Wade, wrong on Campbellism, too?

Wade Burleson's Error on Campbellite
View as to the Administrator of Baptism

Wade’s book, according to "Reliable Sources" of the "Sources" Family, also misrepresents the view of "Churches of Christ" on the administrator of baptism.

Evidently -- and I stand to be corrected -- Wade's book alleges that Campbellites (aka Church of Christ) emphasize "qualifications" for the administrator of baptism.

If this is the case, then it's apparently "Wrong Way Wade" again. The Campbellites whom I have known and even publicly debated several of their Ministers for nearly 50 years do not condition the validity of baptism on the administrator in any sense.

There are, to my knowledge, a couple of Churches of Christ in Enid, and to my knowledge neither one of them holds to the idea about the administrator which Wade alleges. If I'm wrong, I'm sure Wade can and will correct me.

I have had numerous debates with leading CC debaters, and I know their views "like I know the back of my hand." Wade and his publisher, Smyth & Helwys, will probably receive derogatory comments from Church of Christ preachers about this misrepresentation of their views.

The fact is, CC will accept any immersion if it was administered in accord with their teaching -- "in order to obtain the remission of sins." I would not be surprised if Wade gets a challenge from the Campbellites in Oklahoma for a debate on this misrepresentation.

Evidently, Wade makes reference to the Campbellites as if to discredit Southern Baptists. Instead, the misrepresentation of the Campbellite view only serves to further discredit Wade.

In the future, Wade, lighten up and don't try to discredit more people than those on whom you supposedly "have the goods."

The "apologizing" Hardballers

"Egg on the Face" of
Smyth & Helwys Publishing

I received the following from a Baptist Historian to whom I send my emails:

Hi Bob, you may be interested in knowing that Smyth & Helwys Publishing was founded by the "Moderates" (i.e. Liberals) of the SBC to counter the influence of Broadman & Holman after it passed into the hands of the SBC conservatives. The publishing company was named after John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, who quite a number of our Baptist historians mistakenly credit with forming the first (General) "Baptist" church in England in 1609. The problem is that neither Smyth nor Helwys practiced immersion and neither did their "Baptist" church until the 1640's - years after the deaths of both men.

Bob's comment:

If I'm the financier(s) ("Money Bags") behind Smyth & Helwys Publishing, I'm going to immediately skuttle the Wade Burleson book before its generates further embarrassment, and I'm going to fire those who are in charge of production and editorial; as the ultimate responsible party, I'm not at all pleased with the "egg on my face" as a result of the fiasco created by Wade Burleson's book, for it certainly detracts from my being competitive in influence with Broadman-Holman of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Aside from the fact that Wade Burleson's use of Bob Ross' book has been denounced in no uncertain terms as non-supportive of Wade's ideas about "Landmarkism" in relation to the SBC's International Mission Board's policy on baptism, Wade has smeared "egg on the face" of S&H by alleging on his blog that S&H has "apologized" to Wade for sending free digital copies to a few people.

Wade says on his blog, I confess to be a little perplexed as to why Smyth & Helwys sent to Peter a digital copy of my book without him having to pay for it.
. . . They apologized to me after the fact.
Sat Mar 14, 05:05:00 PM 2009

It is hard to conceive that an intelligent representative of a publishing company would be put into such a predicament as to apologize to a writer, especially a writer who actually should be apologizing to the publisher for the big mess he has made in a book for which the publisher is paying the expenses of publishing and marketing. But that was the predicament of P. K. Gammons, VP of S&H.

"Apologize" to Wade? . . . for sending a few free copies to prospective reviewers of the book?

Well, "Land O' Goshen!"

And on top of that, Wade later tells Bob Ross that S&H did not send a free copy of the book to Bob Ross since Wade wanted Bob to "pay for the privilege" of reviewing the book! "Will Wonders Never Cease!"

This story looks more and more like a 3-Stooges senario, with Wade Burleson, P. K. Gammons, and Smyth & Helwys Publishing Company being "Moe, Larry, and Curly."

