New CBF statement

Because the state conventions are not Southern Baptist entities. There are CBF-only churches in state conventions - which exist for baptists (not just Southern Baptists) to cooperate on the state level.

Joshua

 

Well that is simply not the case with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC). Article II of the BSCNC Constitution lists the purposes of the NC state convention. The final purpose listed specifically says, "... and to cooperate with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention." Therefore, according to the BSCNC Constitution the CBF, as an independant and separate organization, has no business attending BSCNC functions because it (the CBF) does not seek to cooperate with the SBC. Likewise, because the stated purpose of the BSCNC is "to cooperate with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention" the CBF, as an independant and separate organization that seeks no cooperation with the SBC, is not eligible to receive any funding that is channeled through the BSCNC budget.

[ January 25, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Actually, mission funds are not funneled through Nashville. Nashville is the home of the Lifeway offices. This is where SBC Sunday School material etc. is published. The SBC International Mission Board is located in Richmond, VA and the North American Mission Board is located in Atlanta, GA.

Additionally, you left off some very important words that follow the word "cooperate" that are found in the BSCNC Constitution. Those would be cooperate "with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention." Therefore, it is the expressed purpose of the BSCNC to cooperate with the SBC, which means supporting the mission efforts of the SBC. Likewise, because the CBF claims to be independant and separate from the SBC and it does not seek to cooperate with the SBC it is a violation of the BSCNC Constitution for the BSCNC to funnel funds through its budget to the CBF. Is it logical to cooperate with one group and at the same time work with an opposing group that does not cooperate with your original partner? Remember, "A house divided against a house falls" (Luke, 11:17, NKJV).

[ November 27, 2002, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

And so glad to be gone. It is a very good thing for true baptist to have a place to go, now that the SBC is no longer true to baptist principles.

 

I am currently a student at Southeastern and I pray that no one comes and takes the school back to where it was before! Good job Bibleboy!

Neal

[ December 27, 2002, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Bibleboy II makes it clear for us all. The whole issue for him and his Fundamentalist brothers is the Doctrine of Inerrancy of Scripture. You are defined and labeled according to your agreement or disagreement with them on this issue and this issue alone. Why waste time with such self appointed defenders of the "true faith" who are so foolish as to think issues like this can be settled by vote in a Convention meeting? There is too much work to be done because we love Jesus and what he offers the world. Thank God the CBF is there for those of us who want to do the work, and do not exclude those whose minds still function.

 

My mind no longer functions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!

Although I must note that it is not just the inerrancy of Scripture issue, but I have heard stories of profs who denied the virgin birth and the resurrection.......I think I would have issues with that too.........

 

If your Scriptures are not inerrant in the originals:

Who is your God?

Who is your Jesus?

Which of the Scriptures are errant, not Gods Word?

2 Timothy 3:15-17?

Psalm 119?

2 Peter 1:21?

What does Revelation 22:18-19 mean? Or is that another 'errant' one?

[ January 12, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Alliswell ]

 

"Thank God the CBF is there for those of us who want to do the work, and do not exclude those whose minds still function."

Dave, Dave, Dave...

I'm not going to say that you don't have a brain just because you're a little left (theologically) of me. Let's stick to the issues without the name calling.

 

The point is that the convention as an entity cooperates with the SBC. The convention can not require its member churches to cooperate exclusively with the SBC. You might have a case if the NC state organization tried to split from the SBC.