Earliest Known Hebrew Writing

The topic of the following article by Clara Moskowitz at LiveScience.com is worthy of discussion in and of itself… (I just love it when science finally discovers that, in spite of all the cynicism from those who have scoffed at the Biblical record for the last two hundred years, what the Bible says is true after all.)

However, in this post I do not so much want to discus the implications of this discovery on our understanding of when the Bible was possibly written… but instead I want to discuss the content of this discovery. Indeed it is quite fascinating to discover a pottery shard with Hebrew writing dating back to the period of King David’s reign… But what is equally amazing to me it that the scientists get all excited about the age of this discovery, and completely ignore the content of the message itself. To me this is like being the caption of the Titanic and getting a warning message of a massive iceberg directly in your path and being so excited over this wonderful new technology (wireless) that allows ships to talk to one another that you completely forget to read the message.

Anyway, I digress… It’s the message that’s important not the pottery shard itself.


--------------------------------------------------------
(Article begins here)

Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests

Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com

Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing - an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign.

The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)

Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

"It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research," said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text.

BCE stands for "before common era," and is equivalent to B.C., or before Christ.

The writing was discovered more than a year ago on a pottery shard dug up during excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, near Israel's Elah valley. The excavations were carried out by archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. At first, scientists could not tell if the writing was Hebrew or some other local language.

Finally, Galil was able to decipher the text. He identified words particular to the Hebrew language and content specific to Hebrew culture to prove that the writing was, in fact, Hebrew.

"It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ('did') and avad ('worked'), which were rarely used in other regional languages," Galil said. "Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ('widow') are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages."

The ancient text is written in ink on a trapezoid-shaped piece of pottery about 6 inches by 6.5 inches (15 cm by 16.5 cm). It appears to be a social statement about how people should treat slaves, widows and orphans. In English, it reads (by numbered line):

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

The content, which has some missing letters, is similar to some Biblical scriptures, such as Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, and Exodus 23:3, but does not appear to be copied from any Biblical text.

(End of article)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The principals (ideals) of social conduct contained on this simple shard of pottery dating back to the period of King David are simply extraordinary.

1st – That it was written upon a clay tablet indicates that the wisdom it contented (the message) was of such importance that it should be persevered for all future generations.

2nd – The text is in essence a “Constitution” or “Social Contract” laying down the very foundational rules for this society.

3rd – This society is first of all to be a “Religious Society” and not a “Secular Society”. The establishment of a purely secular state, so entrenched in the thinking of our society today, is not found here.

4th – In this society “Religious Tolerance” is NOT a virtue. God alone is to be worshiped.

5th – Justice for all, regardless of their station in life, is to be one of the foundational principals upon which this society is built. Regarless if one is a slave, a widow, an orphan, or even a stranger (Immigrant) in the land, all are to be treated justly.

6th – Unlike in other societies, where the strong rule over the weak and the defenseless, in this society the rights of the weak and the defenseless are to be earnestly protected. I am deeply moved by the fact that the earliest known Hebrew writing ever discovered says; “Plead for the Infant” . Which I strongly believe applies to the unborn child and the ongoing abortion holocaust of the last fifty years.

7th – And lastly the Poor, the Slave, and the Stranger (Immigrant) are not to be abused, or taken advantage of.

I may come back and expand upon my initial observations latter (depending upon if anyone is interested or not), but duty calls me away and I must end this post for now.

Grace Always,
Greg

Pastor/Teacher --- "Stranger?"

Yesterday (Dec.9.2009) Les Puryear made the following comment on his blog:

“ I would like to see seminaries such as SEBTS begin to recognize that the majority of their students will minister in small churches, whether established or newly planted, and provide courses which will equip them to minister in the small church culture which is a completely different environment than is found in megachurches.”

The high turnover rate of Pastors in the vast majority of Southern Baptist Churches, and the damage it causes to the witness of Christ and the work of the local church in our communities, is something that I feel very passionate about. I am told that the average tenure of a Southern Baptist Pastor is around 2 years… (If anyone has the precise numbers on this I would love to have them posted)

If this inexcusable number is even close to being correct (and I believe it is) then it is a clear indication that we have a deep rooted, unhealthy, and systemic issue within our Southern Baptist culture of accepting as normal short term/unstable leadership in our small Southern Baptist Churches.