Before this is over, we suspect Smyth & Helwys Publishing will need a crowbar to deal with the egg on its face!
_______________

POSTSCRIPT:

My Baptist Historian brother adds:

Bill Leonard (of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) edited a book called, Dictionary of Baptists in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994). On pages 251-252, in the article Smyth and Helwys Publishing Company,it reads:

"A publishing house organized by Southern Baptist moderates. The press, named for English Baptist founders John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, was founded in 1991 by Cecil Staton and Scott Nash, professors at Brewton-Parker College in Georgia; James Pitts, chaplain at Furman University; and Ronald D. Jackson. Its founding purpose was 'to offer supplemental and alternative materials for Baptists who have become increasingly concerned about the future direction of the [Southern Baptist] Convention Press and Broadman [Press].' The concern was to publish materials for churches disturbed by the fundamentalist control of the Southern Baptist Convention and provide a vehicle for Baptist authors whose works would probably not be published by SBC related presses. In 1991 Smyth and Helwys Publishing began production of formations, a graded Sunday school curriculum written primarily, but not exclusively, for use in Baptist churches. Also in 1991 the company headquarters moved to Macon, Georgia, with Staton as publisher. Bibliography: C. Staton, The History of Smyth and Helwys Publishing, in Walter B. Shurden, ed., of the The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC (1993)."

Concerning John Smyth ( d. 1612) and Thomas Helwys ( d.ca. 1615), H. Leon McBeth in his book, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), page 37, writes, "The method of Smyth's baptism was almost certainly by affusion or pouring; immersion did not become customary among General Baptists for another generation."

McBeth also tells us that Helwys later returned to Holland, "and joined the Mennonites." (page 39). These two non-immersing Separatists (one of whom turned Mennonite) were who the moderates chose to name their publishing company after! Broadman Press, on the other hand, as I'm sure you know, was named after John A. Broadus and Basil Manly, Jr. - two real (immersing) Baptists.
[End of quote].

It seems that Smyth & Helwys Publishing has been somewhat "off track" from the outset, with even its name being identified paradoxically with non-immersing "Baptists." So it should not surprise us that S&H has become associated with the phantasmagorical Wade Burleson.

Hardball Publishers?

It's Official: Wade's Publisher Won't Send
a Copy of the Book for Review Purposes

That's right . . . I received an email today from P. K. Gammons, VP of Smyth & Helwys Publishers informing me that I will not be sent a digital copy of Wade Burleson's forthcoming book, Hardball Religion, for review.

Gammons had offered me a digital copy of the book several days ago, and at the time I turned him down. Later, I realized that in writing a review for this blog, it would be more convenient to have a digital copy to facilitate copying any material to be quoted; therefore, I notified Gammons that I would like to have the digital copy.

Now, however, it seems to be too late. I have "missed the boat." I have "crossed the deadline" . . . "the day of grace is over."

Gammons indicates that his offer was good only so long as the book was still at the press. Evidently, that time has passed and so Gammons says S&H will not send me a digital copy for writing a review. How convenient.

This is what some might call a "Hardball Publisher."

I really wonder -- does S&H really want me to review the book? I seriously doubt it. They are aware of what has already been published on this blog, and they probably realize by now that they most likely have a first-class "dud" of a book in their lap.

It won't take too long for the news to get around that Wade's one-and-only source on Landmarkism has repudiated the book's misappropriation of my writings. They evidently realize that any further comments by me in a review could only tend to dissipate sales potential.

S&H may be hoping that there are enough "suckers" out there who have not read my comments about the book, and sales to the naive and unsuspecting will still be possible -- at least enough sales to recover the money S&H invested in the project.

NOTE: Feel free to utilize this article and any other which may serve your purpose -- on blogs, web sites, print-outs for distribution, etc. I have no restriction on the use of my writings other than that they be used ethically in an appropriate manner. Some who have used my writings have not always used them appropriately, such as some Campbellites, Hardshells, Hybrid Calvinists, Preterists, "King James Onlyites," and in the most recent case, Wade Burleson. -- Bob L. Ross

What is "Landmarkism"?

