Where In the World is Marty Duren?
Topic: Denominations, Todd Littleton, Weblogs| Written by: Todd Littleton|1985. Some mark 1985 as something of a watershed in the survival of the Conservative Resurgence. It was the year of the Peace Committee appointment (the report came in 1987). It was the year of the Battle in Big D. It served the high water mark for messenger registration - more than 45,000. It was the year the New York Times reported it unlikely the two groups vying for control of the SBC would find a way forward together. It was the year of the re-election of Charles Stanley. It was the year. It was the year of, “Where In the World is Carmen Sandiego?”
Marty Duren was a young lad - in his mid 20’s. Who knows where he was geographically or historically. In fact, who knew Marty Duren? Who cared? After Jimmy Draper’s alert the SBC was losing young leaders, Marty emerged as an interested “young leader.” Once the Lifeway message board devolved into something of a pointless exercise in the way forward Steve McCoy and Marty Duren initiated blogs of their own.
Marty is the originator of SBCOutpost.com. Too often critics assume Marty’s withdrawal from regular contributions to the Outpost signaled a separation from anyone who sought to keep the Outpost viable and alive. Recently, it was reported the Outpost would soon be defunct. Should the Outpost ever cease it will come on the back of sentiments similar to what Marty will explicate in a series he began today at ie:missional. Detractors, Baptist Identity constituents, and many others will break open a soda and celebrate if we ever fade into the history of Baptist blogs. Some of us believe those who need a fight need the Outpost. Something like the fact that Rush Limbaugh needs a Clinton in the White House.
So, with that lengthy introduction we will re-post Marty’s series here with permission. We will learn, “Where In the World is Marty Duren?”
The Impending Disintegration of American Denominationalism
Posted by: Marty Duren in Church, Culture, God, Gospel, Life, Mission, Missional, News
Ten months ago when I began this blog, I purposed not to engage in discussion about the denomination in which I have pastored, the Southern Baptist Convention, unless it crossed paths with a subject about which I was writing. This is one of those times.
A recent report from missiologist Ed Stetzer of Lifeway Christian Resources indicated that the Southern Baptist Convention, once characterized (because of its cultural dominance) as the Roman Catholic Church of the southern United States, has entered a downward trend of growth which, he predicts, may not turn around. If you are among those who haven’t yet, you can read the initial report here and the follow up article here.
As would have been expected, the report was hailed in some places (see Ed’s comment threads) and questioned in others. The question that does not seem to have been asked during this is simple: Has the time for heavily organized, bureaucratically inefficient denominational structures passed? My thesis is a simple one and flows from what I see happening:
The era of denominationalism is ending, therefore, time and energy spent attempting to revive them is not redeemed time.
Rather than reviving them, we should be having a planned euthanization. I will not be arguing “post-denominational” in the sense of personal preference or lack thereof, but “Post-Denominationalism” in the sense of no SBC, UMC, PCUSA, etc.
Though Stetzer’s commentary is specific to growth patterns in the SBC, all other denominations in the United States are and have been in decline with the single exception of the Assemblies of God which counts but 2.8 million members (2005). Even the respected National Association of Evangelicals has lost some of its luster since the fall of Ted Haggard, though, as we will see, it never had quite as much luster as was thought. Regardless of the denomination none have matched, via conversions, the growth rate of the population (excepting possibly the AoG), so in percentage of population terms all American denominations have been in decline for decades. At best, a few denominations have grown at the expense of others, the common scenario known as “swapping sheep.”
Is the motivation to “save the denomination” a good enough motivation to go into hyper-drive in funds promoting or doomsday scenarios? I don’t think so. When Jesus said to the people of Jerusalem, “Behold, your house [the temple] has been left to you desolate,” He was warning them that there system of belief was coming to an end. There were no more sacrifices needed, no more pouring out of animal blood, no more Day of Atonement; it was over. Their mistake was that they continued to cling to a structure that God Himself had abandoned. Shall we repeat the same mistake?
Writing with an eye to the Southern Baptist Convention, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary prof, Nathan Finn, recently asked:
So does the SBC have a future? It depends upon what you mean by “future.” I suspect the name will be used by some Baptists until Christ comes back. I also think the people called Southern Baptists will always have denominational entities that they financially support. So in one sense, I remain confident that Southern Baptists are here to stay. But if by “future” one means a vital existence in God’s economy, I have my doubts. Collectively, I fear we are too insular, too sectarian, too pugnacious, too “Southern,” too reactionary, too pragmatic, and for sure too proud to have any real future.