There are many factors contributing to this sad condition and I make no pretense of being in any position, or possessing sufficient wisdom, to address them all. However, there is one thing that that I believe to be ‘the’ major contributing factor in all of this, and that is the practice of most small Southern Baptist congregations of calling absolute “STRANGERS” to pastor their church.

Here is the comment I posted on Les Puryear’s blog that gives my basic argument on this issue:

Les,

Thanks for this post!

This gives me the perfect opportunity to vent about something that I am very passionate about… and that is that this whole modern system of calling a “stranger” as your pastor is completely unbiblical.

Can anyone give me just one example in the Bible where a congregation called a “stranger” as their pastor? Yet 99.9% of the time in Southern Baptist Churches, no matter how careful the search committee is, and no matter how long they take, that is exactly what they do. They wind up calling a complete stranger to fill the most important position in the Church. Would anyone dare propose to their congregation that they need to look outside of their own body for Elders, Deacons, Teachers, or general officers? I think not. So why do we do exactly that for the positions of Pastor, and then get all offended when they don’t work out, or move on to bigger churches? There is a real simple solution to the problem of small churches being used as stepping stones… “Stop calling strangers as your Pastor”.

Can anyone explain to me how any search committee can affirm with any certainty that someone from outside of their own local community actually meets the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3:1-7. How can they know if this handsome young stranger with the good looking resume and the perfect wife and 2 little children on the front row, is of a blameless reputation or is nothing more than wolf in sheep’s clothing? In truth they cannot, but if he grew up in this community, or lived there for a few years they would know. They may actually check the references listed on his resume, but does anyone truly expect to uncover anything that would disqualify someone by asking the people listed on a resume? No, not really, so they usually wind up never asking any questions whatsoever about the man’s qualifications. You will notice that 1 Tim.3:7 says that he must have a good reputation of them which are without (in the community). How can a “stranger” possibly meet this requirement?

Ok… I could go on and on, but I think you get my point so I will shut up now :-)

Les replied:

“Greg, I have never heard that perspective before.”

I know this perspective cuts against the grain of our accepted practices within our Southern Baptist culture, and as I said above I could go into a much greater defense of this position… But what I really would like to know is what some of you think about this issue?

We discussed this issue at length during our Bible Study time at our Wednesday night services last night, and one of our Elders made the comment that the church is to function like and be modeled after the family and no family would ever seriously consider going out and bringing in an absolute stranger to be their “Father”. I thought that was a very insightful comment.

So, what say you?

Great Commission Resurgence & State Conventions

I have read many articles on, or about, what Southern Baptists are hoping will come about as a result of the work of the Great Commission Resurgence task force. There are certainly a lot of ideas out there as to what a reorganized Southern Baptist Convention should look like, and there are a lot of questions being ask. However, the most common question almost everyone appears to be asking is “What to do with the State Conventions?”

For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on the GCR and State Conventions:

1.) I believe the State Conventions are important and have the potential of playing a major role in any Great Commission Resurgence that might take place in our lifetimes within the Southern Baptist Convention.

2.) I believe that full autonomy (without any oversight and genuine accountability) for our State Conventions has proven itself to be a very bad idea. Human nature being what it is; oversight, transparency, and accountability are an absolute must (especially when finances, positions, and power are involved).

3.) I do not believe the State Conventions should be in the church planting business at all! The examples of where State Conventions have wasted huge amounts of money on failed churches, and sometimes even outright fraud, are too many to list. Not to mention that (regardless of how good a plan someone has, or how large of a core group they have already gathered) many times State Convention Leaders have been guilty of discriminating against those who are from a different theological camp than they are, or who’s worship style is different from their own, or who disagree with their own convictions on second and third matter doctrines. This abuse of authority has lead to many new Baptist Churches being planted “Outside of the Southern Baptist Convention” by a younger generation of Southern Baptist Pastors and Church Planters who are unafraid to go it alone.