What is "Landmarkism?"

One might naively expect Wade Burleson to at least define from reputable Landmark sources --
(1) what he understands to constitute "Landmarkism," and to
(2) demonstrate from the International Mission Board's policy on baptism exactly how it is that the IMB policy is "Landmarkist."

However, no one evidently need expect to find this in Wade's book, according to one who has read it. It appears that if you do not know what really constitutes Landmarkism, you may be no nearer to understanding it after reading what Wade says.

Peter Lumpkins has observed:

The only source cited for Landmark views in Wade's new book Hardball Religion is guess who? A man named Bob Ross. Do you know him? Not one mention, not one essay, not one writer except Bob Ross. Bob Ross is there but no other authority on Landmark is mentioned.

Inasmuch as I deny that my book agrees with what I understand to be Wade Burleson's concept of "Landmarkism," and inasmuch as I deny that my book alleges that the policy of the IMB is "Landmarkist," it seems that Wade Burleson is "up the creek without a paddle," doesn't it?

My book, Old Landmarkism and the Baptists, makes the effort to objectively define from reputable Landmark sources what really constitutes Landmarkism, and it was written years before the IMB set forth its policy on baptism. There is no way whatsoever that Wade Burleson can utilize my book to ostensibly support his arbitrary allegation that the IMB policy is "Landmarkist."

I will be happy to defend the book any time, any place, in Public Debate with Wade Burleson or any one of his choosing, and I will deny any proposition which affirms that the policy of the IMB on baptism is "Landmarkist," based on either my book or any Landmark source of Landmark doctrine on baptism.

Of course, after having had some "exchanges" with Wade on this blog, I really don't expect him or any of his supporters to engage in a public discussion (debate format) on the matter. Despite the fact that Wade has been known to frequently upbraid others for not engaging on controversial issues, I simply cannot conceive of Wade's being willing to expose his arguments to rebuttal by one whom he has quoted in his book as being a good source on the subject of Landmarkism.

"The emperor has no clothes."

Was it a pre-pub sales promotion?

Was It Just an Advertising Device
By Wade and Smyth & Helwys?

There are certainly different and crafty ways to advertise books for sale, especially those that are not yet released and thus not available to be examined by a potential customer before deciding to make a purchase. This is known in the book publishing industry as "pre-publication advertising."

One pre-publication device is to generate controversy about a book beforehand, hoping to seduce potential purchasers to order the book in advance. It seems now that this was perhaps the device used by Wade Burleson and his publisher, Smith & Helwys, for promoting advance sales for his "Hardball Religion" book. Even this article on this blog which mentions the book was written due to this device, as I would not be writing it but for the past few days of attention to Wade and his book.

I am suggesting this as being what Wade and S&H had in mind all along in view of the fact it has lately been brought to light that S&H has already been engaged in sending digital copies to certain parties. This has the marks of a pre-publication promotional sales effort. In fact, S&H even offered to send me, Bob Ross, a digital copy and invited me to review it on my blog.

Vice-President P. K. Gammons of Smyth & Helwys wrote, "I would be delighted to send you a digital copy for your review. We welcome you to review the book on your blog and let us know what you think." (Email of March 11, 2009).

It has recently been revealed that S&H has already sent digital copies to some others, inviting their reviews. Wade himself is apparently now feigning ignorance about the matter, particularly complaining somewhat that these digital copies were sent "free"! He does not seem to be a bit unhappy that the copies were sent, however; his only gripe seems to be that there won't be any money made off of these copies.

It all seems to indicate that this was probably a pre-publication device for the purpose of getting some attention for the book to the point of generating pre-publication orders.

So why has S&H not sent me a copy? I turned down their initial offer, but later I twice sent an email to P. K. Gammons accepting the invitation for S&H to send me a copy. They have not responded; they have not sent the digital copy which they offered me in their first contact. Why not? They have sent copies to others . . . why not Ross?

