1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Baptist "Name-Tags" - Are They Helpful?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by rlvaughn, Dec 27, 2001.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are they divisive? I would like to address my last question first. I do not think name-tags are particularly divisive in themselves. In fact it would seem that we have them BECAUSE WE ARE divided, and use them to try to help sort out the division. That being said, to cling to a name-tag as if it has some sort of scriptural mandate can be divisive. I do know churches/pastors who do not fellowship with others because they don't have the right "name".

    Are they helpful? Are they confusing? The name-tags may be helpful in the short term and general sense. They allow us to give a quick answer that identifies us in a general way. When you answer, "I am a Calvinist", I may not know exactly what you believe, but I at least have a good idea of what you do not believe. Association or convention name-tags serve the purpose of identifying one as a general supporter of that group. In fact, with the smaller associations, they can be quite effecient in identifying what you believe. But to be identified with a group as large as the SBC, or as ecumenical as the ABCUSA, provides little to no insight into where one may actually stand. When we get into names such as independent, fundamental, conservative, moderate, and liberal, we get into terms that have such broad and multi-defined (or undefined) usage that they, in my opinion, indentify almost nothing. Independent means unaffiliated to me, but a large number of "independents" are actually affiliated with some association or fellowship. I read just last week an old-line Primitive Baptist elder speak of the "liberals" in his sub-denomination. If you know a little about the present state of conflict among them, it has meaning, but if a person is thinking of liberal in the broader context of the whole Baptist denomination, he would have absolutely no idea of what the elder was speaking, and, in fact, be misled. Conservative & liberal are so often used to mean someone that is more "conservative" or more "liberal" than the one speaking or writing, they have about lost their value. Another harmful aspect of "name-tags" is that you are often not allowed to choose your own, but are stuck with the one someone else chooses for you. :(

    I reserve the right to define what I believe. That is partly because my theology is so confused :eek: that I don't really feel like I fit in anywhere :rolleyes: .

    Finally, if we could just get the heretical non-Baptist "Baptists" to quit using the name Baptist, we would go a long way toward solving the problem :D . If you need anyone to define who are the Baptists and who are not, I am available [​IMG] .
     
    #21 rlvaughn, Dec 29, 2001
  2. Kiffin

    Kiffin New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michael said,

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> fundamentalist dictatorship fond of handing down pronouncements and threats from on high. Oh, and BTW, what recommendations of the so-called "Peace Committee" have the fundies adhered to? Seminary professors and denominational employees from across the theological spectrum? Presidential appointees from same?

    I'll be anxiously awaiting your examples of such fundie inclusiveness.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    As for me I don't want to be the SBC to be inclusive. That is nothing personal against Baptists such as Michael or Joshua who I am sure are nice people. The SBC made the Cooperative Program her Golden Calf several years ago and is really what unites the SBC. The BFM is a joke. Why have a doctrinal statement if the Churches who voluntarily associate together don't have to agree to it? The Peace Committe itself was a joke. Why do Conservatives want peace with those who deny inerrancy, consider Gen. 1-11 to be a Jewish mythological tale?

    A Confessional Denomination is what the SBC needs to be. I don't think the BFM is that good and more historic confessions such as the Philadephia or Abstracts of Principles would be better. (Of course my vision for the SBC is a Calvinist Confessional association..which would be a nightmare for fundys like Stanley, Merrit and for liberals like CBF :D ).
     
    #22 Kiffin, Dec 29, 2001
  3. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    All labels are helpful to some extent. If it were not for labels, you would not know if the can contained soup or cat food. [​IMG]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Yes, we will know broadly that it is soup or cat food, but we don't know what's in it without "reading the fine print." :( I guess that's my main point - that some people read the general label "cat food" and ASSUME they know the contents (what's in it). :eek:
     
    #23 rlvaughn, Dec 29, 2001
  4. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michael wrote:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I just gave you some history and incontrovertible facts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Where? I must be reading a different set of posts from a different Michael. All you gave were opinions, accusations, and biases. I think consulting a dictionary will help you see there's a difference.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You did what all fundamentalists do when confronted with same--deny, deny, deflect, twist, contort. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Typical liberal drivel, insults and character assasination. All I did was challenge your opinions. You liberals never have liked having that done.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Shall I give some further, more specific examples of the history and facts I mentioned, or do you want to quit while you're behind? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You've never given any examples in the first place. I can give loads of examples of the liberal power elite trodding the SBC under foot, but why bother? It's not going to convince you at all. You have your mind made up. That's not a bad thing. But the way you present yourself and your side clearly is. You would do well to learn from people like Joshua who can articulate points intelligently and with character.
    And yes, I do want to quit. This is pointless. You are not interested in facts. All you want to do is do what many liberals always do: Insult, appeal to emotion and not logic, and drag things into the mud. You can have it. Call yourself the "winner" if you like. If that's what you live for, enjoy. You have your reward, but I have better things to do than to engage juvenile missives.

    [ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
    #24 TomVols, Dec 29, 2001
  5. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    RLV wrote:
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, if we could just get the heretical non-Baptist "Baptists" to quit using the name Baptist, we would go a long way toward solving the problem . If you need anyone to define who are the Baptists and who are not, I am available . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Go ahead Bro. Robert, define away. I am actually curious.

    J,
     
    #25 Jeff Weaver, Feb 3, 2002
  6. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, brother, that comment was mostly tongue in cheek. Besides, I am surrounded by the enemy and would be fired upon from all directions. :eek: Actually, the list of things would be quite short, but its arrangement would exclude a large of number of modern and progressive Baptists.
     
    #26 rlvaughn, Feb 3, 2002
  7. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am in agreement with Brother Vaughn, but without the tongue in cheek. [​IMG]

    I am an historic, unaffiliated Baptist, but have much more affinity with the Primitive, Landmark, and Missionary Baptists than with most of what masquerades under the name Baptist today. I was educated in a Seminary where the President loudly proclaimed "Baptists are not Protestants!" The sister school to our Seminary (which has been so badly maligned on another thread) had a cadre of professors who were some of the best men I have ever known, and were almost unanimous in their opinion of Baptist origins. [​IMG]

    [ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
     
    #27 DocCas, Feb 4, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...