4.) I do not believe the State Conventions should be involved in any mission’s activity outside of their own state. We, as Southern Baptist, have both an International mission’s agency and a North American mission’s agency. Why are State Conventions duplicating services that we as a convention already provide for? Why are the State Conventions not “Cooperating” with (working through) our national missions agencies? In my opinion our State Conventions should be focusing upon reaching the mission fields of their own states, and not trying to do the work of the IMB or NAMB.

5.) Ok… here is where I believe the State Conventions could play a major role in a Great Commission Resurgence. I believe that State Conventions should put the establishment of Christian Schools, Daycare Centers, Orphanages, Adoption and Foster Care programs at the top of their agenda. This is where I feel they could truly find their purpose and place in bringing about a true and lasting Great Commission Resurgence. I also feel that no other organization within the Southern Baptist Convention is as capable of filling this much need role as is our State Conventions. How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to start a Christian School in every community, county, or parish in America by the end of year 2020? How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to start a Christian Daycare in every community, county, or parish in America by the end of year 2020? How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to see that no child in America is ever unloved and unwanted by the end of year 2020? In short, how great would the impact on our culture be if by the end of year 2020 every State Convention saw itself purely as a mission organization, and the people of their state as its mission field?

In closing, I believe if we are to have a true and lasting Great Commission Resurgence in America that we must “Reengage” the culture and society in which we live… that we must make it our highest goal to win the hearts and minds of the next generation. This we will not do unless we are willing to change. And if we are not willing to change for the sake of reaching the next generation for Christ, then all this talk about seeking a Great Commission Resurgence is nothing more than shameful religious bravado and we might as well spend our money on prayer rugs for the next generation.

Grace Always,
Greg

Pray for my Dad

My Father, who is a very active 82 year old, has been having some heart problems over the last few months. Yesterday he underwent a heart-cath at Southeastern Medical Center in Dothan Alabama. The Doctor discovered that he has two severely blocked and hardened arteries leading to his heart. The Doctor was able to fix one artery with stents, but he said he had a very difficult time getting the hardened artery to open up and had to use several stents which caused a tear in the lining of the artery wall. The Doctor almost sent him to surgery right then, but he got the tear to lay down in place and put another stent over it to hold it in place while it heals.

At this point the Doctor wanted to consult with a heart surgeon about what would be the best way to proceed with the care of my dad (more stents for the other artery, or open heart bypass surgery). After consulting with a heart surgeon it was decided that they would attempt to fix the other artery with stents next Tuesday (Nov. 24th), and if things do not go well they will do open heart bypass surgery.

I would really appreciate everyone remembering my father in your prayers… his name is William A. (Bill) Alford.

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Rom.8:28)

Grace Always,
Greg

To the IMB --- It's Personal!

An article over on sbcIMPACT has got me to thinking about what is wrong with the IMB. Let me very quickly say that I believe that the IMB has in the past, and continues to this day, to do some outstanding work. Perhaps to the surprise of many of my readers, I am not against the work the IMB is doing… Anyway, this article caused me to stop and think about where the IMB is missing the boat, so to say, and how it might make positive improvements for the future. Below is the comment I posted over at SBCIMPACT.

I think one of the fundamental problems with the IMB is that our SBC Churches do not know our IMB missionaries. There have been some efforts in recent years to try and connect our missionaries with our Churches and they have failed miserably…

Our church supports two “Independent” missionaries that we both know and love. What has made the difference? We hear from them “directly” each and every month… and at least four or five times a year they pick up the phone and call me directly, and after catching up on what is going on in each others ministries we always wind up praying together over the phone… (I love these men). And usually they visit our church once a year, sometimes they cannot make it home every year but when they are stateside they come see us. I know that is a lot of personal
contact and it takes a lot of effort on their part, but in all honestly this is truly what has made the difference for us and it is what I see missing with the IMB.

I don’t care how much “junk” mail the IMB prints and sends to my church… no amount of this “professionally published” marketing literature they send will every take the place of just one hand written 3x5 post card from the mission field. And no DVD message from the IMB headquarters touting all the wonderful things the IMB is doing can ever replace having the phone ring and hearing the voice of a missionary on the other end say “I’m about to go into a new village this morning, Brother will you pray with me”.


