Liberal infection of conservative causes

The quote below is from someone who back in the day would be sold to us as a conservative evangelical safe to follow.

There is, then, no absolute proof that our Canon is precisely the true Canon and no absolute proof that any one word of the text is precisely as God gave it. But the quest for absolute proofs, whether historical or theological, is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of history, theology, and the human mind. History is at best an approximation to truth based on an incomplete induction of facts. Theology is a fallible human attempt to co-ordinate the data of revelation.

Christ and the Bible, John William Wenham. London, Tyndale Press, 1972, p. 184.

Liberalism at Southern Seminary

I am not Southern Baptist. I have never been Southern Baptist. I never intend to be Southern Baptist. However, I appreciate that of all the larger and mainline denominations in the United States, it seems only the Southern Baptist Convention has successfully pushed back against theological liberalism in any meaningful way.

In “The Conservative Resurgence and Southern Baptist Seminary,” Mark Terry sheds some personal light on what he experienced during his early tenure as a teacher at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. It is inconceivable that it had been allowed to get so bad, but perhaps more unbelievable that the conservatives in the SBC were able to oust the liberals from Southern.[i]

A few examples:

“He reported that he was the only student of ten who believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The professor himself did not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.”

“The faculty members who studied at Southern in the 1980s shared experiences from their student days. One reported that he kept a running count of the curse words one professor uttered in class. He stopped counting at 152.”

“…one of the ethics professors often spoke at abortion rights rallies and made pro-abortion statements on local television.”

---

[i] I suspect, as happens in most things like this in religion and politics, that some “liberals” turned “conservative” as the tide was turning.

The Synoptic Problem?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16)

The “Synoptic Gospels” are Matthew, Mark, and Luke, called this because of their similarities (taking the same point of view) as opposed to being quite different from John. A long-held general view has thought chronologically of the four Gospels in the order they stand in the New Testament – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Synoptic Problem.

This “problem” concerns the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and their relationships to one another – in the sense of dependence, independence, or interdependence. A human explanation is sought. For simple Bible believers, the “problem” is not a problem because God is behind all of these Gospels and they are the way they are because of his divine choice. For many of the rest, the “problem” is resolved by settling on two sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke – the Gospel of Mark and an imaginary document called “Q.”

Markan Priority.

Liberal New Testament scholars in the 19th century began to reject the priority of Matthew’s Gospel in favor of Mark’s Gospel. “Markan Priority” theorizes that the authors of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels drew from or depended on the Gospel of Mark as a source of information in their own writings. This “resolves” the parts of these three Gospels that are similar. Since not all of the material that Matthew and Luke have in common is found in the Gospel of Mark, “Markan Priority” only resolves part of the “problem.” This necessitates another source for the parts that Matthew and Luke have in common with each other, but not with Mark.

“Q” or “Q source”.[i]

“Q” (aka “Logia Source Q”) is therefore the hypothetical document imagined as a “solution” to the so-called “Synoptic Problem,” when combined with “Markan Priority.” According to this hypothesis, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and also a second source for the material they have in common that is not found in Mark.[ii] This source does not exist, but it has been created in the imaginations of unbelieving scholars. Usually the “Q” material is a single theoretical lost written source, though some may include oral resources as well.[iii]

The real problem.

The real problem is the havoc caused among Bible believers who read so-called conservative commentators who spread the virus of unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Thomas Ross illustrates this in “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.” John Nolland, author of The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), who passes for a conservative in evangelical circles, writes:

“On the basis of the tensions and difficulties in the account [in Matthew 25:31-46, rlv] many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together out of traditional fragments and OT resources…the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change…With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account.”[iv] 

A brief summary of what Nolland thinks is this. He posits that whatever Jesus Christ actually said got changed to something different than what Jesus said! This kind of talk is replicated in far too many “conservative” evangelical commentaries, sermons, etc.

The solution to the problem.

