I found out from others that I'm indirectly mentioned here ("The Center for Baptist Renewal, "CBR Crowd," etc.) and asked a question:

"why isn’t Yarnell and the Center for Baptist Renewal crowd focusing their attention on the main issues at play in the SBC?" So, I'll answer -

https://twitter.com/BaptistLeaders/status/1799493956557742451

(Speaking for myself and no one else)

I don't weigh in on most of what happens at the national level at the SBC, but when the issue at hand is in my "niche" wheelhouse (i.e. retrieving Nicene Trinitarianism for Baptists today), I do feel freedom and compulsion to speak on it.

I've offered my enthusiastic support of the Nicene Creed motion, so I thought I might respond to some common objections I've seen. 1. It's not *all* biblical, or at least not all Baptist.

This is an understandable but unfortunately mistaken notion. Me, Stamps, Yarnell, & McKinion are recording a video on it later today. The short version: each of the creedal clause is biblical & in line w/Bap. distinctives.

Got the latest issue of JETS in the mail. I thought things might change w/ a change in editor but it appears we are still on the same trajectory. Maybe that's strategic on the part of the new editor; maybe not. I don't know. (What I mean is, there may be a backlog of accepted-but-not-yet-published articles, or there may be a directive from the Board to continue in the same vein, OTOH. Or, OTOH, the new editor may share the previous editor's strategic vision for issue contents. Again, I've no idea).

I read this piece by @CraigACarter1 at @AmReformer with interest. As with Craig’s other work, there is much I appreciate & agree with here. But I also found some of it, & at crucial points, to be a bit muddled.

americanreformer.org/2022/11/the-en… It is true that Western democracies, and in particular those in the US & Canada, are facing distinct crises of morality & its relation to governance. It is true that liberal democracy needs a moral foundation in natural law (& ultimately in the Xian worldview) in order to thrive.

1. 17th c. Baptists believed the state’s laws & practices ought to reflect God’s law. The idea that an appeal to historical Baptist political theology is an appeal to Lockean individualism or an attempt to baptize the last half century of US legal ruling re: 1A is a straw man. 2. While Baptist thought recognizes the state’s responsibility to reflect God’s law, it also recognizes that the shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant brings w/ it a shift from God’s people being metonymically identifiable w/ a geo-political state to the global church.

Churches can prioritize God's Word in corporate worship *and* include historic elements of corporate worship (e.g. confession/assurance, weekly communion, credal recitation, pastoral prayer/Lord's prayer, Scripture readings, etc.) at the same time. It's not one or the other. In fact, as @lukestamps has repeatedly noted in a variety of places, historic elements of corporate worship are just more Bible - Scripture readings (obvi) from every part of the Bible, the Lord's Supper that reads the words of institution from 1 Cor. 11 beforehand,

The primary role of seminaries is to equip those called to vocational ministry. The primary role of Christian undergraduate institutions is to equip those called to a variety of vocations (inc. ministry) w/ a foundational Christian worldview in the context of the liberal arts. These are not the same. We should not pretend that seminaries and Christian undergraduate institutions have exactly the same mission or purpose or student populations, even while in particular denominational contexts they should share the same doctrinal commitments.

I chose my words very carefully here. The tradition recognizes that the eternal generation of the Son can be spoken of using language like “authority” (wrt the Father) and “submission,” (wrt the Son) but it is *only* with reference to the ERO, …

https://twitter.com/M_Y_Emerson/status/1517613770431938565

…not some volitional distinction or difference in attributes btw the persons. There is only one divine will bc there is only one divine essence, the singular divine essence which each divine person equally & fully possesses.

The 2LBCF (1689) does not allow for ERAS, Kenotic Christology, &/or other 19th & 20th c. aberrations. FYI.

Same is true mutatis mutandis for WCF, An Orthodox Creed, & many other 16th/17th foundational confessions of faith.

Not to mention the Nicene & Athanasian Creeds. The Son doesn’t volitionally submit to the Father in eternity past. He doesn’t set aside or give up or turn off his divine attributes or privileges at the incarnation. He doesn’t possess or receive less glory than the Father. This is Trinity / Christology 101 until ~1800.