Strange as it may sound… but in a very real way the IMB now finds itself in the position (unintended I am sure) of standing between the relationship of Churches and the Missionaries… Somehow this must be corrected.

Grace Always,

Total Depravity and Regeneration

Image via Wikipedia

Sometime back in September I was notified by Ben at Arminian Perspectives that he had written a post entitled Can A Regenerate Christian Be Totally Depraved? in response to a comment I made concerning Calvin’s actions toward Servtus that lead to Servtus being convicted as a heretic and burned at the stake by the government of Geneva. Basically Ben was strongly suggesting that Calvin was not a Christian because of his role in the death of Servtus. In trying to take a non-confrontational approach I tried to explain that Calvin’s sin (if indeed it was sin in this matter) in no way prevented Calvin from being a Christian as all Christians still have a “Corrupt” sin nature, and that all Christians still sin even after regeneration.

Here is a portion of the discussion that went on concerning this issue:
____________________

Greg Alford, on July 29th, 2009 at 9:31 pm Said:

Ben,

Thanks for being so gracious…

I really don’t think that any of us today are qualified to stand in judgment of Calvin’s conduct in this matter. Does the death of Servetus reflect badly on Calvin? You bet it does! Is Calvin the only Christian to ever have been wrongly influenced by the culture of his day? Not hardly. Does that excuse Calvin? Not at all. But it does remind us that we might not have done any differently had we been in Calvin’s position at the time. We like to think that we would have stood up against the Government and said this is wrong, but I doubt it after all we tolerate abortion in our society. (I know not a good example, but the best I can do)

You ask –

“Would he then be a totally depraved regenerate believer (since his actions regarding Servetus were post-conversion)?”

Very large smile… the answer would be “Yes”.

Just how long of a defense of that answer do you want me to give? You and I could be here for a good long time on this one, so I will spare you the long defense unless you really want to go down that rabbit hole.

Again, thank you for being so gracious… and I owe you a cup of coffee.

Grace Always,


Arminian, on July 30th, 2009 at 1:24 am Said:

Greg,

Doesn’t Calvinism hold that the regenerate are no longer totally depraved? After all, does not the C doctrine hold that total depravity entails inability to believe, but that regeneration enables and causes someone to believe? C’s often criticize the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace as undermining total depravity. So if you would follow that line, then you would have the C doctrine undermining total depravity. So would you mind clarifying? You don’t necessarily have to defend, just explain a little. One more thing: if you believe that a regenberate believer is still totally depraved, do you think that is the standard C position or is your position unusual?

Thanks.


Greg Alford, on July 30th, 2009 at 3:59 am Said:

Arminian,

I suppose one of the greatest hindrances to truly communicating with those who are of a different theological persuasion than your own is that we have a tendency to only read, discuss, and listen to those who agree with us. Therefore we have a tendency to believe that everyone defines the terms like “Total Depravity” and “Regeneration” the same and when we hear others using these terms we assume we are talking about the same thing, when in fact we are not.

So, with the above disclaimer let me attempt to define “Total Depravity” for this discussion. Total Depravity speaks of the extent of Human Corruption caused by the Fall of Man. By extent of Human Corruption I mean that all of mans being; heart, soul, body, mind, and will were all corrupted by the sin of Adam. In short, man in his totality became corrupted by sin.

This is where we often misunderstand one another… No Calvinist that I know would ever say that Regeneration completely frees man of his corruption of sin. Man is only totally free of the corrupting influence of sin when he is glorified, and that will never be on this side of glory. The Apostle Paul spoke well when he said “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.”

It is with this understanding that I made the earlier comment concerning mans total depravity after regeneration; that even after man’s will is freed by the regeneration power of the Holy Spirit so that with his freedom he may now love his God, yet he finds that he is not fully made free from sin and while he indeed expresses his love for God, with his conduct he yet proves his corruption.

I hope this helps a little…

Grace Always,
___________________

Now let me return us to today's post by again defining the terms I am using, before asking the questions I really want to get into.

