A Discussion between Rastis and Dave Miller

The Debate Topic

Is Lot an example of moral compromise and its ill effects, or is he a model of cultural engagement? That is what we will be debating today. In a post at sbcIMPACT, Rastis argued that traditional viewpoints regarding the interpretation of the Lot story miss some key biblical elements. He sees Lot in a more positive and exemplary light than the traditional viewpoint. Dave Miller will be arguing the traditional version of Lot’s story – that Lot made some serious mistakes that cost him his family and any chance he had at moral influence.

The real focus of this debate is cultural engagement. How do Christians in American and in nations around the world deal with the cultures in which they live? Do we confront cultures or do we try to adapt to them? The discussion of Lot is meant not so much as an exercise in historical theology, but as a template for a discussion of how we as Christians should live in this world.

Both Rastis and Dave are regular contributors at sbcIMPACT. Dave also contributes here at SBC Voices. Rastis writes under that pseudonym because he is in the process of entering a ministry where his identity must remain secure as he engages a culture hostile to the gospel.

Rastis’ Post:  Lot Entered the City to Serve the Lord

I remember the first time I watched The Village. It was terrifying. Not so much because it was actually scary, but because it reminded me of a church I used to attend. The gist behind The Village is that there is a colony of people who have removed themselves from society in an attempt to keep themselves pure from the evil cities. What keeps people in line and in the confines of this small pseudo wilderness? They are afraid of the unnamable creatures which occasionally haunt the village. This was my church. We separated ourselves from the world (some would go as far as not driving on I-10 through Houston in order to avoid billboards—FYI, there is no way to drive through Houston without I-10) in hopes that we might retain personal holiness.

Enters Lot… He was the favorite whipping boy for evangelists, seminars, and youth camp speakers. After all, he typified everything that we were against. He left the “holiness” of the farm for the pleasures of the city, becoming a cosmopolitan man, the first metrosexual. He persisted in his sin in spite of angelic warnings. The city corrupted his ability to lead his family spiritually evidenced by his wife adopting his urban values, he offered his daughters to the angry mob, and, finally, committed incest. So went their bombastic crucifixion of Lot.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is unbiblical. Sure, the story goes something like that. But the traditional way of casting Lot in the story tells more about us and our view of the world than it does about Lot’s. Scripture explicitly states that Lot was a righteous man who was vexed by the urban sensuality (2 Pet 2:7). I studied twelve commentaries on the Genesis passage and few referenced the 2 Peter passage. The few who referenced it, did so in a dismissive way as though Peter was referencing something other than the account in Genesis. I am indebted to Ray Bakke’s Theology as Big as the City for pointing me in the right direction concerning Lot.

In addition to Peter’s declaration concerning Lot, I believe that the context of Genesis 18-19 provides insight into Lot’s true character. The accounts of Abraham in 18 and Lot in 19 are almost perfect parallels. While not contained in Gen 18-19, the most important link between Lot and Abraham is the fact that Lot left Ur, a center of Moon worship, with Abraham (Josh 24:2) to follow the true God.

Both men demonstrated great hospitality.

• In 18, Abraham is visited by three men. He demonstrated great hospitality.
• Likewise, Lot implored the two visitors to stay at his house rather than sleep in the square. They acted as if they would not heed his advice. Lot “pressed them strongly” and they complied. That is Middle-Eastern hospitality for you; you refuse three times, and then do it anyway. Implicit in this hospitality is food (19:3) and protection, which he provided in a misguided attempt to ward off the mob (19:7-8). While offering his daughters to a sexually perverted mob was wrong, his actions demonstrated his concern and dedication to uphold his hospitality.

Both men acted as intercessors.

• When Abraham learned of the destruction to come upon the cities of the valley he acted as an intercessor.
• When Lot learned of the destruction to come upon the cities of the valley he too acted as an intercessor. He begged for one of the cities in the valley to be given to him as a residence and not destroyed (19:20). The angels granted his request. In addition to this, he interceded on behalf of his guests (19:7-8) and was common fixture in the gates of the city (19:1).