While I appreciate Nathan’s balanced thinking, I, for one, am not convinced that any denomination is here to stay and am convinced that the era, like the telegraph, is passing into the historical record and that we have entered the Post-Denominational (PD) era.
Commenting on Ed Stetzer’s original post, SEBTS prof Alvin Reid noted,
For several semesters I have asked our students “how many of you came from an SBC church?” The vast majority. Then I ask, “How many of you want to go back and serve a church just like that?” Almost none. These are seminarians, the ones we still have, and they see a serious need for change. Again, this is anecdotal and simplistic, but here is another idea–have someone do a survey of current seminarians to find out who they listen to on podcasts? Might be revealing.
This is not merely true of the SBC as other denominations are dealing with the same issues. No one is important enough to have cornered the market here.
Also responding to Stetzer was SEBTS president, Danny Akin, who said,
I could not agree with your assessment more! I go to bed thinking about this every night and wake up the same.We are in serious trouble. Our denomination is at a crisis moment and we will either repent, seek the forgiveness and mercy of God and perhaps experience a true and genuine revival from our Lord, or we will continue our present course and simply fade away with the Lord Jesus justly removing His hand of blessing.
But what if no amount of repentance and seeking of forgiveness will bring revival and revitalization to the SBC or any other denomination? What if, like the sacrificial system, their time has run it’s course and God is preparing a new thing? I pray that it will be embraced rather than feared.
Over the next few posts, I will be exploring why I think we will continue down the road toward a Post-Denominationalism world. We’ll see that the SBC and evangelicals have not had either the numbers or the power that we’ve thought and will continue to lose both in the US; that the Kingdom of God is shifting again (as it has before) this time from dominance in the West; and that technology has rendered the need for heavily bureaucratic, densely centralized, financially profligate organizational structures obsolete and that the lessening of the influence of denominations in culture will be inversely proportional to the influence of local churches networking in culture.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Todd and Marty,
The SBC has allowed the CR people that have outlived its time, to ride a Good Horse into the Ground. The Power Structure has become what it is and the Unregenerate People in the Pews don’t know or have God’s Word Written in their Hearts. The Messengers to the Convention are not as representable in numbers as they should be.
Which of these 2 Churches does the SBC remind us of?
The church at Sardis.
“And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write: These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: For I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember
therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.
If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee” (Rev. 3:1-3).
The church at Laodicea.
“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold
nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and
knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire,
that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent” (Rev.
3:15-19).
May God Help Us:
Wayne
May 5th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Now THIS is cutting edge stuff! I look forward to the rest of the installments. Those who are in the Deep South (at least those parts of it where changes in culture come slower), and those few who, like Dr. Reid said, want to minister in churches just like the one they grew up in will not like it (shoot, I don’t like it) or agree with it. But it is exactly what I see as I minister in the D.C. suburbs. It is exactly the issue our Youth Minister discussed with me this morning, about teens who do not come to Sunday School, rarely (if ever) come to Sunday morning worship, and get no instruction or modeling for a Biblical perspective/worldview in their homes. All they get is an hour to an hour and a half at Youth Group meeting on Wednesday, which puts a lot of pressure on the Youth Minister.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Wayne-
Just as a reminder, I’m not dealing exclusively with the SBC. I’m speaking of Denominationalism in general.
John-
Thanks! I’ll try to make sure that the rest measure up ;^)
May 5th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
My summary of Marty’s opening piece:
Don’t put new wine in old wineskins.
Greg Harvey
May 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Its simple……easy…..
Preach the Gospel
God is using many SBC churches mightly thru His Word.
from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
“Promoting” or “saving” the SBC has no real purpose. If we are a kingdom organization doing kingdom work, God will promote, preserve, protect and advance us. If we are an aging institution more interested in preserving the institution than advancing the kingdom, we will die a slow and necessary death.
Our goal should not be to save the denomination. Our goal should be to do the work of God. That which is useful in God’s work will receive God’s blessing.
We do not need a new program or advertising campaign. We probably don’t need to obsess about our future as a denomination.
We just need to do God’s work. If we don’t, God will find new wineskins.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
A penny-ante point of dissent:
Something like the fact that Rush Limbaugh needs a Clinton in the White House.
