Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

[ARCOUNTRYBOY]

BACK TO THE BIBLE - that's how I describe the Southern Baptist Convention. I have attended the last two conventions (Florida & New Orleans) and the convention is dedicated to winning souls, preaching the truth of the Word and not bowing down to those who wish to water down the WORD or the CHURCH with the acceptance of homosexuality, women preachers and goddess worship. THANK GOD i'm a part of a Bible-Believing, Bible-Preaching, denomination. Mainstream, CBF and Baptist committed - come home to the truth!!!

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CJoshuaV:
In all seriousness, without going back through all six pages, what have I said about the CBF that you disagree with?

Joshua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't want to re-hash the arguments that have, I think, been recently exhausted on this and a few other threads, but just a few to answer your question:

1) I disagree with your position that the Scripture teaches that God is as much female as male in character.
2) I disagree with your position that homosexuality is not biblically characterized as sin.
3) I disagree with your tendency toward interpreting scripture from the position of higher criticism.
4) I know that there are more but I think you get my point.

The thing that I find interesting is that some here who defend the CBF would disagree with your viewpoints as strongly as I do, hence my curiosity as to whether the CBF is actually as far out as you portray it. I don't say that to question your truthfulness, it's just that I can't see where 2 and 2 add up here.

PA Jim

 

[Rev. Joshua]

I've never argued that everyone in the CBF is as liberal as I am or as the seminaries which the CBF supports. My point is that the CBF tent is big enough to include us liberals, and that we have provided a fair share of the leadership over the past decade.

Joshua

(Did you look at the syllabus I linked?)

 

[American Citizen]

Josh, you and I have spoken before on the Baptists Today Board. I am late to this conversation and probably should stay out but then I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut. ha

I have a question for you that comes from reading some of your comments. Often I read those who are in leadership positions in the CBF and they speak of accepting those who disagree with them. Maybe that is true. My question though is this. Why in 1979 was there no one who believed in an inerrant scripture leading a board of the SBC or president of one of the seminaries? Also if they are as open as some say they are, Why are there no professors in any of the schools in partnership with the CBF that believes in an inerrant scripture?

 

[Rev. Joshua]

AC,

I'm tempted to say that no responsible biblical scholar would hold that position.

It might be more accurate to say that the type of militant fundamentalism that characterizes those who call themselves inerrantists is not compatible with the kind of academic freedom found at the partner schools. It might also be that none of the current students would want to attend a place led by an "inerrantist."

Joshua

 

[rhoneycutt]

Joshua, you could say no "honest" biblical scholar would hold that posistion.

AC, If inerrancy is so important why is the word not in BF&M2K? Why do all the inerrantists "qualify" their definition?

Why can't we admit that innerancy is simply the means by which ya'll can "go for the jugular"?

 

[American Citizen]

Josh,

Intelligent people hold many different theological positions.

My question is if the partner schools are open to diversity, then why will they not hire a person who differs from them? I am not talking about militant fundamentalist. A person can hold to innerrancy and not be militant.

That is my point in the first place. It was not happening in the SBC schools before 1979. The good ole boys who were in control would not allow that to happen. They would not hire someone who disagreed with them.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

AC,

I think it goes deeper than disagreement about the word "inerrancy." In my opinion, even inerrantists are not really inerrantists because they add so many qualifiers and "clarifications."

Generally inerrantists are opposed to the kind of ecumenical scholarship that takes place in the partner schools. We used Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, and Methodist resources as well as baptist ones. I don't think many "inerrantists" would be comfortable with that.

Joshua

 

[American Citizen]

Josh,

I really don't agree with that. I think that conservative scholars study a wide range of topics and people. I really think it is the other way around. I think the more liberal a person is the less they study those they don't agree with. By that I mean any one who is conservative. Look at many liberal commentaries and you will see they seldom if ever quote anyone who is on the conservative side. I suspect you will disagree with that but from what I have seen that is true. When it really comes down to it though you will have to admit that most, either conservative or liberal do not look at what the other is saying.

