FBC at OKC leaves SBC

[Michael Wrenn]

John,

It's got nothing to do with "needs to be"; the point is, using your interpretation criteria, if you are consistent, then He COULDN'T be.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Oh, and that would rule out the apostle Paul, too.

 

[John Wells]

What Paul was distinguishing from was polygamy, which was quite common in that place and time. He did not say one had to have a wife, nor did he say, as some suggest, that if you've ever been divorced you're disqualified. The meaning in context of what he said is "if you are a husband, you shall only have one wife." And I still say any talk about Jesus qualifying for a position in the church is absurd. The only position Jesus needs to qualify for, and He does, is "The Cornerstone."

 

[ellis]

Actually, Phillip, there are a couple of things you've pointed out that I probably failed to notice in my previous post, and I'll try to clear them up for you.

As to how to interpret the passages of scripture in question, we obviously disagree. However, it is only your opinion that I am taking them out of context. They are well within the framework of the statement of faith of the church I belong to, and I believe we have interpreted them correctly. That is, however, beside the point.

I don't attend a Southern Baptist church. I did attend a Southern Baptist university and the Baptist Doctrine class I took there was based on the book by Dr. Herschel Hobbs, The Baptist Faith and Message. As I understand it, the document that this book was explaining was the Baptist Faith and Message passed by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1963. I do not have any problem with this document, in fact, find myself in virtual agreement with it.

That is why I find it difficult to understand why Dr. Hobbs former church, which would most certainly have been one of the most doctrinally sound churches in the SBC, would find it necessary to withdraw from the convention and cite their differences with the 2000 edition of the Baptist Faith and Message as the reason. There must be considerable difference between the two, enough to upset some other conservative Southern Baptists, because the other Southern Baptists I know are all very upset and disturbed by the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. These are individuals who come from churches that, by the evaluations posted here, would be more conservative than the one I belong to, because none of them have women deacons or ministers. My home church has both.

I would find it highly unlikely that such a significant doctrinal change could take place in a church like FBC Oklahoma City. Rather, I would observe that the doctrinal change must have taken place in the SBC. Since the only other Southern Baptists I know, including professors at the university I attended, seem particularly distressed over the SBC, this is the only conclusion I can come to at the present time.

Your advice about the church choices is very well taken, believe me. I have been blessed to have been a lifelong part of the church I still attend, and we consider it a real blessing to be independent and autonomous. We are very friendly and cooperative with other churches and church organizations regarding our missionary support and our support for educational ministries. But we like to say that our loyalty and love is reserved for Christ and his church. Things happen in denominational structures that can have negative impact on a local church, and I think what is happening in the SBC is an example of that. We have received into our fellowship in recent years a number of individuals weary of the SBC controversy, and several of the churches we have started in the last decade are now pastored by former SBC pastors. So I can easily understand why a church would want to put that behind them.

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]

 

[ChuckS]

Phillip said

I do have a question for you--obviously--you are in disagreement with the SBC "message and faith" statement. If this is true, why don't YOU go to another church that believes the way you do rather than try to change the way the SBC has believed for years?

My question is this, why couldn't the folks who were upset 20 years ago leave instead of being a part of the political in-fighting? It was because they felt they were right, right? Then if they were right, then why did they have to resort to wordly political tactics to accomplish , "the lords will"

Why didn't God simply give them victory as He did the children of Israel.

AND if the other side was right, why didn't God protect them from these worldly tactics and preserve those who were right. Could it be that both sides were more concerned with how they felt the SBC should be ran, rather than how God felt it should be ran.

The reason I bring this up is I do not care for the politics that have invaded our churches. I don't think we need to have the attitude "agree with me or get out"

Lets shut up about who is liberal or fundamental, and lets shout about who is KING! After all the task of the church is to LIFT CHRIST UP, PERIOD!
Chuck

 

[ChuckS]

What about the letter from ALL SIX presedents of the seminaries that said that Herschel Hobbs was "duped" by the liberalswho co-wrote woth him the 1963 version of the BF&M.

Should we trust the writtings of someone so easily "duped"?

Chuck

 

[ellis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ChuckS:
What about the letter from ALL SIX presedents of the seminaries that said that Herschel Hobbs was "duped" by the liberalswho co-wrote woth him the 1963 version of the BF&M.

Should we trust the writtings of someone so easily "duped"?


Chuck<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest you find a copy of both the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message and the book by Dr. Hobbs. It is easy to see that he was not "duped". If he was, then virtually the entire SBC was duped with him. I'm not a Southern Baptist, yet I found both the 1963 document and Dr. Hobbs work to be a sound Biblical statement on the beliefs and practices of Baptists.