The solution to the “Synoptic Problem” begins with “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” That is, I understand that the Synoptic Gospels are inspired by God, and I believe this even in light of the things I do not understand. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

My objection to “Markan Priority” and “Q” starts at a the most basic level – the inspiration of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). “Markan Priority” and “Q” theory emphasizes the human element in the writing of the Gospels. It essentially removes the divine element. Men imagine these Gospels rising from three authors without due emphasis on these three Gospels rising from one author using three inspired penmen. Since the human element is overemphasized, a need to fix the “problems” lends to the imagining of writers (particularly Matthew and Luke) copying their Gospels from Mark and an artfully invented fictional source – in order to explain why these books are the way they are. However, if God wrote the Gospels, that in itself explains why they are the way they are. They are how he wants them. This view may not suit our human curiosity in explaining all we think we want to know. Nevertheless, that must be the beginning point for the Bible believer.

Ultimately, we have gotten ourselves into this mess by rejecting the older view of inspiration that is closer to dictation than superintendence. “Dictation” has been pooh-poohed by modern evangelicals. Good people have rejected the term and preferred superintendence instead. Certainly, there is a human element to the writing of Scripture. That said, we cannot resolve “problems” by rejecting God as the divine author of Scripture. The majority of evangelicals in the United States may be emphasizing the human element to the removing of the divine element – while still giving lip service to inspiration. “Markan Priority” and “Q” are symptoms of the sickness of overemphasizing the “humanness” of the Gospels.

Considering the human standpoint of the authors, the Synoptic Gospels are independent accounts by three independent witnesses. That is, they do not need to depend on one another or any fictional sources. “Q” source is an inspiration-denying view, even if some of those who repeat it do not themselves deny inspiration.

There is one original ultimate source of the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and the whole of Scripture (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) are pure words from one source – God who gave the word. Believe it. Lord, help thou mine unbelief.

---

[i] “Q” is an abbreviation of the German word “Quelle”, meaning “source.” This should give the reader the hint that these doubts arise in large part from German higher criticism, which is an unbelief in the supernatural element of Christianity.
[ii] In addition to the Two Document (or Two Source) Hypothesis, there also exist hypotheses for three sources or four sources. When you start making this stuff up, there is no limit to how many sources there could be.
[iii] “Q” does not exist. There is no proof it ever existed. It exists only in the minds of those who need it to resolve their problems.
[iv] To read a long excerpt of John Nolland, with Thomas Ross’s comments, see “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.”

What has crept in to your theology and biblical facts?

On Wednesday I posted “Was A. T. Robertson a conservative Baptist.” The intent was not to speak ill of the dead, but to make a point – which I want to tease out a bit further today. 

I believe that A. T. Robertson was generally well thought-of (as a teacher) in the circles I grew up in. If memory serves, it was usually his Harmony of the Gospels that was recommended to young preachers and Bible students studying the Gospels. His Greek Grammar was also recommended. However, as I pointed out, I have come to think (knowing what I now know) that Robertson was not all that conservative, neither was he holding the line against liberalism encroaching into Southern Baptist ranks.[i] 

From time to time, through Bible study, introspection, and conviction of the Holy Spirit, I find that I have imbibed of teachings (often “small” things, but wrong nevertheless) that have crept in unawares through respected Bible teachers with a less than stellar regard for the inspiration and authority of word of God. It may be something I picked up forty years ago; sometimes it is something I picked up four years ago (or read last week). We must be ever alert and on guard. 

When at our church we began our study of the book of Acts over three years ago, I read commentators who pointed out that only Luke records the ascension of Christ (in Luke 24:51-53 and Acts 1:9-11). That sounds good on the surface, and it can get stuck as a “fact” in our pea brains. However, as I studied and the Spirit led into truth, I remembered – wait a minute, it is only those guys that reject the last twelve verses of Mark chapter 16 who can say that! Mark mentioned it as well. (See Mark 16:19.)

Let us be diligent. Let us be careful. Let us be watchful. Be aware and beware. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

• “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour…” 1 Peter 5:8
• “Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain…” Revelation 3:2
• “…they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts 17:11

---

[i] In case a reader wonders, I am not Southern Baptist. However, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest and most influential body of Baptists here in the United States.

