Monday, February 9, 2009

My Advice to SWBTS

Because I love my alma mater, I offer this sagacious advice. Everyone from the President down to the bottom of the organizational chart should be required as a condition of employment to "leak" at least one piece of information to Wade Burleson each semester. No locale breeds more petty and inaccurate rumors than an educational institution. Let the yellow journalists of the SBC Tabloid Press publish more reports of meetings that didn't happen with Presidents who weren't even in town on that day. Let the Jerry Springer of SBC life "revise and extend" his remarks thrice daily to try to cover his derri-errors. Those whose "leaks" make it onto a blog should receive a bonus per occurrence.

No approach that I can imagine would do more to reveal gossip for the sin, slander, and error that it is.

62 comments:

peter lumpkins said...

Bart,

Soooooo! Professor Beisner's information was correct! Well, that's just peachy.

With that, I am...

Peter

msvoboda said...

Bart,

Although I love your idea, I do not think Wade needs any help to start rumors... But I do think it would be great to see what some of the professors could come up with.. How far could they get Wade to go? Aliens at SWBTS? hmm...

CB Scott said...

Jerry Springer?

Then who is Ophra Winfrey?

cb

Anonymous said...

Bart:

I concluded early on that Wade would not be making up what he his posting.

He is obviously being told the information by someone. But we don't know who the someone is, and we don't know if the someone really knows what he's talking about, or to what extent conjecture and extrapolation are being added to facts that the person may know.

So, without answers to any of those questions and with no way to judge the accuracy of what has been published, there's nothing to say or do about it at this point.

I see that Peter Lumpkins has mentioned a professor Beisner? Who is that?

Louis

CB Scott said...

Louis,

In more than one case we actually do know who Wade is using for a source/sources. As is the situation in this case; Wade often rushes to judgment without all of the facts. Or he does not always stop to consider why the source is giving him the information in the first place. (Wade Burleson is not the only person to have an ingrained distrust (or axe to grind) for Dr. Paige Patterson.)

cb

volfan007 said...

msvoboda,

That's funny.

Also, maybe we can get a prof. at SWBTS to leak that Osama bin Laden is hiding out in Pecan Manor!

David

:)

Tom Parker said...

Do you people not have anything better to do than write about WB?
What are you trying to do to him? What is your goal? Have you not called him enough names yet?
Do you really think this Post is funny? I sure do not!!!

Wade Burleson said...

I am thrilled to learn my sources were incorrect about what they deemed to be a move to an imminent move to release classical Calvinists from SWBTS. I will, however, take your advice and not pass this on to my sources but will allow them hear it for themselves first hand from Dr. Patterson himself!

As for me, I will choose to personally accept your word on this matter, Bart! I thank the Lord that Dr. Patterson desires fellowship with, and employment of, classical five point Calvinists in the SBC and at SWBTS.

Accepting this solid and truthful information from you as reliable, and rejecting the unreliable and obviously untruthful hearsay from my sources, I must say really am excited about the future of the SBC.

In His Grace,

Wade

volfan007 said...

Tom,

We're not the ones who started this, or does that mean anything to you.

David

Wade Burleson said...

Tom,

Thanks, my friend. I can assure you, however, that whatever Bart and my Baptist Identity friends choose to say of me is nothing compared to the incredible grand and glorious news I have heard from them today. It is much better to rejoice with people keeping their jobs, in spite of ideological differences, than it is to feel the sorrow of others losing their jobs over ideological separation (i.e. Sheri Klouda).

I am thrilled.

In His Grace,

Wade

Tom Parker said...

volfan:

Just who is the--"we are not the ones who started this"

I will not respond to your other comment.

M said...

received my MDiv and PhD from SWBTS. I'll remain nameless here, but would like to comment on something I read when studying Carl F.H. Henry in the PhD program.

Henry wrote a book in the late 1940s called "The Uneasy Mind of Modern Fundamentalism." Until that time I thought of myself as a Fundamentalist. I had conversations with W.A. Criswell about the liberalism I'd seen in Professors at another of my alma maters, Baylor University. So, I was alot like the young, passionate persons that write here. I expelled alot of commitment, heart and soul, in the pursuit of defending the SBC's move to the right.