Both men received sons.

• The three visitors clarified the earlier promises of a “great nation” through the promise of a son.
• At the end of 19, Lot receives two sons. While many blame Lot for the incest, it is not as bad as it sounds. First, Lot was drunk when it happened. Second, the law had not been given yet. It is important to note, that this was not pedophilia, as it was at the behest of the women and they were of marriageable, childbearing age. Finally, and most importantly, Lot’s daughters were acting in faith. It is hard to read Genesis through puritan eyes. There is just a lot of weird sexuality in Genesis: Lamech’s polygamy, the whole “sons of God” and “daughters of men” thing, Lot’s incest, and finally Tamar, who just “gets around.” That is not to mention the animosity between Sarah and Hagar, and Rachael and Leah. These examples can only be understood in light of the promise of a deliverer in Gen 3:15. All of these women acted in faith thinking that the deliverer would come in their lifetime. While that expectation went unrealized, many of these women are in the line of Christ.

Chapters 18-19 are parallel even in these details. The nations from both of Lots sons are in the lineage as well. One became the father of the Moabites (Ruth/Boaz-Obed-Jesse-David) and the other became the father of the Ammonites (Solomon sired a son with an Ammonite). If you are still bent on saying it was sin, then it only goes to show that moving to the suburbs and isolating ourselves (e.g. the cave) from those worldly city dwellers (e.g. the inhabitants of Sodom) does not really protect us from sin!

When one views the account of Lot in comparison to Abraham, it becomes clear that Lot is not a simpleton wandering about Vanity Fair. Nevertheless, Waltke points out a great irony between the two accounts: “Lot tries to be a blessing but instead appears as a buffoon. He fails as a host, as a citizen, as a husband and as a father. He wants to protect his guests but needs to be protected by them; he tries to save his family, and they think he is joking. His salvation depends on God’s mercy” (Genesis, 270).

What, then, was he doing in the city? The same thing we ought.

The more wicked a place is, the more it should consume our thoughts. Both Abraham and Lot wished to save the city. Abraham interceded on behalf of the whole city, not just for Lot and his family. Had it not been for the whole town rising up against the two visitors perhaps God would have spared the city. Jeremiah 5:1 says it only takes one person to save a city. This was also true in Lot’s case, albeit, not with Sodom itself. There were actually five cities slated for destruction (Gen 14:2). While neither Abraham nor Lot saved Sodom, Lot did save Zoar.

There is more to intercession than prayer. There is a need for presence and proclamation. As it relates to presence, we should run to the city rather than away from it. Lot did love the city, on this we agree. But he loved the city for the sake of justice rather than “worldliness”. Lot was found in the city gates (19:1). When he confronted the would be assailants, they were quick to remind him that he was an outsider—they were appalled that he was acting like a judge over them (19:9). We should be the salt and the light to the darkest places. There is always a relationship between the presence of the godly and the preservation of the community.

Lot had more impetus to go than we do—especially those of us who think our primary purpose is holiness. One who adopts the ways and philosophies of the world is certainly washed out, but no more washed out than the one who lives in the suburbs or in the country isolated in an enclave of safety and material comfort. Our desire to live where it is safe, small, and segregated puts us harrowingly close to being guilty of Sodom’s true sin. We always characterize Sodom over the homosexual issue. Since that isn’t really a struggle for most of us, we can feel relieved that we are not near God’s judgment. However, a quick glance at Ezekiel 16:49-50 reveals that we commit the same sin for which Sodom was judged (“pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy”) Those who lived in The Village learned the hard way that in spite of their separation from the evil cities, sin is ever present within the camp. The idea that one can avoid sin based on proximity is little more than Christianized humanism. The Bible says that sin comes from within.