Though this point is often made, it is not true. Rush is number one on the radio regardless of who is in the White House. He is number one right now; what’s gonna happen if Hillary wins? Is he going to go to number one?
Like I said, it’s a penny-ante criticism on my part, no doubt. I’m just tired of having heard that particular canard so often.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Looking forward to part two
May 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The SBC, institutionally, is a carbon copy of many, if not most, of our SBC churches. Outdated, trying to be what they always have been, not going with God, ruled by a few and willing to run off anyone who wants to change.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Dave Miller,
I disagree….the cooperative program is a uniquely Southern Baptist institution that is worth saving.
Having grown up driving to Sioux City because my parents were not Southern missionaries I have seen first hand the advantages of being ON Mission with the SBC.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I would agree. Everything I observe indicates you are correct about the decline of denominations. However, I would add that all your reasons apply equally to the local church as well. These are very much like the bureaucracies of the denomination….intent on surviving but not good at introducing and nurturing people into a relationship with Jesus. The very forces that are bringing about the demise of denominations are having the same impact on local institutional churches. They will look dramatically different as well, or perhaps, disappear also. In saying this I am not suggesting that “church” will disappear. It will not but it will look radically different than what we see today. This is occurring far faster than most people realize and the pace is accelerating.
Good post!
May 5th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
John L.Estes
I didnt know you were God!
How could you possible know that many of the SBC churches are not going with God. It seems to me that is exactly the kind of judgement God condemms in Matt 7. You are not capable of seeing the hearts of the leaders of those churches.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Mr.Masters,
It’s “Jon” (without the h). It is my opinion from traveling over the past 8 years to most areas within our convention teaching pastor’s and lay people how to reach their community with the gospel. I have sat with numerous pastors who wept about the spiritual condition of the church members. Men who were saying that they were in their last efforts to see change in their churches to reach people with the gospel.
In spending a week with over a 1000 different pastors and more than half of them were battle weary, not because of the unchurched but the churched.
I stand by my remarks and will gladly inform you that in no way do I intend to be God. Poor choice of words on your part to try and dialogue with someone. Maybe that was not your intent.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Dan,
Frankly, I have not heard that of Rush. I must not listen or read in the places you do. Apologies for assaulting your sensibilities with such a canard.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Robert Masters,
I am not saying that the SBC has no value. I believe it does. My point is that it is not our job to save the institution. It is our job to make sure that the institution is doing eternal work. If we are, God will work to purify and refocus us. If we are not doing kingdom work, God will have no reason to preserve us.
An Iowa Baptist like myself knows the importance of the cooperative program. A former missionary kid like myself knows the value of the CP.
The CP is why I am still SBC!
May 5th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Jon,
I sometimes get the impression that some of the ones commenting live in a Cave and don’t know what is happening outside their Cave. They just don’t want to know the Truth or except the Truth.
Wayne
May 5th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Thanks Wayne,
I concur…
May 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Dave Miller: Amen and Amen and another Amen to your #6. And I just felt like I was ordering off the Sonic menu. A #6 please.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Jon l. Estes
Your right….my intent was not to dialogue.
Preach the Gospel it works 100 percent of the time!
The truth will set you free.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 5th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
SBCoutpost,
It seems to me that you all practice FUD,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt, about the SBC.
It hasnt worked for Microsoft against Linux and it wont work in denominational ruin either!
From the Southern baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Robert,
I am not sure which is more depressing - your over-simplification, your misrepresentation of motives, or your pontificating. You have commented on this thread more than anyone else. If you need a platform to be read, use your own blog if you cannot engage in conversation without accusation.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Mr. Masters,
Are you implying that I do not preach the gospel each week? I would be very careful in making such assumption.
Let me close with, it is not the truth which sets you free, it is “knowing” the Truth.
Not intended for dialouge.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Here is my wild prediction for Christendom in the West: Chinese missionaries will come here to preach the Gospel and teach us what it means to deny self and follow Christ from their first hand experience.
We really do think way too much of ourselves.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
As two others have already said, I see this struggle also playing out in the local church. The very structure that built many local churches is actually working against its future health. The generation that went before us is handing us the baton; problem is, we don’t want it. The methods have not been working, and we are looking to something new. Transitioning to that something new is painful, and it seems that it is nigh unto impossible without either a death or abandonment of the system itself.
I, too, am looking forward to the future posts.
Todd Pylant
May 5th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Todd,
You seem a little angry at Mr Masters.
What more is there besides the Gospel?