But Henry's book helped to change my thinking. He reveals the sociological tendency of Fundamentalists to withdraw from real-world problems, into their safety zone.

I'd add that dispensational theology also tends to drive this pessimistic relationship with the real world. Dispensationalists tend to be waiting for the return of Jesus while ignoring the expansion and power of the kingdom now.

Now that I've left the academic arena (having taught for twelve years at a Baptist institution), I've had the privilege of working in hospice and hospitals as a Chaplain for the past ten years. In those arenas you learn how to listen first. You're there for them, not for yourself. You weep with those who weep and you laugh with those who laugh.

I mention this so that you might consider the possibility that genuine love sticks with people who are in pain and suffering, even if they don't agree with you on "disputable" matters. I find in Romans 12-13 a healthy corrective to these name-calling disputes. I really think our Father wants us to focus on the things that unite us (the "euangelion," etc.) If you have an opportunity to defend your hope, do it with reverence and gentleness (I Peter 3:15).

So much energy is wasted today in these kinds of heated dialogues.

If you need to learn how to listen, I suggest you volunteer at a hospice. Go and sit with dying people. See how many of them have any interest in debating theology.

None will. They'll need you to represent the care and presence of God. They won't need harshness.

There's a sense in which the unsaved world is dying, and they too need gentleness and respect. We seem care more about how we communicate with the unsaved, than we do with other Christians.

Everyone deserves respect and kindness.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

received my MDiv and PhD from SWBTS. I'll remain nameless here, but would like to comment on something I read when studying Carl F.H. Henry in the PhD program.

Henry wrote a book in the late 1940s called "The Uneasy Mind of Modern Fundamentalism." Until that time I thought of myself as a Fundamentalist. I had conversations with W.A. Criswell about the liberalism I'd seen in Professors at another of my alma maters, Baylor University. So, I was alot like the young, passionate persons that write here. I expelled alot of commitment, heart and soul, in the pursuit of defending the SBC's move to the right.

But Henry's book helped to change my thinking. He reveals the sociological tendency of Fundamentalists to withdraw from real-world problems, into their safety zone.

I'd add that dispensational theology also tends to drive this pessimistic relationship with the real world. Dispensationalists tend to be waiting for the return of Jesus while ignoring the expansion and power of the kingdom now.

Now that I've left the academic arena (having taught for twelve years at a Baptist institution), I've had the privilege of working in hospice and hospitals as a Chaplain for the past ten years. In those arenas you learn how to listen first. You're there for them, not for yourself. You weep with those who weep and you laugh with those who laugh.

I mention this so that you might consider the possibility that genuine love sticks with people who are in pain and suffering, even if they don't agree with you on "disputable" matters. I find in Romans 12-13 a healthy corrective to these name-calling disputes. I really think our Father wants us to focus on the things that unite us (the "euangelion," etc.) If you have an opportunity to defend your hope, do it with reverence and gentleness (I Peter 3:15).

So much energy is wasted today in these kinds of heated dialogues.

If you need to learn how to listen, I suggest you volunteer at a hospice. Go and sit with dying people. See how many of them have any interest in debating theology.

None will. They'll need you to represent the care and presence of God. They won't need harshness.

There's a sense in which the unsaved world is dying, and they too need gentleness and respect. We seem care more about how we communicate with the unsaved, than we do with other Christians.

Everyone deserves respect and kindness.

Thanks

Bob Cleveland said...

If anyone thinks there's no evidence to support the general purpose Wade seems to be about, in the prevention of "narrowing" and all that, you might check Monte Erwin's comment, the latest one on my blog as of this minute.

Of course, you'd be free to disagree with Monte, too, but having spent quite a bit of time with him, I think he knows whereof he speaks.

Tom Parker said...

Bob:

I would really like to hear what some of the commenters here think of Monte Erwin's comment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous M,
I would like to take issue with some, though not all, of your statement.

I don’t recall hearing much about Carl F. H. Henry in the SBC in pre-Conservative Resurgence days. It wasn’t until after the CR that I remember Dr. Henry being favorably referred to in the SBC.

Second, many premillennialists do have a great concern for this world and for those suffering and dying. As a premillennialist, I have spent much time with the suffering and dying. I have preached my share of funerals, as recently as last week. My eschatology has never interfered. I would argue that it has been beneficial.