What then are we to say about facing the danger of going to the city? The answer is found in Lot’s story. Peter used him as an example to demonstrate God’s faithfulness. 2 Peter 2:7-10 makes the point that God is able to separate between the righteous and unrighteous. While the whole earth should tremble before him, “if he rescued righteous Lot… then, the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials.”

Lot wasn’t afraid to go to the “evil cities.” He wasn’t afraid of what other good people would think of him for going there. He stood in the gates and interceded. I hope to be an urban missionary like Lot when I grow up!

Rastis blogs regularly at http://offtheshire.blogspot.com and www.sbcimpact.net

Dave Miller’s Post:  Righteous Lot Lost Everything by Compromise

It’s not easy getting older these days. I grew up in a era when church was predictable and comfortable. You sang hymns from the hymnbook, stood for the offering, listened to the special music, then sat through the message, after which we sang several verses of “Just As I Am” and headed home. Men wore a suit, women wore dresses (and, in my early days, some simply horrific hats).

Now, everything has changed. Young whippersnappers think nothing about showing up at church in blue jeans, t-shirts and sandals – and those are the preachers! The piano and organ have morphed into guitars, drums and keyboards. In many churches you can take your coffee right in the sanctuary with you. Coffee, in “God’s House”? Grandpa Pratt is rolling over in his grave.

But I could adjust to all this if you young bucks didn’t keep on trying to change our comfortable and well-known interpretations of scripture. I have known all my life exactly what “lukewarm” meant in Revelation 3. But while visiting my son at Christmas (well, my grandson – but the son was there, too) he told me that they have come up with a whole new meaning for lukewarm. DON”T MESS WITH LAODICEA, you guys! Is it fair to try to teach new tricks to us old dogs?

When I read Rastis’ post at sbcIMPACT on Lot, I had one of those moments of shock. I have heard sermons on Lot all my life and preached them often. We all knew exactly what the story of Lot was about. He “pitched his tents” toward Sodom, then was found living in Sodom, then was in the city gate – he had become part of the life of Sodom. Lot forgot the lesson that any good Christian needs to hear. We are to be “in the world but not of the world.” Lot lost his family, his wife and his home because he did not stand strong for God and against the evils of the culture in which he lived.

And then Rastis showed up, with his new-fangled interpretations. As I understand his point of view, Lot is a model for cultural engagement.  Of course, 2 Peter 2:7 describes Lot as a righteous man, which seems to nullify some of the traditional teachings on the life of Lot.

I was intrigued by Rastis’ views and suggested this debate so that we could explore them in more detail. But I am not ready to abandon the traditional viewpoint yet either. It is possible (probable?) that some of the traditional interpretations have held things that are not clearly taught in scripture, and perhaps presented a skewed view of the life of Lot. But I also believe there are some real problems in making Lot into a hero of cultural engagement.

I would make the following points about the life of Lot.

1) Lot was a righteous man, but that does not mean that all his actions were right.

2 Peter 2:6-10 says, “… if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.”

If it were not for this verse, I would have few qualms about condemning the worldliness of Lot. But a writer, under the Spirit’s inspiration, identifies him as righteous – a righteous man who was distressed at the sin, the sensuality, the vile wickedness of the culture in which he lived. His soul was tormented by the immorality he saw all around him.

No doubt that this gives some insight into the life of Lot. But the fact that he was a righteous man does not mean that everything he did was righteous. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul talks about believers and how we build on the foundation of Christ. Some use the right materials to build with. Others use flammable materials and their works are burned up in the judgment. They lose all reward even if they themselves are saved “as one escaping the fire.”

Perhaps Lot was just such a man. He was a righteous man who was genuinely concerned with the spiritual and moral climate of his city. But that does not mean that the actions he took in addressing those concerns were the proper ones.

2) Despair at the evil of the culture is not enough – we must engage effectively.