The end of the Gospel of Matthew, wokedly

The linked video (below) and transcribed words exemplify the wacky taffy foisted on religious congregations as so-called Christian theology by so-called pastors parading as Christian theologians. According to findachurch.ca, Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Newmarket, Ontario, Canada is an “ELCIC” Church (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada). The ELCIC is also in “Full Communion with the Anglican Church of Canada.” Their pastor is Dawn Hutchings, who you will see in this video clip posted on “Woke Preacher Clips.” The heading notes that Hutchings teaches, “The Great Commission Is Fake and Racist,” and “asserts (without textual evidence) that Matthew 28:18-20, ‘The Great Commission,’ is a fabrication that has been used to justify racist colonization for far too long.”

Hutchings discusses that the “prescribed reading is known by the church as the ‘great’ (scare quotes) commission” which she doubts she will ever read again or claim it as the gospel!

“Over the course of many years of study, I have come to believe that the so-called ‘great’ commission is anything but the gospel. Indeed, I have come to believe that this particular ending to the gospel according to Matthew may be the source of the systemic racism which permeates not just the church, but also all of the Western cultures and institutions which arose out of what history has dubbed the Holy Roman Empire.”

Hutchings sets the stage for the basis of her claims – what she has come to believe “over the course of many years of study.” Never mind what anyone else has come to believe “over the course of many years of study.” She sets herself up as the authority. She will circle back around to this method as she goes on. After saying she would not read it or claim it as the gospel, she reads it to lambast it.

“Hear the words prescribed for this Trinity Sunday.”[i]

The Eleven made their way to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had summoned them. At the sight of the risen Christ they fell down in homage, though some doubted what they were seeing. Jesus came forward and addressed them in these words:

“All authority has been given me both in heaven and on earth; go therefore, and make disciples of all [the] nations. Baptize them in the name of Abba God, and of the Only Begotten, and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you. And know that I am with you always, even unto [until] the end of the world!”

This reading is taken from Matthew 28:16-20 in The Inclusive New Testament.[ii]

“Here ends the reading, not according to the anonymous gospel storyteller which we call Matthew[iii]. No! (wags finger) You can’t get out of first year New Testament classes and not learn that the vast majority of New Testament scholars agree that this particular ending of this anonymous gospel was added much later.”

Again, Hutchings appeals to authority. This time not her own, but to “the vast majority of New Testament scholars” and “the preponderance of evidence unearthed by New Testament scholars.” However, it is a false appeal based on skewed numbers – or maybe just made up numbers. I have been unable to find that any “vast majority” of “New Testament scholars” have reliable evidence that the ending of Matthew is a late edition. What is readily available primarily is anti-Trinitarians claiming that not the entire ending, but that the “Trinitarian formula” or “tripartite phrase” of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost has been inserted into Jesus’s “commission.” There are no available manuscripts of the gospel of Matthew before the 3rd century – only fragments. However, all manuscripts that contain the end of Matthew contain what Hutchings refers to as absent, the Great Commission, and even the tripartite phrase or designation.

“The so-called ‘great’ commission was added to the gospel by the Christian community sometime around the year 325, to bring this gospel into line with the brand spanking new creed which the church had just written, which we know as the Nicene Creed.”

In addition to manuscript evidence, references to this ending of Matthew is found in numerous early Christian writings, including The Epistle of Ignatius (died ca. AD 110) to the Philadelphians, Chapter 9, Longer Recension, Tertullian (ca. AD 155 – ca. Ad 220), Against Praxeas, Chapter 26, and Hippolytus (ca. AD 170 – ca. AD 235), Against the Heresy of One Noetus, paragraph 14. Tatian the Syrian included it in The Diatessaron (a compilation or harmony of the four Gospels, circa AD 170). The compilers of The Didache (circa AD 70) knew the traditional ending of Matthew. All of these occur and prove its provenance before the time Hutchings says the Christian community added the great commission around AD 325.

“…you still must begin to understand that these words, whether Jesus said them or not, these words became the justification for the doctrine of discovery.”

This statement highlights the liberal grounding of Hutchings. She does not really care “whether Jesus said them or not.” Let that sink in. How these words may have been wrongly interpreted and used holds much more importance to her than their being the words of Jesus, and meaning what he meant. A little exercise in theological gerrymandering may make people feel better by the “possibility that Jesus never actually issued the great commission.” Ultimately, it does not matter to her whether or not he did. Critical Race Theory trumps Jesus.