The result of the fall of Adam on mankind was, and is, “Complete Corruption”… or if you prefer the classical reformed phrase; “Total Depravity”. Theologians use the words “Complete” or “Total” to explain the scope of the effects of the fall of Adam on mankind, and not the depth of these effects. In common English what we are saying is; not that each and every man is as bad or as wicked as he can be, but that universally “ALL” of Man’s being was corrupted by the fall of Adam. Man’s flesh/desires were corrupted… Man’s mind/will was corrupted… Man’s soul/heart was corrupted. No part of man’s being was left unaffected by the fall of Adam. When compared to his original state before the fall of Adam, man now finds himself “Utterly Ruined” in the sight of God.

At this point I want to bring into this discussion a few comments made by the Apostle Paul that highlight man’s ruined condition. In Romans 7:18 Paul says “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing...” and in Romans 7:24 he cries out “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Literally Paul is crying out for deliverance from the dead body he indwells. I think it important to this discussion that we note that this was the Apostle Paul speaking about himself after regeneration (new birth). And this leads into the following questions that are at the heart of this post.

1) What effect, both practical and theological, does regeneration (new birth) have upon the corruption of the fallen, now regenerated, man?

2) Does regeneration completely negate the corruption of the fall in the regenerated man? (yes/no)

3) Does regeneration partly negate the corruption of the fall in the regenerated man? (yes/no)

4) Does regeneration negate none of the corruption of the fall in the regenerated man? (yes/no)

Please Explain Your Answers... use as much space as you need.

Grace Always,

Light and Fluffy

Image via Wikipedia

Paul said “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?”

We live in an age where much of Christianity has been reduced to a mere Experience… and for most Christians this Experience has been reduced to a mere Decision.

Once the “Decision” has been made… Once the “Experience” has been Experienced… the Modern Christian has very little real need for God in his life, and unless he is in the middle of a personal crisis the Modern Christian feels very much in control of things and as the writer of the beloved hymn 'Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing' says; he is “prone to wonder”.

(This is the wisdom and spirit of this Modern age in which we live.)

In my opinion this casual approach to our relationship with God is a result of two doctrines that when combined has had the same effect on Modern Christianity and the Modern Church as yeast and water have when added to flour … They are: (1) Decisional Regeneration and (2) The Eternal Security of the Believer.

Modern Christianity, under the influence of these two doctrines, is like modern bread… it is altogether: ”light, and fluffy… puffed up… and full of air”.

Grace Always,

Is NAMB a "Relic of the Past"?

Last week on SBC Voices Blog I made a statement that has drawn some heated debate that I need to clarify just a little bit. The comment I made was:

“NAMB is a relic of the past… church planting networks like Acts 29 own the future.”

Responding to my comment Ron West wrote:

“Greg you seem bitter about the IMB and NAMB. You desire to have them done away with and calling them relics of the past is undeserved in my opinion.”

Now I will be the first to admit that I rarely beat around the bush about things and my comments can most certainly come across as being bitter or angry, both of which I am not. I do not equate having strong convictions with being either bitter or angry, but I can see how Ron could read that into my comments about the IMB and NAMB.

Following is the follow up comment I posted to Ron’s comment above which explains my original comment that “NAMB is a relic of the past… church planting networks like Acts 29 own the future.”

---

Concerning the IMB and NAMB:

My first preference would be that both the BOT and Administration of the IMB and the NAMB would realize that the Baptist Churches of the SBC, which they serve, are a diverse group of Churches. We Southern Baptist are far from being “of one accord and one mind”…

So it is with this understanding that I passionately believe that both our mission agencies should represent, and make allowances for (without discrimination), the diverse group of Churches that make up the SBC. This is something that they have NOT done in the past, and is something that I and many others in the SBC would welcome with much joy.

Should not every cooperating church, which is in good standing with the convention, have the reasonable expectation that it may fully participate with, and receive support from, these agencies equal to the participation and support afforded to others? Why is this convection such a “Radical” idea? Why is this asking to much for people like David?


The truth is that unless these agencies are willing to change and adopt a new attitude toward the diversity that is a reality in the SBC then they will rapidly become relics of the past as more and more of our churches look elsewhere for mission partners.