I know a lot of Christians who spend a lot of time complaining about the evil in our culture. Lot is a good example of the fact that complaining, being upset, even tormented by cultural evil is not enough.

We have to take the proper steps; do the right things in response. I am convinced (at this point) that Lot, while his heart might have been in the right place, did not respond properly to the culture. He made bad choices, even if his heart was right, and the consequences were disastrous.

3) There is an uncomfortable drift towards involvement in a wicked culture.

I know that the progression of Lot toward Sodom may preach better than is warranted by the text. However, there is something there that bothers me. Lot chose (Genesis 13:11) to head to the area of Sodom when he and Abraham made the split. Nothing wrong with that. It was a fertile area at that time (pre-sulphur and brimstone). Some time later, in Genesis 14:11, he is found living in Sodom. But then, in Genesis 19:1, we see the coup-de-grace. He is now “sitting in the gate.” That term indicates that he was deeply involved in the life of the city. He was part of the leadership. He was on the inside.

Was he able to get to that place of honor without compromise? It is hard to imagine. The story reveals the forceful and unrepentant perversion of the men of Sodom. They don’t seem like the kind of men who would take well to a “voice of conscience” in their midst.

I believe that Christians should be part of their communities. I pastored a small town church for four years. If I had it to do over again, I would attend sporting events and join the rescue squad; be more a part of the community. I think it is good (in spite of my words of introduction) that the church fit itself into the culture in which in exists. In our casual, contemporary society a church should not insist on ties and coats and organ-accompanied hymns. But we need to be careful about being so immersed in society that we lose our ability to confront it. We can be culturally relevant without being biblically compromised.

4) The consequences of Lot’s life seem to indicate a problem.

In both Leviticus 27 and Deuteronomy 28, Moses defines the evidence of God’s blessings and marks of God’s discipline on the disobedient. It seems clear to me (though obviously these laws were written later) that Lot’s life gives evidence of the life of disobedience and the discipline of God.

When Abraham bargained with God, he stopped at 10 righteous men. He must have assumed that Lot would have guided his wife, two daughters and their husbands onto the right paths. That meant all he had to have done was impacted 4 more people and Sodom was safe. But he did not impact a single person.

In fact, he lost even his own family. Most telling is verse 14. His sons-in-law thought he was jesting when he told them to leave. This hardly seems to be a reaction to someone who had moral authority.

His wife looked back at Sodom. She was so invested in the wicked city that she could not bear to leave.

And we all know the story of Lot’s daughters. They were not exactly women of virture and grace. They would make the women on reality TV in America blush!

Lot lived his life in Sodom and had an impact on absolutely no one! Not one person. Jesus told us that the kingdom is like a mustard seed. Our little faith brings a great harvest. Can this be the fruit of a life who engaged his wicked culture properly? I do not think so.

The Debate Commences

Well, let the debate begin. I am willing to learn and grow. Maybe this young whippersnapper named Rastis can shake my traditional ways and teach this old dog some new tricks.

I will remind all who read this that the whole point of these debates is to deal with difficult issues with open debate in a godly way. State your opinions clearly, but in a way that honors Christ.

*this is a repost from my personal blog

I don’t know if any of you listen to “The White Horse Inn” but it is a great radio program that you should check out. They have a 3 hour program on their website, but I only listen to the 30 minute podcast….

They have started to do a series examining Galatians. To start this new series they went to a conservative, evangelical Bible college and simply asked, “What is the book of Galatians about?”

It was almost jaw dropping to hear some of these responses and how completely wrong they were. One would think they had never read Galatians or that it had been a very, very long time since they had last read it. They gave typical Sunday school answers and answers that people who don’t actually read the Bible believe to be in every book of the Bible.

Here are some responses to the question: What is the central message of Galatians?

How the Christian should live their life.
Community in the church.
I’m not familiar with it.
Strengthening others in Christ.
I haven’t read it all the way through.
I don’t remember.

