Saturday, July 22, 2006

My Two Fingers

Nifty play on words, huh.

I've read those who say that you can't affirm the BFM2K and be a "moderationist." Needless to say, that's the single most absurd notion that I've heard in a long time. Furthermore, let's be blunt here, at least one of those allowing such argumentation and not calling it absurd on his blog has stated on the Founders blog that he can agree to the Abstract of Prinicples as long as he gets to define its meaning. Well, quite frankly, if he gets to define the meaning of the Abstract to his liking in order to affirm it, it is grossly inconsistent, if not outright hypocritical of him, not to allow "moderationists" the same respect with regard to the BFM2K...and let's be honest, the BFM2K only mentions "vice" anyway, so, in order to get from "vice" to "all alcohol use" (not just its abuse) assumes what it needs to prove.

What's more, the rationale is becoming increasingly ridiculous. It looks something like this: Many of those in opposition are Calvinists. Presbyterians share the same position. Ergo,these Baptists are paedobaptist sympathizers. Therefore, we are right, they want us to become Presbyterians, so we should separate from them. Sinners! Excise the Calvinists now!

Then there are the innane comments that said things when asked why the Reformers and those prior didn't take the abstinence position like "Romanists are all apostate and the Reformers were too busy to say anything about it." (my paraphrase). Uh-huh. They were too busy to say anything about alcohol, but not so busy to write reams of material like the Institutes, engage in protracted theological debate, to found theological schools, train hundreds of missionaries, and ultimately lead their successors into several synods, drafting no less than 3 major non-Baptist confessions and 2 major Baptist confessions. Riiiiiight.

Those trotting out SBC history itself would do well to remember the words of James Boyce. Yes, he had something to say about it too. James P. Boyce, founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spoke out against the resolution on alcohol, back in 1888 when he ruled, as President of the SBC, that a resolution against the consumption of alcohol “was not germane to the work of the convention.” (1888 Annual of the SBC, pp. 33-34). So, if they really want to make an argument about "who is the historic Southern Baptist on this issue," just like the Calvinism issue, they will find themselves losing that battle as well. Of course, this should be expected from those who wish to reinterpret the Abstract of Principles in order to affirm it.

No comments:

Post a Comment