BF&M Hitting Roadblocks Abroad

Old news -- we recognize there is about 40-50 out of the 5K+ who have not signed. The names included in the article cited speak volumes. I expect no less from the sources included.

The option seems clear -- on or off.

BTW, this is such a non-issue (no matter what the mod/libs on BaptistLife want to insist) that it demanded virtually no time at the convention. The mod/libs were hoping it would be an issue, but guess what ... they were wrong again.

 

They have that right -- on or off!

 

I agree. The SBC has jumped off the edge.

 

The ones who do not agree with the doctrinal statement of the SBC should leave the SBC if they have to sign it to remain aligned with the SBC. Simple enough. If the SBC must become a smaller group to remain true to Biblical teaching, then so be it. God is sovereign. His will be done.

"let God be true and every man a liar."(Rom 3:4 NKJV)

Ken

[ June 24, 2002, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

I guess I'm a little fuzzy about how the SBC relates to say the Japanese Southern Baptist Convention.

I would think that they are both autonomous bodies and both can decide independently of each other what official faith statement they will adopt.

If Southern Baptists stop sending SB Missionaries to Japan then would the Japanese Southern Baptist Convention still be Southern Baptist?

 

Thank God for a few people with a conscience. Resisting the SBC leaders return to 1950 is something that all SBCers should really consider. As far as leaving...we where here first! The fruit of this resurgence is division, and a tearing down of the doctrines of priesthood of the believer, soul-freedom and local church autonomy. This something all those who call themselves Baptist should really be alarmed about, because this is what makes us unique, this is what it is to be Baptist!

 

From the article:

Missionaries from the time of the apostles have ALWAYS encountered cultural resistance when compromise with the world has been shunned in order to stay true to scripture. I see no need for concern about the issue being raised here.

Another sampling of more of the rhetoric that we've come to expect on these issues.

 

The ones who do not agree with the doctrinal statement of the SBC should leave the SBC if they have to sign it to remain aligned with the SBC. Simple enough. </font>[/QUOTE]I've already done that... and I didn't even get asked to sign anything! I did it out of conscience.

Yes. Unfortunately it is not because of Biblical teaching... Quite the opposite.

I pray His will will be done in the SBC. I pray it is not a hardening to the truth of God.

Yes. Very true. Unfortunately I think you mean it in support of the SBC.

 

Actually, they call it a "conservative resurgence" but it's neither 'conservative" or a "resurgence."

It's not conservative because Southern Baptist leaders are upending (not conserving) all of the Baptist distinctives.

It's not a resurgence because Southern Baptists have never held to this sort of denominational domination before -- not in 1950 or ever.

Yup. The Convention needs to take "Baptist" out of the name.

Fortunately here in Texas, we haven't changed. I now consider my affiliation to be BGCT (Baptist General Convention of Texas).

 

Personaly I'd prefer a return to 1644 or 1689 rather than the gooshy gooshy papacy of the believer doctrine that infected the SBC through Mullins and Hobbs.

 

What do you mean by "gooshy gooshy papacy of the believer"?

I'm serious here. I'm interested to know what issues you have with it.

 

That'll work!!

 

AMEN AND AMEN!!!

Ken

 

Sour grapes taste awful. You'd think the Death Star regime that lost its power because rank and file SBs finally are having their voice heard would get a clue. But this group used their iron fist so well to crush anyone who dared not march in lockstep with their radical agenda, that they now bellyache because they no longer have the same effect. Thanks to the end of the reign of terror, we finally have freedom in the SBC and the good ole boy politicos can't stand it. So be it.

 

Are you kidding me! You are calling the SBC of the 60's and 70's a papacy! What do you call sign this or else? What do you call rigging the elections by busing in "messengers"? What do you call "electing" Pressler as a vice-president, (besides stupid I mean)? What do call trying to disassociate a church for hiring a women as part of the pastoral staff (happened in Florida)? I am not sure what you are reading but it is ok to read books not specifically listed by the Baptist Faith and Message. Well at least until the next convention anyhow.

 

Don't know about grapes, but the thing I'm most concerned about is the 2000 Confession elevating the Bible above Jesus.

"Death Star regime"??? That's a little overdramatic.

I don't know if the "conservatives" were persecuted before the takeover, but I do know that anyone in any leadership role in Southern Baptist life who does not swear allegience to the "resurgence" is a marked man or woman. Even if people were persecuted by "moderates" in the past (I doubt it was very common) "conservatives" have absolutely no right to do what has systematically been done during the last 25 years.

I've seen the lies firsthand with people I know (I know "big name" people on both sides of the issues) and have seen people I know well be publically lied about by SBC leaders. I saw the takeover of Southwestern Seminary firsthand and saw the difference between what really happened and what was reported. I've seen the letters from SBC officials that SBC seminary professors in my church have received that threaten their retirement because they don't play along with the resurgence leaders. I had a top administrator at Southwestern Seminary admit to me that the seminary's public relations office did not report that facts accurately because "they" (the so-called moderates) would use it against them.

If you can't tell the truth and win people to your side without telling lies, you are not working for God.

You know the "conservative resurgence" crowd have always complained that the old SBC leaders allowed too much freedom in the SBC. I find it strange you think there is more freedom now. Here's an experiment: Try nominating someone from the floor for convention president and see what happens to you afterward. Differences of opinion are not welcome...

 

Tom,

Since I no longer consider myself a "Southern Baptist" I will refrain from commenting on the nanny nanny boo boo drivel that Kiffin has contributed to yet another SBC thred.

I am a little surprised though that you would take the posisition you have. While I understand that you are the BB apologist for the SBC and the Executive Comitteee, I have always thought that you were one of the ones that would let the truth get in the way. Any one who proffers the opinion that it is sour grapes what has happened to the SBC is either misinformed (which I doubt) or towing the new SBC line for whatever reason (which is pathetic)

By the way was Wally Amos Criswell a liberal when the old Sour Grapes guard elected him President of the convention?

 

Absolute nonsense. This blatent misrepresentation is the unfortunate motto of the left and it shows an ignorance of the BFM 2000 and the issues at stake.

They were and still are. The stories are many and very saddening. Careers were destroyed, characters attacked, lives turned upside down, all because they dared not march in lock step with the political machine of the left. Very very sad.

Why this will not happen is there is still some infiltration by the old political machinery of days gone by. If you have multiple conservatives, the libs are instructed to nominate their candidates. Besides, we did have multiple nominees in 1994 I believe it was, when two conservatives ran against each other (Fred Wolfe and Dr. Jim Henry).

I'm just an apologist for the truth my friend. I'm critical of the SBC and any other entity when I see fit. You probably know that.

Dr. Criswell's election of president doesn't negate what the political machinery of the left has done over the years. This is the same political machinery that engaged in character assasination towards this man til his dying day and even now. He, along with some others, were the standard whipping boys for the left. Sad, since Dr. Criswell was very conciliatory even to his detractors, as I understand it. Even when Baylor had been sieged by the left, he still referred to it as "Our Beloved Baylor."