However, those of us who hold verbal plenary inspiration, the inerrancy of scripture, and its providential preservation do not interpret – much less dismiss – the words of Jesus based on how someone may or may not have abused them. They are the words of our Lord and Saviour. This possess all authority, his authority. They must be accepted and obeyed on that basis.

Hutchings signals her wokeness, personal virtue, and white loathing – no doubt hoping for absolution and acceptance, channeling George Floyd and the weight of her “knee of privilege pressing down upon their necks.” There is no absolution, no forgiveness. She will always and forever be white, a white “privileged” descendant of white “privileged” ancestors – at least judging from the perspective of Critical Race Theory.

There is so much that could be said, but let us hasten on to the conclusion. “On this Trinity Sunday when the church celebrates its creeds,” Hutchings rejects “ the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, or—God-forbid—the Athanasian Creed” to look for a vague and anonymous “very first creed” of the Jesus followers who held “no view” of him as the son of God, but a “high view” of things that surprisingly support the teachings of modern woke culture.[iv]

“This nascent Jesus movement understood well the tendency of humans to resort to tribalism. In the teachings of Jesus, they came to understand that race, class, and gender are typically used to divide the human race into us and them, to the advantage of us. This evolving Jesus movement declared in their creed there is no us nor them, we are all children of God. The Jesus movement was about solidarity, not cultural obliteration. New Testament scholar Stephen Patterson has studied the early manuscripts in an attempt to uncover the words which the apostle Paul quoted and then adopted. His unearthed version of that first Christian creed reads like this, ‘You are all children of God, there is no Greek or Jew, there is no slave or free, there is no male and female, for all are one.’”

In her conclusion, Hutchings makes another appeal to authority, this time “New Testament scholar Stephen Patterson has studied the early manuscripts in an attempt to uncover the words which the apostle Paul quoted.” (Seemingly no one else with a different view has ever studied anything.) Stephen J. Patterson is a professor of Religious Studies at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, and the author of The Forgotten Creed: Christianity’s Original Struggle Against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism. Prior to this he served at the Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis, affiliated with the ultra-liberal United Church of Christ. Patterson probably is not a “New Testament scholar” in the way that terminology would first strike my readers. It does not appear that he is immersed in the study of the manuscripts of our New Testament, but rather is a student and proponent of writings of that period which do not appear in the New Testament.

Following her authority, Hutchings takes on Patterson’s “us” and “them” motif. She swallows hook, line, and sinker a creed that is not found in the inspired New Testament, making it the apex of her talk, guiding her followers not down a biblical path, but a primrose one of her own making. Such preachers should admit they do not believe the Bible and find an honest job. If they want to sell this stuff they should sell it under their own banner, and not that of a church heritage that claims to be following Jesus Christ.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-20)

Take heed, watch, and remember.

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. (Jude 24-25)

---

[i] “Woke Preacher Clips” posted this video November 1, 2020, so the address is probably from around June 7, 2020. Trinity Sunday for the ELCIC is the First Sunday after Pentecost (the ELCIC “Worship” website links this lectionary).
[ii] The Inclusive New Testament, Priests for Equality, Lanham, MD, 1996, p. 55. Under the heading “To use terminology that acknowledges the many forms in which God appears in our lives,” they explain, “We wanted to retain the idea of intimacy of relationship while de-emphasizing the idea of fatherhood, so we substitute the term Abba God—hearkening back to Jesus’ own appeal to God as Abba in the garden of Gethsemane. Our terms for Jesus also stress relationship rather than hierarchy. We use Only Begotten, Firstborn, and God’s Own in place of ‘Son’ to express Jesus’ relationship to the Godhead.” p. xviii.
[iii] Notice also that Dawn Hutchings rejects the traditional authorship by an apostle and eyewitness, calling the writer rather ”the anonymous gospel storyteller which we call Matthew.”
[iv] Hutchings does not discuss whether Jesus was the Son of God in this clip, but her source, Stephen J. Patterson does so in his book. One might also misunderstand that she holds some high view of Paul and his writings. However, her source clearly debunks Paul buying in to the teachings of the so-called early Jesus followers, and in addition claims someone else forged the writings of Paul, as we know them. “The Early Christians Were Focused on Solidarity Across Race, Class and Gender. Then Things Changed” in Time magazine demonstrates that this “authority” also appeals to authority, making her appeal a double meal deal without proof.