You said, “Dispensationalists tend to be waiting for the return of Jesus while ignoring the expansion and power of the kingdom now.” In contrast to your statement, many of the most evangelistic churches and pastors are premillennialist. W. A. Criswell was one of the them.
David R. Brumbelow

peter lumpkins said...

Bob,

It definitively is not the driving issue that "no evidence to support the general purpose Wade seems to be about." Slick is more irresponsible with "sources" than BC ever thought about. The issue here is concentrated amounts of raw deception. Slick made this perfectly clear when, in response to Professor Welty, he simply changed his post to bleed out Welty's concern.

No amount of passion for even a good cause can support the irresponsible handling of the underground gossip mine Slick works in. Sorry.

With that, I am...

Peter

David Mills said...

Anonymous,

It is a sweet and Christ like thing you are doing to serve as you are serving. I must take issue, however, with one statement you made.

You wrote, "Dispensationalists tend to be waiting for the return of Jesus while ignoring the expansion and power of the kingdom now."

I am a mild dispensationalist, and I fellowship with dispensationalists, though not all (or even most) of my ministry friends are dispensational. First, I do not know any dispensationalist who fits your description. The ones I know are zealous for good works, and many do work similar to your work.

Second, your remarks remind me of the moderate propaganda of the 1980s against dispensationalists. It wasn't very fair, but it was propaganda.

Third, I am still surprised how some non-dispensationalists use eschatology to dispute fellowship among Christians.

Finally, from a biblical perspective, begs the question, "Are dispensationalists Christian?" Those who do not serve or show love to those in need betray that they are in darkness and do not know God. John had much to say about this in his first epistle, and what he said is devastating.

Are you sure you have been fair in your assessment of dispensationalists? Do you stand by these comments?

Please keep up the good work that you are doing. The souls you serve need the gospel, and I am glad you are there to offer it to them with warmth, compassion, and zeal. Christ may rapture the church at any time, launch the Great Tribulation, and everyone will be doomed but Israel. As you serve, be comforted that I and my dispensational friends will not say about you what you have said about us. Instead, we will applaud your work. In the future, I look forward to you returning the favor. This is a difficult world, and we all need to encourage each other as that Day draws near.

Ron Phillips, Sr. said...

Tom,

Here are a few of my thoughts about Monte's comments at Bob's site (Bart, sorry for hijacking your post - you may remove it since it is off topic):

First, I commend him and Janet for their integrity in that they did not sign the confessional statement of Southern Baptists since they could not affirm it. I wish others in all SBC entities, including Trustees, would have as much integrity.

Second, since they could not affirm the confessional statement of the Convention that sent them, nor could they teach it on the field, then they should not expect Southern Baptists to financially support their ministry.

The Baptist Faith and Message is the confession upon which we base our cooperation and our identity as Christians who are Southern Baptists. Employees and Trustees of every SBC entity represent all Southern Baptists who, as a convention, adopted this confessional statement in 2000. I for one, expect all of our employees and Trustees to uphold our doctrinal confession as it is the minimum of what we confess as cooperating Southern Baptists.

Finally, if I were an SBC entity employee, and the Convention changed the BFM to include doctrine(s) that I could not support and teach, I would not want to work for the Convention. Neither would I expect the Convention to want me as an employee or Trustee.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wayne Smith said...

Ron P,

When one has a Heart for the Lord and is called by God to go into the missions’ field and sacrifice the comforts of living here for self they deserve our support. I think it is ungodly to do what has been done to this family. I just don’t see any Heart in anyone that would take this kind of action against those called by God.

Wayne

Ron Phillips, Sr. said...

Wayne,

It is a matter of integrity to the Word of God. They could not affirm a confession that Southern Baptists voted as ESSENTIAL. Either we believe what we say we believe, or we do not. If we do not, then we should abandon our confession and become an ecumenical body and join the NBC or the NCC. Then, anyone can continue to serve in any capacity no matter what they believe in their heart.

There are five centuries of Baptists who have gone before us that believed there were biblical reasons to divide and separate from other believers in Christ. As long as Southern Baptists hold to a confession of what minimally binds us together for cooperation, then we rightfully should expect our entity employees to follow it and teach it. Otherwise, they should work for a convention or denomination that they can agree with confessionally. Both can then maintain integrity.