It was somewhat depressing when I listened to the responses to the question. They asked 12 people and only 2 people gave a half-way right answer. The other 10 simply said, “I don’t know” or gave a typical Sunday school answer, like-”how the christians should live their life.”

One thing is clear, my generation is very theologically and biblically ignorant(especially outside the Bible belt).

I separate theologically ignorant and biblically ignorant in this way(you dont have to separate the two):

Theological ignorance- ignorance in some of the key doctrines of the Christian faith(systematic and biblical theology).
Biblically ignorance- ignorance in specific books of the Bible and specific passages.

What can the church do to help turn this around? What can we, as the church, do to help people have a better knowledge and grasp of the Bible and key theological beliefs?

Here are some of my thoughts (I realize that it is not all on the churches shoulders, people do have to take some personal responsibility… But these are things that I think would help):

1) Preach expositionally- I know there are a lot of different opinions when it comes to preaching and that many people think it is merely a matter of preference. While some of it comes down to preference it also comes down to- 1) What is most biblical? 2) What best equips the saints?- I know godly men that disagree with me on this and there are great preachers who do more topical preaching than expositional. With that being said I think expositional preaching gives people a better understanding of Scripture than any other form of preaching.

Here are some main reasons why I think Expository preaching gives people a fuller, better understanding of Scripture:

a) Expository preaching doesn’t allow a preacher to skip over tough passages.
b) Expository preaching dives deeper into specific passages(most of the time- there are, of course, exceptions).
c) Expository preaching helps members study the Bibles for themselves.
d) Expository preaching always preaches passages in context of the passages around it and shows the importance of context.
e) Expository preaching makes it easier for people to refer back to things they’ve learned.
f) Expository preaching avoids “proof-texting”- As many have said before me, “we should preach expositionally because of what Scripture is.” Scripture is the word of God and expositional preaching best lets Scripture speak for itself.

2) Don’t be soft on Sundays- Many churches have fallen into this thought process that we have to preach as if everyone is as theologically slow as a turtle. But they aren’t. If we never move beyond a 5th grade level of biblical depth our congregations won’t either. Remember, church is primarily for believers. Colossians 1:9-10 encourages us to grow in the “knowledge of God and to bear fruit in every good work.” Sadly, most sermons do not help people grow in the knowledge of God, but rather merely encourages people to “live good christian lives.” Our transformation is based on what we know about our great God. We can’t grow more intimate with God without growing in our knowledge of him. I can’t grow in love for my wife if I don’t continue to learn about her.

3) Be fearless, but not foolish- Many pastors and churches fear that deep theological study and discussion will cause division. It can, but if it is done correctly it should build unity and love for the savior. If every Thursday night you hold a debate on Calvinism you are being foolish. At the same time it is important for each church to have some place that members who are interested can have a time in which to ask deep theological questions. There ought to be some place that people can study, learn, and discuss tough theological issues.

Too many times pastors and church avoid theology for “the sake of unity.” This is utter garbage that the Apostle Paul knew nothing of. If you disagree with me go read the Pastoral Letters…(1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). Paul often used language that shows us we need to “promote sound doctrine, guard sound doctrine, give instruction according to sound doctrine, teach sound doctrine, etc…”

Those are the first 3 things that come to my mind:

What are some things that you think the church could do to give its people a better grasp and understanding of Scripture?

What can the church do to turn the tide of theological and biblical ignorance?

This post is by Kevin Howard:

Southern Baptists owe much to Lottie Moon.  As a missionary, I probably owe her more.  She did much for what is now the IMB. Her work was risky, exhausting, and commendable, to say the least.  (Listen to Danny Akin’s sermon, The Power of a Consecrated Life Lived Out in the Ministry of Lottie Moon.)

