I have been reading the blogs, etc., and think Bro. Burleson (his dad baptized me, by the way) is leaning too strongly on his interpretation that Landmarkism is the driving force behind the IMB's edict.
A closer analogy, I think, would be the James Reeve Test Case of 1844. In that instance, the American Baptist Home Mission Society declined to appoint a missionary who came with the full approval of southern churches, upon the basis that he was a slaveholder, a policy the convention itself always declined to make.
I can understand why Burleson would not want to use that example, but it seems to me to be more to the point.
I agree. If it is "Landmark-driven", the words are couched in careful enough language to not sound as coming directly out of Landmark ecclesiology. Or perhaps I've just been around too many non-SBC Landmarkers who would not quibble over the eternal security language and just say "we won't accept their baptism because we don't believe that they are scriptural churches."
I had hoped that Wade would mention his generational place in descendancy from Eld. Rufus C. Burleson, one of the old guard of Texas Baptists. Eld. Burleson was no stranger to controversy, and was removed from the presidency of Baylor for siding with Samuel Hayden against some of the excesses (or at least perceived so) of the board.
Unlike Wade, Eld R.C. Burleson was a Landmarker, though a quite reasonable one. He argued for example, that Missionary Baptists had no scriptural reason to reject the baptisms of the Primitive Baptists. OTOH, I'm sure he rejected the baptisms of Free Will Baptists.
2 comments:
I have been reading the blogs, etc., and think Bro. Burleson (his dad baptized me, by the way) is leaning too strongly on his interpretation that Landmarkism is the driving force behind the IMB's edict.
A closer analogy, I think, would be the James Reeve Test Case of 1844. In that instance, the American Baptist Home Mission Society declined to appoint a missionary who came with the full approval of southern churches, upon the basis that he was a slaveholder, a policy the convention itself always declined to make.
I can understand why Burleson would not want to use that example, but it seems to me to be more to the point.
I agree. If it is "Landmark-driven", the words are couched in careful enough language to not sound as coming directly out of Landmark ecclesiology. Or perhaps I've just been around too many non-SBC Landmarkers who would not quibble over the eternal security language and just say "we won't accept their baptism because we don't believe that they are scriptural churches."
I had hoped that Wade would mention his generational place in descendancy from Eld. Rufus C. Burleson, one of the old guard of Texas Baptists. Eld. Burleson was no stranger to controversy, and was removed from the presidency of Baylor for siding with Samuel Hayden against some of the excesses (or at least perceived so) of the board.
Unlike Wade, Eld R.C. Burleson was a Landmarker, though a quite reasonable one. He argued for example, that Missionary Baptists had no scriptural reason to reject the baptisms of the Primitive Baptists. OTOH, I'm sure he rejected the baptisms of Free Will Baptists.
Post a Comment