Blessings,

Ron P.

CB Scott said...

And we find ourselves in another little feud that is, for the most part, related to various views of ecclesiology.

I respect many here. Bob Cleveland is a dear friend.

Yet, for me, at least, Ron P. has hit the matter of much of the general differences between many of us over the last year right in the heart when he says:

"Finally, if I were an SBC entity employee, and the Convention changed the BFM to include doctrine(s) that I could not support and teach, I would not want to work for the Convention. Neither would I expect the Convention to want me as an employee or Trustee."

In fact, I believe the IMB has missed it right there often since 1993.

cb

Tom Parker said...

It was said--"Finally, if I were an SBC entity employee, and the Convention changed the BFM to include doctrine(s) that I could not support and teach, I would not want to work for the Convention. Neither would I expect the Convention to want me as an employee or Trustee."

I do understand what you are saying, but many people had been employees of the SBC for years.

Who knows one day you guys may find yourselves having to live by these words and leave.

I see the BF&M as a changing document. Please be careful what you say because one day the words may change and if you follow your conscience then you will have to leave. It could happen.


This stuff is all very real for somebody. This is not theoretical.

Wayne Smith said...

Ron P,

What has changed since this commentary was written about UNIT IN JESUS CHRIST???

Title: The Believers Study Bible
Author:

EPHESIANS
Introduction
AUTHOR: Paul
This epistle is the work of the apostle Paul, as attested by (1) the internal
claims of the epistle itself (1:1; 3:1); (2) its Pauline literary structure and style;
(3) its theological similarities to the other Pauline epistles, especially Colossians;
(4) its historical setting; and (5) the unchallenged tradition of the church, until the
rise of destructive criticism in the nineteenth century.
DATE: A.D. 60-63
As one of Paul’s “Prison Epistles” (the name given collectively to Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon), the letter would be dated A.D. 60-63,
corresponding to the time of his first Roman imprisonment (cf. Acts 28:16-31). It
was probably written at about the same time as Colossians.
RECIPIENTS: Churches of Asia Minor
The destination is less certain. The omission of “in Ephesus” (1:1) in some
manuscripts suggests that the epistle was a circular letter, addressed to the
churches of Asia Minor as a whole (cf. Rev 1:11) and forwarded from church to
church. Each would insert its own name in the opening salutation as the epistle
was read locally. Some scholars believe that this is the explanation for Paul’s
reference in Col 4:16, where he requests that Colossians be read along with the
“epistle from Laodicea.” This may refer to a copy of Ephesians with the name of
Laodicea inserted in the blank space so that the circular letter might also be read
there. It would then have circulated farther than Laodicea (hence “from
Laodicea”), and Paul would naturally request that it be read in Colosse also.
Since Ephesus was the chief city in Asia Minor, it is not unlikely that other
manuscript copies would bear the name of the Ephesian church, probably
inserted as copies of the original text were made.
THEME: Unity in Christ
Paul is a prisoner in his own rented house in Rome (Acts 28:16, 30), a prisoner
“for you Gentiles” (3:1) because of his ceaseless support of the cause of Gentile
equality in Christ. Having mightily defended Gentile liberty in the Epistle to the
Galatians and having shown Jew and Gentile to be equally vital in the eternal
purpose of God in the Epistle to the Romans, Paul presents his supreme
exposition of the central doctrine of his apostleship—the doctrine of the unity of
Jew and Gentile in Christ, and of God’s purpose for the world through His
church. The epistle, directed primarily to Gentile Christians, but not excluding
Jewish believers, expounds their position in Christ (chs. 1-3) and their
corresponding responsibilities in Christian living (chs. 4-6).


Wayne

debbiekaufman said...

Ron: The BF&M should never be used as blackmail. That is exactly what I see happening. That is not the purpose of the BFM.

I agree with you on the essentials. But even among the BI people there are going to be points of disagreement in interpretation of the scripture. There has to be a line drawn on where exclusion begins and ends.

CB Scott said...

Tom Parker,

You said:

"Who knows one day you guys may find yourselves having to live by these words and leave."

Please know that twice in my life I have lived by those words within the SBC. Once as a trustee. Once as an employee.