While I’m no expert on her life, I’ve read a bit about her from various sources.  I’m currently reading Catherine B. Allen’s, The New Lottie Moon Story, 1980.  Allen is undoubtedly an admirer of the great Moon and seems to give a fair portrayal of her subject’s life.  (Allen, however, seems to regret the fact of Moon’s discomfort with the issue of women preaching to men.)

• We commend Lottie Moon’s positive work among women and children.
  • She would sometimes teach for hours a day, speaking six to eleven times.  No easy task in English let alone in a second language.
• We commend Lottie Moon’s courage and endurance.
  • She wrote of her experience, “…sleeping on brick beds in rooms with dirt floors and walls blackened by the smoke of many generations, the yard also being the stable yard and the stable itself being within three feet of your door…” (p. 131).  She also endured being called “devil” on a regular basis in her earlier years on the field.
• We commend Lottie Moon’s zeal and influence with raising money to support missionaries and for the inauguration of what is now called stateside assignments in the IMB.
  • With only one small break to accompany her sick sister back to the States, she went from 1873 to 1891 before she got her first furlough.

One thing I’ve learned since picking up Allen’s book is how formally educated Moon was.  Along with her well-rounded education, she knew several languages before going overseas, including biblical Greek and Hebrew.

While Miss Moon was an admirable woman she had clay feet. We commend her for her virtues, but where she taught men (pp. 109, 140, 172-173, 176, 180, 183-184), we do not commend her.

Up to the point I’ve reached in Allen’s book, page 184, Moon wasn’t comfortable in the role of teaching men and she avoided it as much as possible (pp. 179-180).  She not only understood where most of her fellow SBCers came down on the issue, she understood what Scripture said, or at least how the early church interpreted Scripture on this matter.  Here’s how she responded to men wanting her to teach them, even after she’d taught or preached to some men already: “It was not the custom of the ancient church that women preach to men” (p. 179).

A truth often lost on modern egalitarians in the SBC is that Scripture is our standard not any one female’s example (See some comments here exalting Moon for teaching men).  That there have been women who could preach better than men is a given.  That many female missionaries have taught and preached to men and that many men have come to Christ under the preaching of women is understood.  But the issue is, what does the Bible teach?  Through what means is God most glorified?

If you’re a man and disturbed by the thought of pagan men not hearing the gospel because there aren’t enough Christian men around them to preach Christ, why don’t you join the missionary force?  Why do you want women to do your job?

I’m sure Lottie Moon’s rewards are great and mine will pale in comparison.  Who am I to critique her life?  She endured far more than I’ll probably ever face.  But the clarity of Scripture takes precedence over unnecessary admiration.  We have a sure footing on this issue: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Tim 2:11-12).  That’s where we stand and where we find our standard.

I won’t do this every time a SBC blogger has a book giveaway, but Trevin Wax is a friend and I have personally read his new book Holy Subversion and I HIGHLY recommend it.

Therefore, go to- Ex Libris, and try to win it!  When you don’t win it go to amazon or wherever you choose and BUY IT!

*this is a post I wrote on my own blog a few days ago- thought itd make some good conversation!

The book of Revelation has 2 different genres in it: 1) Apocalyptic literature and 2) Historical Narrative. We always interpret narrative literally- Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels, etc… Apocalyptic literature is another story. Throughout the whole Bible the biblical authors often times interpret apocalyptic literature symbolically.

All throughout the Bible apocalyptic literature events are described symbolically. In the book of Revelation there is a tension- we have to try and differentiate the apocalyptic literature with the historical narrative literature. It is absurd to interpret all of Revelation as if it were all narrative(as in interpret it all LITERALLY); it is equally absurd when people try to interpret Revelation as if it were all apocalyptic literature(as in interpret it all SYMBOLICALLY)… We have to deal with the tension and appropriately interpret Revelation by taking both genres into account.

We cant go to either extreme and neglect either of the genres in the book of Revelation. Both of those two genres are in the book of Revelation and we must interpret accordingly, by taking both into account. Anyone who interprets every passage in Revelation literally and anyone who interprets every passage symbolically have clearly missed the mark because they have completely neglected the fact that both genres are represented in Revelation.