The church has lost its way

The church is losing its way, says Rob Sellers. No. The church has already lost its way. Two churches. The cold dead orthodox evangelical church and the compromising humanistic progressive church.

Shockingly, Sellers says that cold dead orthodox evangelical church “acts as if the most important part of God’s mission in the world is to preach the gospel, then baptize and teach converts (Matthew 28) instead of to take care of God’s little ones (John 21).” He would apparently set one against the other and have the compromising humanistic progressive church forget the gospel (as we know it) and engage in humanitarian aid. The church that has not lost its way might figure out how to balance both.

The compromising humanistic church accepts the woman caught in adultery but will not tell her to go and sin no more. The cold dead evangelical church ignores the adultery of the woman if she supports the tithe-and-offering drives, women’s missionary unions, and such like. 

Interestingly, Sellers cites Jesus listening “to the anxious Syro-Phoenician mother’s protestations and rescued her daughter from life-threatening illness.” He does not bother to let anyone in on the fact that his own progressive paper (Neither Baptist nor Global, and more opinion than News) has already told us that Jesus was a racist for the way he treated the Syrophenician woman. So much for following Jesus!

We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

A Difference between Liberals and Conservatives

Liberals dismiss sins first, and then proceed to commit them. Conservatives commit sins first, and then proceed to dismiss them.

In contrast, Christians should confess sins while understanding “My crimes are great, but don’t surpass, the power and glory of God’s grace.”

[Note: this liberal/conservative difference is given as a general and slightly exaggerated illustration of different approaches, and is not intended to express a universal truth.]

Baptist moving: considering two theological shifts

A few days ago on Facebook Baptist historian Bart Barber called attention to Here’s The Point: Calvinists and Non-Calvinists in the SBC by Tom Nettles. In it Nettles asserts that “the loss of Calvinism in issues concerning election, depravity, and effectual calling paralleled the loss of inerrancy and soteriological exclusivity” in the Southern Baptist Convention. He posits that “Traditional” non-Calvinistic soteriology leads to bad theology. Barber disagreed, stating that Nettles’ piece was “Better proof that Calvinism can lead to bad polemics than that non-Calvinism leads to bad theology.”

I agree with Bart Barber. Nettles’ thesis does not prove that the shift away from Calvinism caused or was a major contributor to the rise of “liberalism” in the Southern Baptist Convention. If the move to “Traditional” soteriology were the cause, then similar liberalism should be found in other Baptist groups which were connected to Southern Baptists when the soteriological shift occurred.[i] Barber notes: “Correspondence ≠ Causality. Yes, Southern Baptists moved away from Calvinism in the same time frame as when they moved away from biblical inerrancy, but at the same time the BMAA, ABA, IBFs, and other Baptists in exactly the same milieu moved away from Calvinism without moving away from biblical inerrancy at all.” It would not be hard to prove that the churches of the ABA, BMAA, and IBFs – most of which were part of the Convention until early in the 20^th century – all moved to the same soteriological position that rejected unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace. Yet none of them suffered from the same kind of liberal infection as the Southern Baptists. Since all these groups were moving along the same soteriological trajectory as Southern Baptists, it is hard to blame either the trajectory or the results on Southern Baptist theologians.[ii]

I agree with some of the things Nettles states in the essay, but disagree with his general conclusion.[iii]

This subject also brought to my mind the question, “What was/were the cause/causes of the Baptist shift from a fervent stand on the doctrines of particular grace to a dominant view embracing free will and general atonement?”

If I understand Bart correctly, he believes that the Baptist shift was part of a larger general cycle within Christianity in the United States. He explains, “I think Christianity tends to alternate phases of more intellectual and more emotional aspects of its existence. Together with the rise of Pentecostalism, I think the move away from an arid Calvinism represents a turn toward a more practical or emotional Christianity.”

I accept the usefulness of that observation. Moving beyond the general trend in Christianity, what specifically was at work on the majority of U. S. Baptists – the Regular Baptists who held the doctrines of grace (also known as TULIP or Calvinism)?