I presently live by those words as a pastor. I also lived by those words in at least two other churches.

The BF&M is the minimum of cooperation. If I cannot abide by the minimum in cooperation with my brothers; How can I expect to aspire to live by the maximum in faithful obedience to my Lord's document which is the Word of God which is perfect?

Brother, if the footmen tire you, how shall you run with horses?

cb

CB Scott said...

One more thing, Tom Parker,

You said:

"I do understand what you are saying, but many people had been employees of the SBC for years."

You are correct on two counts:

1. You do not understand.
2. Many people had been employees in the SBC for years.

As to number 2: Many people lied. Many more allowed them to do so.

cb

CB Scott said...

That should be: You are correct "only in one" of two counts.

Anonymous said...

CB

Colossians 2:6-23
Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (Colossians 2:23, niv)

Legalism is attractive, but destructive. To the Colossians, the discipline demanded by the false teachers seemed good, and legalism still attracts many people today. Following a long list of religious rules requires strong self-discipline and can make a person appear moral, but religious rules cannot change a person’s heart. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.
Col. 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities. The cross of Christ marks the decisive defeat of the demonic powers. On the cross, they were stripped of their power to accuse Christians before God. (Gk. diabolos, “devil,” means “accuser, slanderer.”) Nevertheless, these demons continue to exist and to exercise power to incite evil, so Christians must continue to struggle with them (see Eph. 6:12, 16). put them to open shame. This is the same term (Gk. deigmatizō) used in Matt. 1:19 to refer to Joseph's unwillingness to expose Mary's pregnancy and bring public shame on her. The cross publicly reveals the failure of the demonic powers to thwart God's plan of salvation through Christ (see 1 Cor. 2:6–8). triumphing over them. The image is of a triumphal Roman military procession. The defeated king with all of his surviving warriors and the spoils of war were paraded through the streets of Rome, as a public spectacle for all to see.

Ben

Tom Parker said...

The narrowing will continue. You guys may hate WB, but when the continued narrowing puts you on the outside, you will not be able to say that he did not warn you.

CB Scott said...

Ben,

As you will know the Colossian Heresy is still somewhat a mystery as to what it actually was. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if much of what we experience today from those who would seek unity at all cost based upon extremely tolerant interpretations of the plain teachings of Scripture are not in substance that of which the Colossian Christians struggled against far greater than the legalism of the Judizers.

cb

CB Scott said...

Tom Parker,

You do not know Wade. Those of us who are posting in opposition to him are mostly people who do somewhat know him. I have spent a great deal of time with him.

I want to say here and now; It is my observation, none of the men I have in mind hate Wade Burleson. I know I do not. I have defended Wade many time and even against those of whom I presently speak. I have also opposed him greatly. Most of the time in relation to his ecclesiology which I consider to be very weak, unbiblical and not of a historic Baptist position.

Yet, I do not hate him and you have no right to say as much of me or these other men.

I don't even hate you, Tom, but I do believe you to be an Ole Liberal:-)

cb

debbiekaufman said...

CB: I see no mystery. Reading through the chapter, there were false teachers that were claiming Christianity to be incomplete. Paul was writing this letter from prison and look at the things Colossians addresses. Especially chapter 2.

Tom Parker said...

ok, i will change my word hate to very unhealthy dislike or fixation. will that work for you my "Liberal friend."

Were not you men once Wade's friends? He should be very thankful you are not his enemies.

But now you say--"to his ecclesiology which I consider to be very weak, unbiblical and not of a historic Baptist position."

The above sounds like CR talk to me--I'm suprised you all have not accused him of not believing the Bible, not believing in inerrancy. But wait you all have called him a "Liberal."


Are you guys going to attempt to kick him out next since he is not a true Baptist in your books?

Where does it end? Who has given you guys this mission to rid the SBC of people not like you.

PP and PP both have to be mighty proud of you all. You learned well how to get rid of them "Liberals" during the the CR even to right now.

volfan007 said...

I, too, want to go on record as not hating Wade Burleson. I dont like his views, nor the way he goes after people...especially conservatives...but I do not hate him.

David

CB Scott said...