To illustrate this tension I am going to show some differences in popular Revelation scholars…

1) Dr. Grant Osborne of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School holds a pretty unique view. He holds to a “preteristic” view and interpretation of Revelation until he hits the 2nd Coming and the Millennium- he then holds to a premillennial interpretation. In his case he interprets most of Revelation symbolically(apocalyptic literature), but he then interprets Revelation 19-20 literally(historical narrative).

2) Dr. Schreiner- New Testament scholar at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary holds a pretty unique balance when interpreting Revelation(he also admits he bounces back and forth between Amillennialism and Historic Premillennialism quite often). Schreiner interprets the beginning and end of Revelation as historical narrative, but then believes that most of the bulk of Revelation is apocalyptic literature and should be interpreted symbolically. All in all, I think Schreiner has a good balance of taking both genres into account. He interprets most of Revelation like an Amillennial, but is still a Premillennial because he interprets Revelation 19-20 as historical narrative.

3) Dr. Kim Riddlebarger- Author of “A Case for Amillennialism.” Riddlebarger is what I consider a balanced Amillennial. Some in the Amillennial camp interpret everything as symbolically as possible, as well as preterists and partial preterists. Riddlebarger refrains from doing this and continually teaches that we should only interpret passages symbolically when the New Testament writers warrant it. Romans 4:13 is one example he uses: Paul mentions that the promise given to Abraham embraces not only the land of Canaan, but the whole world- in the New Heavens and New Earth. While most historic premills also accept this point about Romans 4:13, Riddlebarger makes the same case in multiple other passages. When it comes to Revelation, Riddlebarger trues to appropriately deal with the tension of the two genres in Revelation.

I have now given three examples of men who I think at least attempt to appropriately deal with the tension of the two genres in Revelation. There are some dispensationals and preterists who don’t even acknowledge the two different genres and they either interpret Revelation as if it is all historical narrative or all apocalyptic literature. This is bad exegesis and biblical scholarship. We must deal with this tension. Obviously, not all three of the people I mentioned above can be correct, but they are all doing the necessary, hard work of dealing with the two genres in Revelation.

Again, no matter what side we land on, when we study and try to interpret Revelation we must attempt to distinguish between the two genres in Revelation. They are both represented and in order to appropriately do an exegesis of Revelation we must take both into account.

You can read the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force’s Progress Report- here.

You can watch it- here.

There will be posts written soon about certain aspects of the progress report in order to discuss some of the Task Force’s “findings” and suggestions.

For now, if there is anything specific you want to discuss now, the comment thread is open!

Well, some real Baptist(possibly) news came about today.  Ken Starr was unanimously voted in as the President of Baylor University.

Bart Barber says it is a farce that Baylor, a Baptist University, didn’t even hire a Baptist.  He does not say that he thinks Starr will be bad for Baylor, his beef is that Baylor went out and hired someone that is not a Baptist and then requires them to attend a Baptist church when he arrives in Waco.  Barber’s thoughts are that if Baylor wants to hire a non-Baptist to be their president then don’t require him to go to a Baptist church when he gets there!

Wade Burleson has trouble comprehending what Barber is saying and then makes a statement that Southern Baptists are more concerned with being Southern Baptist than christian.  This is nonsense because to be Southern Baptist does in fact require you to be a Christian first. It’s as if Burleson doesn’t understand why Southern Baptist think other Southern Baptists should hold to Southern Baptist values… Let’s not tell paedobaptists they can’t join the SBC either.

All in all, I sympathize with Barber… I wouldn’t want my Baptist alma mater to go hire a president that wasn’t even a Baptist and then proceed to make him become a Baptist..  Its not that Southern Baptists think Baptist distinctives are salvation issues, but we are Southern Baptists for a reason.