SBCPRO
May 5th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
SBCPRO,
If you would like to give your name and have a conversation, or better, e-mail me, I would be happy to chat with you about your assertion. However, I assume you able to read this thread. If you cannot determine the errors I pointed out, and you prefer not to have a conversation outside this thread, then I will trust you will understand when I write that you miss my point.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Todd Pylant,
Your comment says a lot about the way my generation has missed up on the passing of the Baton. We tried doing things ourselves, rather/whither Totally relying on the Holy Spirit for Compete Direction. I Apologize and Repent of any Sins, for any part I had in not being in Total Submission to Our Lord and Savoir.
PS. I like you Blog
Wayne
May 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Mr. Masters and SBCPRO,
The gospel is not the SBC and the SBC is not the gospel. You can preach the gospel and still not have the SBC. It actually worked that way for around 1800 years. Preaching the gospel, by itself, will not preserve the SBC or any other denominational entity. It will, however, preserve the church. But that’s a different thing, despite what may be argued before American judges.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Gonna be a lot of remnant sermons preached at the convention this summer…
May 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Paul,
I dont believe I said the SBC was the Gospel.
Honestly….Iam just trying to make the same point that John MacArthur made at the t4G conference this year.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Robert,
You do know your IP address is tracked when you make a comment, don’t you?
May 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I must not listen or read in the places you do.
Heh! I think we both suspected that…
May 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Robert Masters/SBCPRO (It really would be better if you didn’t pretend to be two people with the second one appearing to take up for yourself),
This post is about the SBC. Your comments imply that any comments that are negative toward the denomination and/or any problems that the denomination may face can be fixed by preaching the gospel. Preaching the gospel will certainly fix a lot of things, but if what the SBC is facing is a sociological trend (post-denominationalism: that has nothing to do with the gospel one way or another) then you are either proposing that preaching the gospel is the solution to what Marty has written (about post-denominationalism) or your point is irrelevant. I’m not sure which you’d prefer. If it’s the first then my point stands. If it’s the second then….
You also say that anyone who doesn’t paint a rosy picture is peddling fear, uncertainty and doubt, but if Marty is right (and you are wrong) then we’re in a sort-of modified Pascal’s wager: if Marty is wrong we’ve lost very little and we have an opportunity to address the situation in some positive ways. If you are wrong we’ve lost quite a bit and all of our hopes die with the SBC.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
As someone who came to Christ through a para-church, and has no particular allegiance to the SBC I have to ask why we would want it to be saved. I have gone to an SBC seminary and currently attend an SBC church because they happened to line up with my belief in the doctrines of Grace, but beyond that I really do not care about the SBC. I would feel little or no sorrow if the SBC ceased to exist and my local church simply partnered with other like-minded churches in missions. It would seems that moderate baptists or even conservative arminian baptists would feel alot more allegiance with people that shared their egalitarian/arminian/whatever is important to them views. I mean, outside of the fact that it makes missions “cheaper” through pooling money, is there any reason to want to keep the SBC. I for one really would prefer a loose-knit network made up of 9 marks/Act 29 network/sovereign grace/founders movement churches than the current SBC, don’t people on the moderate or arminian sides feel the same?
May 5th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
It also seems that if the very existence of the SBC insures constant warring between conservatives and liberals, egalitarians and complementarians, calvinists and liberals, then the denomination itself (or control of it) is most certainly distracting everyone from gospel issues and it would probably be better for the kingdom (from an earthly perspective) if it was just allowed to die. I wonder if the reason factions are constantly fighting for control instead of just walking away is that they just want ownership of the buildings and bank accounts.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Paul,
Why do you keep make it so complicated. Its not rocket science.
sbcpro will have to speak for himself. Why do you think Iam sbcpro?
Have you listened to Johnny Mac’s message at the 2008 T4G conference? Seems like your the one who is irrelevant here.
BTW—-I guess so do most of SBCoutpost former readers.(think your irrelevant)
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Robert,
Your twin is posting from the same ISP. So if you are not SBCPRO you all are very close - on the same network which as we have discovered is generally an attempt at obfuscation.
