolis, Indiana “We are all Conservatives”. Being a Southern Baptist Conservative does not mean that we all agree on everything but as Dr Danny Akin recently commented at this Convention “there will be no retreat from or compromise of the great theological truths and Baptist distinctives that unite us.”

A call for diversity and unity within the SBC is not a call for the inclusion of Liberals who reject the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scriptures (that battle has long been won)... it is however a call for the full inclusion of other Conservatives who differ (sometimes passionately) on third tier issues like alcohol, baptism, and church polity.

A “One Size Fits All” ideology is nothing less than an attempt by some in the SBC to Lord-it over their fellow Southern Baptist Believers. A “One Size Fits All” ideology says I am in charge and I am going to impose my will and my convictions upon all Southern Baptist. A “One Size Fits All” ideology is a dangerously delusion that leads to the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation. And history shows us that a “One Size Fits All” ideology has destroyed many denominations in the past.

If the Spirit of Cooperation among Conservative Southern Baptist is not regained, and the “One Size Fits All” attitude of the Fundamentalist that has been quietly gaining ground in the SBC is allowed to spread and prevail in our institutions (IMB, Florida Baptist Convention) then history will look back on the SBC and wag their tongs... the SBC will become a byword for arrogance and what might have been... but now is lost.

For the SBC “One Size Fits All”: is an Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone!

Grace Always,
Greg

Anti-Great-Commission Policy?

A Conversation with Dr. Paul Foltz:

Dr. Paul Foltz recently commented on my blog “it's time for all Calvinist to band together and form a new convention.”

Which lead to the following responce that I am now posting...

Dr. Folts, I think you express the “Unspoken” desire of many, many, Calvinist in the State of Florida... I actually think that having only one Baptist Convention in any state is a bad idea... it would be like saying that we can only have one Baptist Church in any City/Town/Community.

How do you think all those who are apposed to the idea of a new convention in the state of Florida would feel if they were suddenly told, Ok we are only going to recognize The First Baptist Church of each City and all you other churches are going to have join First Baptist Church in order to remain in the SBC.

The current business model of allowing, for the most part, only one convention per state is just as restrictive to future growth as allowing only one Baptist Church per city... and of course the only reason for such a policy is control.

Which brings me to my next point... is it not this desire for control that is actually restricting the growth of the convention and according to the latest statistics actually shrinking the convention? And in this case is this not actually an Anti-Great-Commission Policy?

A few years ago the Alabama Baptist Convention had a slogan; “Start Something New!”... It was intended to encourage growth by encouraging individuals and congregations to start new churches. Why would the Alabama Baptist Convention wish to start new churches? Because everyone knows that new churches grow much faster than existing churches. Therefore “Start Something New!” is a Great Commission slogan... and those who oppose the starting of new state conventions are actually guilty of hindering the Great Commission in order to maintain control over their own turf.

So by now it should be clear to everyone that I firmly believe the starting of new state conventions would greatly impact the SBC in it's efforts to fulfill the Great Commission... and restore a measure of ballance to the SBC as no one group would be in absolute control over any state. It would give Baptist a choice... which in my opinion is a good thing for growth.

I would love to see this happen in every state, but in Florida very soon! But where to start? How does one actually go about starting a new State Convention? I am ready... but I am probably not the one who can rally the troops for such a great undertaking as this... Will God raise up men in the State of Florida and throughout the SBC to meet this challenge?

I honestly do not know... “nevertheless Father thy will be done”.

Greg

Anti-Calvinist Elected SBC President!

One of the most vocal Anti-Calvinist the SBC has to offer has been elected President with 52% of the vote on the first ballot…

Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla., who nominated Johnny Hunt, says “Hunt will unite the convention and forge a hopeful future”… What world has Ted Traylor been living in?

If by “uniting the convention” Traylor means that the election of a full blown Anti-Calvinist and further alienating the Young Reformed Generation that is abandoning the SBC in droves those who are left will be more united, then he is probably right.

I will hold off commenting more on this until I have time to digest fully what this will mean for the Reformed movement in the SBC… But this I know “It is a very dark day in the SBC for the Reformed Movement!”… as I seriously doubt a single Calvinist will be nominated to serve on any BOT by Johnny Hunt over the next two years.

Grace Always,

It's Time to Change

Southern Baptist Committed to Reversing the Recent IMB Guideline Changes.

