Monday, May 11, 2009

Wade's World

Did Wade Have "One Too Many"
When He wrote "Hardball Religion?"

Pastor Wade Burleson has a blog item which is critical of Peter Lumpkins' book on the matter of "total abstinence." Peter is for it, and Wade does not approve of Peter's view.

I'm not focusing on this difference between Wade and Peter, but what I found in Wade's article which aroused my curiosity was his statement, "I would much rather be personally led by the Spirit than by a man who claims his view is law for me."

I assume this means that Wade is "led by the Spirit," but Peter is a legalist -- at least, on this particular issue.

After reading Wade's "Hardball" book, I wonder if Wade may have had "one too many" when he put that book together. Surely, Wade does not appear to have been "led by the Spirit" when he tried to manipulate my book on Landmarkism so as to imply that the book supported his twisted presentation. If not dizzy on liquor, Wade was certainly inebriated on something when he tried to pull-off that sleight-of-hand act.

Was Wade "led by the Spirit" when he used a familiar Campbellite device, subterfuge, in his misuse of my book on Landmarkism?

Was Wade "led by the Spirit" when he falsely accused the Campbellite "Church of Christ" in regard to the administrator of baptism? See here.

Was Wade "led by the Spirit" when he said I was "not a Southern Baptist" and then later said that I was a Southern Baptist? Which time was he led by the Spirit?

Was he "led by the Spirit" when he adopted the "born again before faith" Hybrid Calvinist heresy of the Reformed Pedobaptists (baby baptizers)?

Was he "led by the Spirit" when he adopted a One Man Landmaker position by aligning himself with a certain view on the administrator of baptism?

Was he "led by the Spirit" when he wrote a book concerning which the Publisher, Smyth & Helwys, deemed it necessary to attach a "Disclaimer" to what Wade wrote?

Was he "led by the Spirit" when he endorsed the IMB policy on "public" tongues, but rejected the IMB policy on "private" tongues? How can Wade consistently endorse the policy of forbidding "publicly speaking in tongues" but defend "tongues in private"? If Paul's "command" -- forbid not to speak with tongues in 1 Cor. 14:39 - relates to "private" tongues, why not to "public" tongues, also? See here.

Was Wade "led by the Spirit" when he presented an erroneous version of Baptist history? See here.

Perhaps Wade did have one -- or maybe, two -- too many when he was compiling his book, for surely he can't blame the Spirit for these blunders.

No comments:

Post a Comment