Some of us are conservative and do not think the sun rises and set with John MacArthur. His understanding of contextualization is way off for example. Now, again, if you need a place to pontificate get yourself a blog. Become one of our former readers. Otherwise show some respect which should stem from the very same Gospel you note will change everything. Stridency without real conversation is a cacophony, or in the words of Paul in 1 Cor 13, a clanging cymbal.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Dan,
I can count on you to note the obvious.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:24 am
“ome of us are conservative and do not think the sun rises and set with John MacArthur. ”
Amen. I once heard him say in a sermon that Adam was NOT with Eve when she was tempted and ate the fruit. He did not say, ‘may not have been’, he was emphatic that Adam was NOT there. I have been checking his sermons ever since. He has an agenda like everyone else.
And no, I don’t remember the name of the sermon but it was in some series about women and their ‘role’.
Robert, Follow Christ and His Word not men.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Wayne,
I appreciate the kind reply.
I really don’t have a great deal of animosity nor dis-respect towards the generation before us passing off the baton. Many were raised with the definition of discipleship as “go to church.” To become a better Christian was to attend as much church as possible and to support the work of the organized, local church. To their credit, they have fulfilled that definition quite well, and they worked faithfully towards it. But, that definition no longer seems to work, if it every really did. Just ask the Pharisees: too much religion can choke out the Spirit. I would rather be part of a movement of the Spirit rather than an organization. Of course, the two don’t have to be in conflict, but it so often seems that by nature they are.
Todd Pylant
May 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Robert Masters,
Either you are SBCPRO or SBCPRO is your wife or one of your children. I know this because you have the exact same IP address. The gospel calls us to honesty, does it not? Your pretending you don’t know what’s going on only undermines the comments you leave.
And to be honest, I’m glad that some of our former readers are former. I don’t write as an exercise in popularity. Apparently you don’t, either.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I, like others, thought post #6 was spot on. I also wonder if God’s favor has turned from the Western church altogether. I think we assume that God’s best shot is either the SBC or the Western church. God’s plans don’t necassarily include us being at the forefront of the next revival. if you look at where God is working, He is working were He has always chosen to work. Through the marginalized. The Church is growing everywhere other than in the West. Hmm. maybe we need to consider what God is doing.
One more thing, for Robert Masters/SBCPro, what is the gospel?
May 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Great post…amen and amen! Because of health problems I have not commented in a long while but to return to see those on the inside of a denomination begin to see ‘denominationalism’s’ growing irrelevance could only come from God! What a tremendous act of stewardship it would be and a wonderful act of faith if a move would now come from the SBC to radically and orderly dis-assemble itself and see what the Holy Spirit does with us!
May 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Bruce,
Here is the Gospel defined by Mark Dever. I believe it to be a Biblical defintion.
Third, we must believe the gospel. The Good News is that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God incarnate (see 1 John). Without understanding this, we could not uphold the truth of God’s triune nature. The Trinity and the incarnation support each other. One cannot be attacked without attacking the other. As Paul said, “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9).
But the gospel includes not only Christ’s incarnation, it also includes his substitutionary death on the cross, his bodily resurrection, and his return in power and great glory.
Again, remember Paul’s summary of what Christianity is in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians had been dividing over all kinds of wrong things, which Paul spent fourteen chapters addressing. But now he turns finally to what they should contend for!
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Do you see the facts here associated with the gospel? Christ has died for our sins. Christ was buried. Christ was raised. There it is! And make no mistake: clarity on the centrality of the cross will promote fellowship theologically (as the relative importance of doctrines is clarified) and experientially (as humility is encouraged in our character).
As we lift up the cross, the gospel appears. It contains the News of a Holy God. It contains the News of man made in God’s own image, yet tragically fallen into terrible rebellion against God and under God’s judgment (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10; 5:12). It contains the News of Christ, the Son of God, who suffered for us and in whom we are to believe for eternal life (John 3:16, 18; 12:44; 17:20; 20:31; Acts 15:11; 16:31; Rom . 3:22; 10:9; Gal. 3:22; Phil. 1:29; Col. 2:9; 1 Thes. 4:14; 1 John 2:22-23; 3:23; 4:2-3, 15; 5:1, 5, 10). And it contains the News that we can be forgiven by God and reconciled to him through the gift of repenting and believing. Our repentance, moreover, will show itself in loving commitment to each other in the fellowship of the local church (Matt. 16; 18; Mark 1:15; Rom. 16:26; Heb. 10:25, 1 John 3:23; 4:19-21; 5:3, 13).
And the faith which alone justifies is faith in this God (Num. 14:11). It is trusting in his deliverance (Ps. 78:22). He has acted so that we may believe in him (Isa. 43:10). So Jesus’ first words in Mark’s gospel conclude with this call: “Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15).