----

If you have had a negative experience with the IMB or NAMB, or if you believe these agencies need to change to fully represent all churches of the SBC I believe the SBC needs to hear what you have to say…???

Grace Always

The Power of Giving

Dear _______,

I know you did not give the six large boxes of books in order to receive the praise of man...

But I would be remiss if I did not tell you how much of a blessing your gift of these books is to our small fellowship of believers.

The Elders have been pouring over them like little children on Christmas morning… time and time again I have heard the word “Wow” escape their (and my) lips as we eagerly dig into another box.

Your generosity in being willing to give away what clearly cost you a significant amount of time and money to acquire is very humbling to me and all our Elders. You have challenged each of us to examine our attachment to the things of this world (and that is a good thing for all Christians to do from time to time).

The timing of your gift (within just a few days of our bookcases being installed for our new Library) is nothing less than God’s affirmation of our decision to start a Library ministry for those under our care. Please know that most, if not everything, you have given will be a blessing to our church for many years to come.


Thank you so much!


Pastor Greg

Battle for the Baptist Faith and Message

With the momentous resurgence of Passionate Missionary Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention over the last few years, I guess it was just a matter of time before those who oppose this resurgence of Calvinism within the SBC began to question the strongly Calvinistic Statement of Faith of the SBC; the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

Peter Lumpkin’s, an often vocal and aggressive critic of Calvinism on the blogs has recently posted an article titled Calvinists Critique Morris Chapman's Clarification: Part II in which he mostly criticizes Timmy Brister for his critique of Morris Chapman’s (somewhat infamous) comments to the convention this year in Louisville, KY where Chapman felt obligated to (once again) take a broad swipe at Calvinism in the SBC.

Now Peter, who is fast becoming known as an aggressive Anti-Calvinist and Anti-Alcohol “watch-dog” in the SBC, wasted no time in this article in going after Timmy Brister with both barrels blazing. Ironically, or should I say in typical fashion, in this article Peter is guilty of exhibiting toward Brister the exact attitudes he has accused Timmy of having toward Chapman. It appears that Peter is willing to allow himself the freedom to be critical of others in the SBC but would very much like to muzzle all other voices, especially those who speak out against those who abuse their positions in the SBC to advance their personal Anti-Calvinist or Anti-Alcohol agendas.

However, if Peter (who repeatedly refers to Brister as a “strict/stern/hyper Calvinist” and his Calvinism as “skewed”) wishes to engage in this tactic of “attacking” those who disagree with him, instead of debating the issues… well then he should not be shocked when others go after him in like fashion.

But more to the point of this post is something very disturbing that Peter says about the Southern Baptist statement of faith; The Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Now, Peter is notorious for (how shall I say this…) displaying “Extreme Gymnastic” skills in twisting the meaning of the English language, and playing “Fast and Loose” with his reinterpreting the meaning of words, grammar, and sentence structure as seen in his comment below.

“ And, so far as the BF&M is concerned, Timmy wants it to definitively teach regeneration precedes faith. I’ll bet that would be a new one on Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, and all the other non-Calvinists who worked on the revision committee.

Personally, I think the BF&M is rubbery enough to include strict Calvinists, modified Calvinists, and non-Calvinists among its supporters. For Brister, however, non-Calvinists and even modified Calvinists like Akin find no support there. It definitively teaches the theological tomfoolery that there exists an animal others have called a born-again unbeliever. ”

Here is what the Baptist Faith and Message actually says:

“ A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.”

Peter appears to be reading this portion of the BFM2000 with blinders on, so I will put the part he appears to have a hard time reading in bold print.

"It (Regeneration) is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"

That any man, with any degree of integrity, would attempt to tell Southern Baptist that our statement of faith does not in fact teach that regeneration precedes repentance is either a display of intellectual dishonesty, or crude arrogance… or both.

Peter’s strict/stern/hyper bias against Calvinism and all Calvinist is on full display in this article. And this salvo from the pen of Peter Lumpkin is a clear indication that the long war on Calvinism in the SBC is far from over, and in fact a new chapter in this war has just began; “The Battle for the Baptist Faith and Message”.

Grace Always,