Comments on: Aspect 6(b): A Mission Centered on the Gospel (spats, straw men, infighting)

By: Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:47:41 +0000

Rick, hi and thank you for jumping in the conversation. Sorry about the lack of transition from the first paragraph to the second. The first paragraph is a continuation of the line of thought from yesterday’s post, and the second paragraph then gives an example of one issue baptists have fought over.

As for criteria for secondary versus tertiary, I think it might be best to view those as being located on a spectrum… I’m planning to address this on BtT soon…

By: Rick Mang

Rick Mang — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:42:53 +0000

I am confused as to how the first paragraph relates to the following ones. I do not believe that you are equating Calvinism with apostolic precedent or local tradition.

Also, what are the criteria used to distinguish secondary and tertiary issues?

Thank you,
Rick

By: Jason Lewis

Jason Lewis — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:30:28 +0000

I am disappointed in the fact that this article does not go into any kind of detail concerning kerfuffles as promised.

By: Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:02:55 +0000

Steven, a Baptist church planter will never plant a church with a Presbyterian or an AOG guy. However, if a church planter wanted to, he could share resources with or attend workshops with, people who believe differently than he. Overseas missionaries partner in literature distribution, Bible translation, and sometimes training and strategy workshops. North American pastors and church planters and laypeople do similar things by participating together in Navigators, Campus Crusade, Saddleback network, etc. So if by “partner” one means to plant a church together with, no. But if “partner” means something lesser, such as my examples above, then that is at the discretion of the Baptist church…

By: Steven Speagle

Steven Speagle — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:27:52 +0000

Dr. Ashford:

Would you mind clarifying your response to Bro. Tim?

Your response is a little confusing and implies that an SBC church planter coud have fellowship in church planting with those that differ on mode of baptism, charismatic gifts, etc. This does not reconcile with your response to my previous post where you responded “If the ‘partnership’ were a Baptist and a Presbyterian or Methodist planting a church together, we can all agree to reject that.” If I am misreading your response to Tim, please forgive me.

By: Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:06:56 +0000

Tim, I’ll point you back to my previous comments which are a direct answer to the question you just asked me. I gave wasy that a North American or international churhc planter could have fellowship in church planting. This includes those who would differ on mode of baptism, charismatic gifts, etc.

By: Agreement With or Without the Gospel? « Your Cross on My Back

Agreement With or Without the Gospel? « Your Cross on My Back — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:24:40 +0000

[...] SECWF dean Bruce Ashford make a clear, concise, heartfelt argument over at Between the Times for Baptists to stop fighting over, in the words of Akin and Ashford, Calvinism and Arminianism. Their argument can be summed up with [...]

By: Tim Rogers

Tim Rogers — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:23:35 +0000

Dr. Ashford,

I specifically stated partnering with church plants, so your advocation of partnering with others for prayer, encouragement, and bible translation is not relevant to the point. Let me ask this another way.

Would you advocate that we partner to plant churches with an organization that holds to the following guideline?

We do not divide over issues not addressed in our doctrinal statement (e.g. mode of baptism, charismatic gifts, eschatology), but rather allow the elders in our various local churches to define their doctrinal distinctives.

Blessings,
Tim

By: Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:24:14 +0000

Steven,

Thank you for your helpful comments. I agree with you and with Mark Dever that misinterpretation is underlain by sinful wills and minds. But what I want to make clear is that we don’t want to rid ourselves of the secondary or teriary doctrines for the sake of missions, but instead to rid ourselves of unnecessary fighting (not debate or discussion, but fighting) and/or inappropriate attitudes toward one another in relation to those doctrines. For example, although I disagree with some of my brothers over limited atonement, I can cooperate with them for the sake of mission.

By: Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:20:01 +0000

Tim, I’m not sure to what type of church planting partnership you are referring and therefore unsure if we could all agree to rejecting one. If the “partnership” were a Baptist and a Presbyterian or Methodist planting a church together, we can all agree to reject that. However, if the “partnership” is IMB church planters partnering with Presbyterian church planters for the sake of Bible translation among unreached and unengaged people groups, I don’t have a problem with that. Likewise, if it is North American church planters cooperating with an evangelical church planting network training in logistics, strategy, etc., don’t have a problem. Finally, often the cooperation between church planters is in prayer and encouragement, and in such case I also have no problems.