Debbie,

I don't really know why I do this.
(Maybe it has to do with my ancient and former life of going where dogs and snakes won't crawl to extract women and children from evil and godless men.)
But, I often find myself blushing with embarrassment for you due to things you say in blog posts and comment threads.

And, also and more importantly, I have made a vow to cease going into combat against you in Baptist blog wars. Even though I know full well I am right in refuting what you say; I come away with terrible guilt for having done so.

I never have that guilt when I fight with any guy (male) in Blogtown. Actually I kinda like it. I find it rather fun to rag on some of these fellows. (Like Tom "Ole Liberal" Parker) But I always feel guilt when I fight with you or any of the other ladies with whom I have done battle. And I am sure this makes me some kind of a bigot, or a pig or something, but so be it.

Therefore, I will no longer be combative with you. "There just ain't no money in it" as an old and long gone, but never forgotten friend used to say to me in another life.

So I am just going to walk away after this last and non-combative statement of historical truth. And I will never cross swords with you again. I will just say stuff to you like: "have a nice day" and "how are the kids" and maybe; "What about those Sooners?" when I speak to you.

So here goes and this is it:

Debbie:

Since prior to the third century after the resurrection of our Lord, biblical scholars have debated what is commonly referenced as the Colossian Heresy. Yet, to this day none of those of whom are recognized as true biblical scholars will say there is "no mystery" as to what the actual substance of the Colossian Heresy is.

This is where it ends for our combat Mrs. Debbie Kaufman.

So, let me begin fresh.

What you Sooners gonna do now that Nick Saban has had the greatest recruiting run in football history?

We are coming. Look out.:-)

cb

CB Scott said...

Tom "Ole Liberal" Parker,

I do not have a "fixation" on Wade. That is your department. I don't even like Elvis.

I do sound like the CR, because I am of the CR. I was there.

I have never called Wade a Liberal. I called you a Liberal. I call you Tom "Ole Liberal" Parker.

I know of no plan to kick Wade out of anything. Nor, do I know of a plan to even kick you out of anything.

Lastly, I don't know if Dr Patterson would say he was proud of me anymore. I do know that Judge Pressler called me to sit with him at his table in a TEX-MEX eating establishment for a moment during the San Antonio SBC and he told me he still considered me to be a dear friend and had never doubted me. That meant a great deal to me at the time, Tom. And it still does for reasons you will never understand.

So there, you Ole Liberal, is my answer to you this day. And with that I bid you good-night.

cb

debbiekaufman said...

CB: The Colossians were being told that Christ was not enough. This is why Paul speaks in great detail of Christ's deity and stressing our completeness in Christ.

The Colossians were being told to worship angels and to follow special laws and ceremonies. These are the things Paul is addressing in the book of Colossians.

Ron Phillips, Sr. said...

Sorry I had to leave, we have the flu in the house and am playing nurse to son and wife while trying to take care of a two year old.

Where to begin...

Wayne, unity absent doctrinal integrity to the Word of God is ecumenicalism, which is unbiblical.

Debbie, blackmail???? please! The correct biblical word, which ecumenists are afraid is, accountability.

Tom, I do not hate Wade, nor do I even loathe him. I do not know him except for his blog persona. I personally hope that he faithfully and successfully fulfills his role as pastor of Emmanuel. I do however reject the following

* His inherent pattern of gossip.
* His ecumenical theology.
* His feminist theology.

There are several more, but those are huge differences. Please do not confuse principled disagreement in doctrine and practice, with hatred or loathing. Exhortation and admonition is also not hatred.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Wayne Smith said...

Ron P,

Title: Disciple’s Study Bible 
Author: 


Theological Outline 
Ephesians:
Unity in Christ

I. The Apostle Sends Greetings to the Church. (1:1-2)

II. Believers Who Make Up the Church Have a Great Potential in Christ. (1:3-3:21)

A. God has chosen believers to be His children. (1:3-6)

B. Christ in His death and resurrection has provided believers an inheritance that includes forgiveness and eternal life. (1:7-12)

C. The Holy Spirit has sealed the believers’ inheritance. (1:13-14)

D. The apostle prays for the believers’ full understanding of the power of Christ and their inheritance in Him. (1:15-23)