John also wrote, “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16; cf. 3:18; 11:26; 19:35; 20:31; Acts 16:31, 34; Rom. 3:22; 4:24; 10:9-10, 14; 16:26; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:7, 22; Phil. 1:29; 1 Tim, 1:16; Heb. 10:39; 11:6; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:24).
We are justified only by trusting in this Jesus. Someone who doesn’t believe this gospel isn’t a Christian. Even people who call themselves “Christians,” “church members,” or “evangelicals” are not truly Christians if they don’t believe this gospel! Calling yourself something doesn’t make you one.
God, the Bible, the Gospel. You cannot have true Christian fellowship with someone who disagrees with you on these matters.
from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Todd Pylant,
I was born and raised in the Church just as you have described in your comment. I was 40 yrs old before I was Born Again. I resigning as an Elder of the Church I was raised in and changed Churches, then Re-Baptized in a Believer Baptism.
Wayne
May 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Paul,
Iam not SBCPRO
Clearwire is a fairly large network
My IP address and SBCPRO are not the same
Iam not married,nor do I have children.
I know SBCPRO!
God Bless
Robert I Masters
May 6th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Robert,
It does not matter that your ISP is a large network. They do not assign the exact same IP address to two different computers. The IP address your comments are coming from is the exact same IP address that SBCPRO’s comments are coming from.
If you want to continue playing this little game you will find yourself banned from commenting. If he is someone else then you’d be well advised not to allow him to use your computer to comment here because it is making you look dishonest.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Paul,
No games
You Lie.
You cant ban me if you wanted too. We free software people tend to be pretty passionate about freedom on the net!
BTW—Which is it Paul..you or Todd.
Your twin is posting from the same ISP. So if you are not SBCPRO you all are very close - on the same network which as we have discovered is generally an attempt at obfuscation.
from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
May 7th, 2008 at 4:07 am
Mr. Masters,
This is neither Paul or Todd, but the technical administrator of this blog. But instead of banning you at this moment, your comments have been put in moderation. Nothing you say will show up unless we want it to. I did that so you can read this comment.
Enjoy.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Paul, Todd, Admin,
I’m not sure exactly what evidence you have, but this sounds very similar to the case where you accused Souther Seminary of banning access to sbcoutpost, when what had really happened is you banned a particular person and ended up banning all southern computers because they were on the same network and showed up as the same isp. Again, I’m not a technical wizard, but in light of your past error that you blamed on others, you might consider being less accusatory.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Robin,
Thank you for your word of caution.
Here is what happened. SBCPro and Robert both came from the exact same IP Address. In addition, Mr. Masters chose to divert from the discussion, and it appears SBCPro came on. This happened when Marty ran the blog, and while I cannot confirm it was the same blogger, it was decided to nip this early.
What we know is that one of a couple of things are happening.
They are separate people using the same connection through a wired or wireless router.
They are separate people using the same computer.
They are separate people using an open proxy.
They are the same person.
That is why they were moderated, not banned. This gives them the opportunity to let us know who SBCPro is, and explain why they are coming from the same ip address.
However, this would not have been a problem had Mr. Masters stayed on topic. The free exchange of ideas is welcomed. Duplicity and obfuscation are not.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Robert,
You can’t be from Geneva because the authorities in Geneva would have had you thrown in jail for your disobedience to the ninth commandment.
Robin,
I appreciate your word of caution, but this is a completely different scenario.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Mr. Masters, You did not preach the full gospel in your comment. You left out the most important part. You did not focus on the WRATH HE took for us upon that Cross. That and His resurrection is what saves us and gives us eternal life. He did not just die for our sins. He took the WRATH we deserve FOR us.
Now, the reason I said all that…
Before you go spouting off at others about the full Gospel, get it right yourself. Please. And remember, nothing you said above is wrong about the Gospel. So, give others the same benefit. We can all pick each other apart on this if we look long enough.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
RSC,
1)I did state that quote was from Mark Dever not me.
2)I do not think I used the term full Gospel
3) my point was not directed at any person or ministry.
4)My point was really the same as Dr Rainer in his article on malpractice.You can read that at Founders
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
BTW-I agree with you that propitation is important. One of the reasons I like the WAY of the Master.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Robert Masters,
Your comment has been sent to the penalty box for one day, free software or not. I will approve it tomorrow if I feel so inclined.