• The possibility that some of these Regular Baptists nominally held the doctrines of grace, but were not consistent, clear and firm in their teaching of them.
• The anti-creedalism of the Separate Baptists, who merged with these Regular Baptists toward the end of the 18^th and beginning of the 19^th centuries. Though they were generally predestinarians like the Regular Baptists, they would not commit to “man-made” confessions like the Second London or Philadelphia Confessions.
• The influence of the evangelism of revivalists like Finney and Moody on these Regular Baptists. Probably the Frontier Revivalism of the early 1800s should also be included. Those who came into Baptist churches from these revivals might be predisposed to favor such methods and find them more compatible with a “free will” theology.
• The removal from these Regular Baptists of an aggregation of doctrinally strong predestinarian churches in the so-called missions/anti-missions schism. [iv]
• The “Spirit” of the American experiment, emphasizing freedom and individualism, seemed to fit better into a system of free will than unconditional election – influencing some of these Regular Baptists either directly (causes change) or indirectly (causes re-evaluation).

In the above suggestions I did not include anything like “changing views due to the study of the Bible/New Testament.” I do not exclude the fact that these people changed from a view they thought the Bible did not teach to a view they thought the Bible did teach. Most would earnestly profess that to be their case. But in the above list I am suggesting outside means that may have been at work with, without or in addition to this factor. Perhaps these ideas might help in considering the history of the shift from high predestinarianism to libertarian free will among a majority of Baptists in America.

---

[i] It is interesting to see in Baptist history that some of the non-cooperative (with the conventions) Old School predestinarian churches/associations were also moving to a more open, less-restrictive theology of salvation near the end of the 19th century.

[ii] For example, Nettles indicts Southern Baptist theologian W. O. Carver in his essay. Nettles says that Carver’s influence moved Southern Baptists “beyond Calvinism” also led them “beyond inerrancy.”

[iii] I would attribute part of the rise of liberalism in the Southern Baptist Convention to what I call “shift of center.” The extremes on either end of a group of churches keep a tension on the center – as extremes break off, the center shifts. The loss of the “anti-mission” churches was a shift of center that could affect the SBC, even though it occurred prior to its constitution. Another of these shifts was the loss of many Landmark and Gospel Missions churches at the end of the 19^th and beginning of the 20^th centuries.  Many Fundamentalists withdrew early in the 20th century. These churches agreed or tended to agree with general position on the atonement, so their removal did little to nothing to shift the SBC view of salvation.  But Landmarkers and Fundamentalists were leading contenders against liberal viewpoints – so their presence kept the tension pulled toward conservative and their loss shifted the center away from conservative – leaving a void for more liberal views to take a firm hold. Landmarkers and Fundamentalists have proved in the 20^th century that they can be progressive – but they hardly ever can be liberal! When Daniel Parker contended against the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions innovation he declared, “These errors have nearly all originated amongst the wise and learned.” The later errors of liberalism – denying biblical inerrancy, the exclusivity of the Christian faith, ex nihilo creation and such like – would rise out of the centers of education in the Southern Baptist Convention rather than the churches. The “Conservative Resurgence” is a high point in Southern Baptist history that reversed this liberal trend. Despite the shifts of center and rise of liberalism, the SBC was strong enough at the core that it could bring the theology of its churches to the front rather than fall to the liberalism as had every other major mainline denomination in the United States.

[iv] The anti-missions/missions split was an ecclesiological/methodological schism. Daniel Parker’s A Public Address to the Baptist Society (1820) is good evidence of this. He argues against the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions on ecclesiological rather than soteriological grounds. Not-so-much-Calvinists (e.g. J. R. Graves) and Non-Calvinists (e.g. Ben M. Bogard) would later take similar positions against mission boards and methods. Both The Kehukee Declaration (1827) and The Black Rock Address (1832) – documents criticizing the missions movement – also focus on matters of practice rather than soteriology. Across the span of time from the pointing out of problems with the “mission system” to the point of division, the “anti-missions” side of the controversy consistently perceived the problem to be the adoption of practices not justified by the teachings of the New Testament. This does not preclude the fact that the “anti-missions” side might have more appeal to the extreme for predestinarianism while the “missions” side might have more appeal to the extreme against predestinarianism, so that these extremes naturally gravitated to one side or the other.