I may be overestimating the significance of my recent posts, but nevertheless the thought has somehow crossed my mind that S&H now may realize that they have a potential "dud" on their hands. In fact, a "little bird" has whispered in my ear that S&H is taking the position that "the less Bob Ross has access to the book, the better for pre-publicaton sales"!

In other words, S&H fears that a negative review by Bob Ross would possibly inflict damage upon the advance sales of Wade's book. Such a review would possibly influence some potential customers to take a "wait and see" approach, meaning they would wait to examine the book after it is released rather than making an advance purchase.

If that is not the reason why S&H has thus far evidently reneged on their offer to me, what is the reason for their not fulfilling their own offer to me and not responding to my acceptance of their offer?

John Calvin vs Hybrid Calvinism

Stephen Garrett on
Calvin's view

Our brother at the Baptist Gadfly, Stephen Garrett, continues to call attention to sources which are contrary to the modern Pedobaptist Reformed Hybrid Calvinism view that one is "born again before faith."

In his latest, Stephen presents material on John Calvin's view. Stephen writes:

I have cited numerous quotations from John Calvin to show that he did not believe that regeneration preceded faith. Those who insist that this is the view of the first Calvinist reformers are in error and are generally unwilling to acknowledge their error even when shown the proof of it.

Clearly, as one can see from this citation, John Calvin did not put regeneration before faith. Calvin put faith before repentance and regeneration and he did not become Arminian in doing so. He did not relinguish a view in "total depravity" or a belief that faith was the gift of God.

For the rest of Stephen's article, go to BaptistGadfly.

Burleson's Hybrid Calvinism

Southern Baptists Didn't Need
A Hybrid Calvinist on the IMB

There is one thing about Wade Burleson which, in my opinion, disqualified him from ever even being appointed to serve on the IMB -- a doctrinal error which is much more significant than his antics about the alleged "Landmarkism" of the IMB baptism policy.

Burleson is an adherent of the Pedobaptist Reformed Hybrid Calvinist theology which teaches that one is "born again before faith." Basically, this is essentially the doctrine on "regeneration" of the Primitive Baptist or Hardshell Church which split from regular Baptists in the 1830s and has been an opponent of missions ever since.

My colleague on the Reformed Flyswatter, Ian Elsasser, called attention to this error on The Calvinist Flyswatter blog just a few weeks ago. Notice --

Ian's comment:

Mr. Burleson seems to affirm the "born again before faith" view common to many modern Calvinists. See "Please Don't Call Me a Calvinist, But..." -- [Quote from Burleson's blog below]

"Regeneration, the new birth and quickening are all synonyms for this heart surgery God performs. Before a man will ever repent of his sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he must be born again. This miraculous act of God, called 'the new birth,' is a work that He chooses to perform, and it is without conditions".

Bob's comment:

This is the heresy spawned by Pedobaptists of the past and taught by many of the modern Pedobaptist (baby baptizers) who are for the most part "arm-chair theologians," conference or seminar speakers, and it is taught by some of their followers among the Baptists who describe themselves as "Reformed" -- such as Tom Ascol of the "Founders Ministries," Tom Nettles and Thomas Schreiner at Southern Seminary, James White, a "Reformed Baptist" in Arizona, and numerous bloggers on so-called "monergism" and "Reformed" web sites.

We have exposed this heresy in particular on The Calvinist Flywatter for the past three years (2006-2009), not to mention my long record of opposition to it dating from the 1950s when I first encountered it.

Unfortunately, Wade Burleson is infected with this heresy.

I don't believe Southern Baptists are benefited by having a Hybrid Calvinist on the mission board. Hybridism breeds more Hybrids, and Hybrids do not help the cause of evangelism and missions. The "Founders" have not planted a church in their entire history from 1982. They recently claimed they are planting a church in Florida . . . we will wait and see what becomes of the tender "plant."

In my opinion, Wade should never have been appointed, but after he was appointed, in my opinion he should have been given his walking papers on account of his advocacy of the "born again before faith" heresy.