 

[RobertLynn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:


As an insider, what is your perception of the statements that CJoshuaV has made here about the CBF?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry about not getting back to this thread until now. I've been following the discussion on another.

My perception of CJoshuaV's statements here about CBF is that he is obviously coming from the left side of the churches that affiliate with CBF and sees things from that perspective.

CBF, unlike the SBC, is a fellowship network, not a denomination or convention. It functions largely as a "pass through" for contributions from churches to institutions and agencies that provide theological education and mission service opportunities. And it is largely made up of churches that are unhappy with the changes in the way the SBC is doing business these days, and the choices the SBC is making with its Cooperative Program money.

The General Assembly of CBF is open to any member of any contributing church (about 2,000 churches contribute through their budget) or any individual contributor. It "partners" with a given set of divinity schools and church-related ministries through partnerships that are generally initiated by the school or agency.

CBF has a set of core values which govern the CBF's central office itself (a very intentionally small staff) and the partnerships. It does not impose the core values as a means of determining which churches can or cannot participate. Therefore, matters of doctrine and theology are left up to the local, individual, independent, autonomous congregations that are involved voluntarily, and can cease involvement by simply stopping their contribution.

There are, therefore, several congregations involved in CBF that share CJohsuaV's perspective. There are others who would be comfortable designating themselves as "fundamentalist" and these two extremes are probably evenly represented in CBF in that there are most likely less than 30 or 40 churches of either kind. The vast majority are churches that would fall in the "moderate" range--less restrictive and legalistic than fundamentalists on most issues, but not "liberal" in theology or practice. Most CBF churches are theologically conservative, and their participation in CBF is a reaction to their strong dislike for the exclusionary elitism that now characterizes the SBC.

CBF is just one alternative for the many churches now distancing themselves theologically and financially from the SBC. As of yet, I think it is too early to characterize the movement, though actions it has taken in its ten year history show it to be committed to the very Baptist values of local church autonomy and priesthood of the believer.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Generally inerrantists are opposed to the kind of ecumenical scholarship that takes place in the partner schools. We used Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, and Methodist resources as well as baptist ones. I don't think many "inerrantists" would be comfortable with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inerrantists do use these sources. They just them discerningly understanding the basis from which they are written. The "ecumenical scholarship" is quite often not discerning of the underlying problems in much of this writing. To assume that all people approach the table with equal weight in their opinions is fallacious thinking however.

 

[dan wood]

im an ordained baptist minister trained fundamentalist and now liberal.i applaude the cooperative baptist fellowship.thesouthern baptist convention haswent far too conservative.yet,they are not true fundamentalists like they think.only a solid independant,1611kjv,soulwinning baptist church is a fundamentalist.so,sbc get over it.you can never follow the hallowed steps of jack hyles,john rice,bob jonesand others.thank God i am a liberal baptist now shed of the evil skin of americas taliban and PAROLED from fundamentalist claptrap.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dan wood:
im an ordained baptist minister trained fundamentalist and now liberal.i applaude the cooperative baptist fellowship.thesouthern baptist convention haswent far too conservative.yet,they are not true fundamentalists like they think.only a solid independant,1611kjv,soulwinning baptist church is a fundamentalist.so,sbc get over it.you can never follow the hallowed steps of jack hyles,john rice,bob jonesand others.thank God i am a liberal baptist now shed of the evil skin of americas taliban and PAROLED from fundamentalist claptrap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recommend spaces and capital letters at the beginning of sentences. It makes your posts much easier to read.

I also recommend laying off the foolish and inaccurate caricatures. It will give your posts a certain amount of credibility that will enable you to have reasoned and reasonable discussions with those of contrary viewpoints.

 

[Ars]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I recommend spaces and capital letters at the beginning of sentences. It makes your posts much easier to read.

I also recommend laying off the foolish and inaccurate caricatures. It will give your posts a certain amount of credibility that will enable you to have reasoned and reasonable discussions with those of contrary viewpoints.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[dan wood]

its very amusing that conservatives and fundamentalists can use harsh words and liberals are scared too.well,i will repeat it again that im a 110% supporter of the cooperative baptist fellowship and the sbc has tilted too far to the right.