Please read and consider signing here

Grace Always,
Greg Alford

Enemy of the State

(I made the following as a comment on my Blog but have decided it needed to be a full post concerning the dangerous direction of the Florida Baptist Convention – Greg Alford)

When John Sullivan had the audacity to tell the Florida Baptist Convention that he was going to impose a ban on anyone serving in the convention who did not hold to a total abstinence from alcohol conviction and that he “was not taking a poll” on the issue... a new day had dawned in the Florida Baptist Convention.

The Neo-Fundamentalist of Jacksonville (especially John Sullivan), like the Church of Roman in times past, have shown themselves the enemy of our Historic Baptist Principles of Church Autonomy, Cooperation, and Religious Liberty as expressed in articles VI, XIV, and XVII of our Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

VI. The Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel...

XIV. Cooperation
Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner...

XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it...

If the Pope had issued this decree concerning the Catholic Church I might not find it so utterly absurd... But it was not issued by the Pope of Rome, it was issued by a Baptist who, by the Florida Churches submission to his decree, has been given the unfettered authority of a Baptist Bishop... When it comes down to it there is not much difference in a Catholic Pope and a Baptist Bishop.

I for one will not kiss the ring of either...

Grace Always,
Greg Alford

Why Were Our Reformers Burned?

Taken From "Light from Old Times" by J.C. Ryle

There are certain facts in history which the world tries hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world's favorite theories and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them. They are either cut dead as vulgar intruders, or passed by as tiresome bores. Little by little they sink out of sight of the students of history, like ships in a distant horizon, or are left behind like a luggage train in a siding. Of such facts the subject of this paper is a vivid example: “The Burning of our English Reformers; and the Reason why they were Burned.”

It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth, or any opinions for which it is worth while to be burned. Yet, 300 years ago, there were men who were certain they had found out truth, and were content to die for their opinions. It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history and to paint everything with a rose-colored hue. A very popular history of our English Queens hardly mentions the martyrdoms of Queen Mary's days! Yet Mary was not called “Bloody Mary” without reason, and scores of Protestants were burned in her reign. Last but not least, it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which throws discredit on the Church of Rome.

Yet it is as certain that the Romish church burned our English Reformers as it is that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings. These difficulties meet me face to face as I walk up to the subject which I wish to unfold in this paper. I know their magnitude, and I cannot evade them. I only ask my readers to give me a patient and indulgent hearing. After all, I have great confidence in the honesty of Englishmen's minds. Truth is truth, however long it may be neglected. Facts are facts, however long they may lie buried. I only want to dig up some old facts which the sands of time have covered over, to bring to the light of day some old English monuments which have been long neglected, to unstop some old wells which the prince of this world has been diligently filling with earth. I ask my readers to give me their attention for a few minutes, and I trust to be able to show them that it is good to examine the question, “Why were our Reformers burned?”

Let me say up front that no one to my knowledge is calling for the burning of our Baptist Reformers in the SBC today... and the persecution that many in the Reformed movement have faced over the last 20 years in the SBC pales in comparison to that faced by our forefathers. And yet there are similarities between the two that cannot be denied.

When Ryle says “There are certain facts in history which the world tires hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world's favorite theories and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them.” he could just have easily been describing all those anti-Calvinist in the SBC today who try hard to forget and ignore the fact that the SBC was founded by “Convinced and Committed Calvinist”.

When Ryle says “It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth, or any opinions for which it is worth while to be burned. Yet, 300 years ago, there were men who were certain they had found out truth, and were content to die for their opinions." he is summing up the convictions of the modern day Reformed movement in the SBC that are certain they have found out truth and are content to suffer the loss of prestige and position in the convention for those convictions.

When Ryle says “It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history and to paint everything with a rose-colored hue... (and) it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which throws discredit on the Church of Rome.” he is accurately describing the attitude of many in the SBC today (like the leadership of the Florida Baptist Convention, and the BOT of the IMB) that think any and all criticism must be silenced and all opposition to their personal convictions and will for the convention must be squashed.

Those who will not learn from history are destine to repeat it... be it Fundamentalist in the SBC or the Bloody Marys of the Church of Rome; blatant disrespect for the religious opinions and convictions of others has always been the fuel that burns the fires of persecution and the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation. (more soon)

Grace Always,
Greg Alford