E. By grace believers have been delivered from death in trespasses and sin and have been given life. (2:1-10)

F. In Christ all believers are one, reconciled to both God and other persons. (2:11-22)

G. The grace of God is broad enough for Gentiles as well as Jews. (3:1-13)

H. The apostle prays for the believers to be strengthened spiritually. (3:14-19)

I. The apostle praises God and calls for the church through the ages to glorify Him. (3:20-21)

III. Believers Need to Practice Their Faith. (4:1-6:20)

A. Believers should humbly seek unity. (4:1-3)

B. Unity involves one body, spirit, hope, Lord, faith, baptism, and Father. (4:4-6)

C. God provided differing gifts to build the church in unity and maturity. (4:7-16)

D. A holy and separated life is necessary in Christ. (4:17-21)

E. Christ transforms the believers’ attitudes and actions. (4:22-5:17)

F. Spirit-filled believers do God’s will and worship together with joy, thanksgiving, and mutual respect. (5:18-20)

G. Husbands and wives should live in love and respect. (5:21-33)

H. Parents should teach their children about God, while children obey. (6:1-4)

I. On-the-job relationships and attitudes are governed by the believers’ relationship to Christ. (6:5-9)

J. Christ equips believers for spiritual warfare. (6:10-17)

K. Believers are encouraged to pray for boldness. (6:18-20)

IV. The Apostle Concludes His Letter with a Personal Word of Encouragement. (6:21-24)


Wayne

Ron Phillips, Sr. said...

Wayne,

This is from the same Apostle who in a bitter disagreement separated from Barnabas on a Missionary journey and took Silas instead.

Ron P.

Wayne Smith said...

Ron P,

This is Jesus Prayer for Unity.

John 17:20–26 Jesus does not stop at praying for himself (vv. 1–5) and his disciples (vv. 6–19) but now prays for those who will believe in me in the future. Jesus' concern is for his followers' unity (vv. 21–23) and love (v. 26). The vision of a unified people of God has previously been expressed in 10:16 and 11:52. Believers' unity results from being united in God (cf. 10:38; 14:10–11, 20, 23; 15:4–5). Once unified, they will be able to bear witness to the true identity of Jesus as the Sent One of God.

John 17:21 that they may all be one. Concerning the unity that Jesus prays for and that he intends for his own, see note on v. 11 (cf. v. 22). In us refers to spiritual union with God and also the personal fellowship resulting from that union.

John 17:22 Glory probably refers to the manifestation of the excellence of God's entire character in Jesus' life (see 1:14). Jesus has given this to all believers (see 17:20): his entire life revealed the glory of God and therefore he imparted it to his followers, and Christians now reflect God's excellency in their own lives, in imitation of Christ.

John 17:23 The Father's love for believers is comparable to his love for Jesus Christ.

John 17:24 The whole purpose of salvation is communicated in this verse. The foretaste of this is now, but the fullness of it lies beyond this present age. See represents the Greek word theōreō, “to observe with sustained attention,” and includes the idea of entering into and experiencing something. You loved me before the foundation of the world implies that love and interpersonal interaction among the members of the Trinity did not begin at any point in time but has existed eternally (cf. v. 5).

Wayne

Wade Burleson said...

CB,

You "and most of those who are writing in opposition to me" somewhat know me? And you, CB. have spent a great deal of time with me?

Really? That is one of the greatest illustrations I could ever hope to be given on how two perspectives, yours and mine, are completely different.

Wade

Tom Parker said...

Ron:

You said the following about Wade:

"* His inherent pattern of gossip."

That is a very serious charge--can your prove this?

The burden of proof is yours.

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Parker said...

Jeff:

What is wrong?

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Jeff, in my opinion, you are wrong, but I personally would refrain from saying those who believe like you are drinking poisonous kool-aid.

Jeff said...

Seeing how you didn't leave your name and seeing how you have added to my words you are not credible.

I never used the word poison.

Anonymous said...

From the Urban Dictionary

1. "drink the kool-aid"

A reference to the 1978 cult mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the group, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Kool-Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called "the Jonestown Massacre", 913 of the 1100 Jonestown residents drank the Kool-Aid and died.

One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side." or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly".

The phrase can also be used in the opposite sense to indicate that one has embraced a particular philosophy or perspective.

Alice: Hey, did you hear that Joe is working on the Nader campaign?
Bob: Yeah, he really drank the Kool-Aid on that one.