The whole point of Nicene Trinitarianism - that is, affirming “homoousios” via & only via the eternal relations of origin & not some other mode of distinction - is that you can’t distinguish the three persons of the one God by any other measure or mechanism & still have one God. To say that you can “affirm Nicaea” & only mean by that a barebones confession of one God in three persons, or even that you affirm “homoousios” but w/out reference to the eternal relations of origin &/or w/reference to some other means of distinguishing the persons, …

I say this every year around this time: I joined the SBC in college bc of our commitment to basic Christian orthodoxy, to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ’s atoning work for salvation, to biblical inerrancy, to the Baptist distinctives of credo baptism & local church autonomy, & to missions & evangelism.

@ostrachan Since I’ve published & tweeted appreciation of Thomas, and since I’m a young Baptist theologian (the object of another of your tweets on this), I’ll respond. You probably don’t have me in mind but I fit that criteria so here it is nevertheless. @ostrachan I want to embrace the catholic doctrine of the Christian faith throughout space and time, ie Nicene Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology. These creedal & conciliar consensuses are accurate articulations of biblical teaching, …

Here’s what Jesus bearing God’s wrath on the cross can’t mean:

1. Jesus was somewhere - spiritually speaking - that God isn’t (God is omnipresent, this impossible). 2. God the Son incarnate was truly separated, in a relational &/or ontological sense, from God the Father (God is one God in three persons, this is impossible).

Community/home/C/D/growth groups are not a means of grace. The Word of God proclaimed verbally and visibly - the ministry of Word and sacrament - is. Proceed accordingly. I think regular relational opportunities for encouragement & accountability are important. They are not more important than regular discipleship opportunities geared toward deeper understanding of God’s Word.

In ch. 1 of my book on Christ’s descent to the dead, I address some common misconceptions about the relationship between sola scriptura & creedal authority. I started w/ that ch. bc evangelicals often misunderstand &, in some cases, even misrepresent that relationship. 1. Sola scriptura affirms that Scripture alone is the final, supreme authority for Christian faith & practice. Scripture alone is inspired by God and is thus the only inerrant, supremely authoritative, sufficient source of knowledge about God & his works of creation & redemption.

One often overlooked (imo) aspect of the pro-Nicenes is their deeply pastoral concern for their own local congregations & parishes. The most imp. theological treatises ever composed were written w/ local congregants & parishoners in mind, & in response to particular ?s from them. It’s way too easy to forget this in the midst of a tech-fueled globalism. We all feel like we have to speak to and for and against the masses. We don’t. Love the Triune God with all your heart and love your neighbor - where God has placed you - as yourself.

The Holy Trinity revealed to us in the person and work of Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnate, is the object & ground of the entire Christian faith. And this one true God is the foundation and source of reality itself.

We *cannot* get our Trinitarian doctrine wrong. Conservative evangelicals, & my fellow SBCers in particular, need to take this much more seriously than we do. The doctrine of the Trinity is not some esoteric, overly philosophical doctrine that has to be checked off before getting to “real life”; the Trinity is life itself!

At one point in the episode, @ostrachan says that, tho F&S share “ontological equality…the Father has greater authority.…He [Jesus] will not sit down on the same throne. He’s not going to sit down right beside the Father at the same level. He sits at the Father’s right hand.”

https://twitter.com/m_y_emerson/status/1459559566719520768

In context, Owen makes it clear that he’s not saying this only according to the Son’s humanity but is making the point in relation to the Father’s divine authority over the Son; as the Father sends the Son, so the Father’s throne is different than the Son’s.

I listened to some clips of your podcast yesterday, @ostrachan. I’ve tried to engage you, respectfully & earnestly, both publicly & privately, any number of times during & since 2016. Yet it was again apparent from those clips that you have yet to engage the actual arguments at hand against ERAS & instead wrongly imply that its critics - of whom I am one - are beholden to extra biblical philosophy and departing from Scripture.

Polemics are good and necessary, because Scripture repeatedly calls us to combat false teaching.

But polemics are not the sum total of what it means to theologize. In fact, there are serious dangers to seeing theology entirely as polemics. To name a few:

1. Constant polemicizing fosters an “us vs. them” mentality that sometimes (often?) places fellow Christians in the “them” category.

Augustine’s sermon on Mark 8:5ff. - the multiplication of loaves and fishes - is a masterclass in theologically rich and canonically framed preaching. Some observations:

1. He begins by noting that in preaching the Holy Scriptures he is breaking bread for his hearers; 2. The seven loaves are “the sevenfold operation of the Holy Spirit” (proven from Ps. 119:164; 34:1; Rev. 1:4)

3. The feast eaten by the crowd is / points to the Wedding Feast of the Bridegroom and his Bride (Matt. 22:11; cf. e.g. Rev. 19);