Chris: I'm thinking about attending a PETA rally
Donna: Whatever you do, don't drink the Kool-Aid!

volfan007 said...

Tom,

You asked Jeff for proof...for evidence of his allegations. Well, his sources are anonymous. Soooo, you'll just have to accept his word as the truth of the matter...end of discussion...no person can question it, nor can they ask for more.

David

CB Scott said...

Wade,

If you read what I was saying to Tom, you realize it was a relative statement in contrast to him not knowing you at all. And trying to present the fact we do not hate you which greatly differs with his declaration that we do.

That is not a hard leap of understanding.

Now you say:

"Really? That is one of the greatest illustrations I could ever hope to be given on how two perspectives, yours and mine, are completely different."

From your perspective are you going to say we have not spent a great deal of time together relative to the others mentioned? Are you going to say The others do not somewhat know you?

Are you going to pick up Tom's charge and say we really hate you? Are you going to say I have actually called you a liberal?

Well, Ok, Wade. Let me say this. Your comment here is a perfect example as to how you take statements,develop your own context, superimpose your own agenda over them ant then publish them as truth. And, in truth, Wade, you may have an ability to convince yourself they are true. Who Knows? Then you get mad and insulted when some of these guys call you a liar or a liberal.

Of course, you need us to say we hate you. You need us to call you a liar. You need us to call you a liberal. That is what your game feeds on. Or you at least need to be able to present Tom's (or someone like him) statement that we hate you as fact. You feed on that kind of thing, Wade. And actually, it is growing a little thin. People are beginning to see through it.

You are truly the boy that cried Wolf. It worked for a while. Now many are seeing the fact that the wolf you cry about often is nothing more than a small, mixed-breed puppy of which no one can truly determine its origins. Or, sometimes when you cry wolf, time proves there was not even so much as a howl or a foot print of a wolf. It turns out it was just a boy playing goblins in the back yard, waking up the neighbors.

Yet, you are right, Wade when you say:

"....two perspectives, yours and mine, are completely different."

You have never said anything more true in your life.

cb

Wade Burleson said...

CB,

I know you don't hate me. I also know that you don't know me, nor have you hardly spent any time with me. That's the point I was making.

And, I must say, it seems to me that the ideology to which you hold is that which causes you to be so caustic and separate from those who disagree on specific points - contrary to Tom's ideology that would drive him toward acceptance and cooperation with those who disagree.

Blessings,

Wade

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CB Scott said...

Wade,

You know what the word relative means. Since Jan. 2006 we have interacted personally at various times. Some of those times were goofing off. Some were very intense. We have had some frank conversations. We have had some meaningless conversations. We have had some very meaningful conversations. We have shared several meals together. You once ate the ketchup right off of my plate even as I was trying to eat it. (I gave up on it and let you have it, Because you are right Wade; I don't know you that well:-)

That is the rational of my comment from my perspective. If you want to say I am lying... or if you want to use my comment for another contextual argument....or if you want to superimpose a personal agenda over it like you did the Obama statement then feel free to do so. I can handle it.

Wade, our separation is most definitely theological. And in all likelihood the twain will never meet.

I was just trying to tell Tom Parker, those guys do know you somewhat, I know you even better than they, let's say then, and none of us hate you.

Frankly, brother, we would not do to you what you have done to some of us.

So go ahead, Wade, give it your best shot. Make it what it was never intended to be. You are good at that. But, and again, frankly, who else would want to be so good at such a thing other than you?

cb

CB Scott said...

Jeff,

It is because I don't know him so well.

cb

Tom Parker said...

Jeff:

What do you mean by pegged?

Why all the anger today?

CB Scott said...

Tom Parker,

Why are you so sure Jeff is angry? Did you judge by the same standard you did when you said we all hate Wade?

You are a real piece of work there Tom. You really are.

cb

Tom Parker said...

BC:

I promise you from where I sit I don't know much about you other than from your blog writings. I assure you it doesn't matter much what you think of me.

You're really proud of your CR connections aren't you?

CB Scott said...

Tom,

You know so little.

I will try to answer your question.

Some days I am proud of some things.

Other days I am not so proud of those same things.

Then, there are the days I loathe it all.

cb