I can't imagine what could have been changed to make this a more conservative, or theologically and biblically sound statement.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

John,

Oh, so now you're resorting to explaining what scripture means, like others do, instead of just taking it for what it says. And you would have us believe that it's only we infidel moderates who do that.

 

[John Wells]

Scripture speaks for itself . . . for those of us who don't try to read anything into it. Ever since your arrival on this board you attempt to pick apart and twist everyone's words. I'll not play!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I beg to differ. It is not I whose favorite dance is the twist, as is evidenced by some here who interpret literally when it suits their purposes, but who turn into contortionists of the most extreme kind when a literal reading would destroy their arguments.

 

[Phillip]

The interesting part of this post is that most of the attacks of the SBC or SBC churches are obviously coming from Independent Baptist or other Baptist Churches not involved in the SBC.

First of all, having not been involved in the SBC and hearing only the media side; you are lacking in information. The media has played up the human problems in the convention and for good reason. Satan just loves to attack where it can.

Just as I know little about your church, I would NOT get on a web-board and say something like -- Independents are wrong because they don't follow Paul's example of pooling missionary efforts by the churches. I don't know this. I could make all sorts of statements about Independent and Missionary Baptist churches based on what I know and have heard. I know, my grandmother was voted out of a missionary baptist church with her husband and daughter in the congregation because she visited a SBC church twice while visiting her daughter. This is NO JOKE and there was NOTHING else to the story she did wrong. My point here is, if you aren't a Southern Baptist church member, why don't you just continue to go to your church and enjoy it rather than taking cheap shots at the SBC.

I do know the difference between liberal and conservative in the SBC and I can tell you that the church in OKC has changed dramatically -- especially with the pastor they now have. The convention only clarified its Message and Faith when it made the 2000 edition. As I pointed out they are compared side-by-side on my website; and I have no problems with the 2000 edition which simply lays out issues that are more of an issue today than 20 years ago. There have been no changes in the SBC in this manner and you people making cheap shots--well, that is simply your opinion and if God happens to think the SBC is winning souls through their missionary work, I would be careful in making your blasphemous statements.

The Oklahoma City Church CHOSE to leave the convention, the convention had NO intentions of getting rid of them. That is their choice and it is being fought by a group of the older members who might as well leave and let the new younger liberals have the kind of charismatic church they probably desire. You can scream "independent" all you wish, but we SB churches are just as independent as you are and we do not have to accept the conventions statements hook-line and sinker under the threat of getting punished or booted out like the Presbyterians or Catholics. This just shows the lack of knowledge of the SBC and that most every negative post is a non SB member who wants to make an attack while the convention is down (or having problems due to the fact we are all human). Don't tell me one of your churches have never had a problem. Most of your knowledge obviously comes from the media and based on what I have read here I am not impressed with the attacker's understanding of how our churches work nor the conventions role with our churches. These are typical fabrications made by outsider groups.

As for Southern Baptist colleges -- there has been a lot of problems with liberal teachers (as with many colleges) and many new pastors are bringing this academic liberal view into their churches--especially ones who were not well grounded in their SB faith before they entered the college. As far as I am concerned this is a problem for us to deal with, but a non-issue for outsiders.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Brethren: As a matter of general principle, I start thinking about closing threads on my forums when they go to a third page. Usually by the third page, the comments (cogent that they may be) are no longer germane to the original post and are better dealt with on a new thread.

I am writing this at 0840 Pacific Daylight Time. So, I'll hold off until this after noon local to close the thread.

Hoping to shed more light than heat,
Keith

 

[david reed]

Phillip,
I am an Inependenet, Fundemental, KJVO,
Baptist, yet I have never, nor will I ever post a negative comment to a thread about
my Christian bretheren in the SBC, and I do not appreciate you taking cheap shots at the
IFB'rs either.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Chuck,
Which letter are you referring to and did the six current presidents sign it? Can you tell me where to locate it?
Thanks
Russell
I do recall in the BGCT report that 4 of the 6 said that the BF&M63 was a "neo-orthodox" document, is that what your referring to?

[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: rhoneycutt ]

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david reed:
Phillip,
I am an Inependenet, Fundemental, KJVO,
Baptist, yet I have never, nor will I ever post a negative comment to a thread about
my Christian bretheren in the SBC, and I do not appreciate you taking cheap shots at the
IFB'rs either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David,
I am very, very sorry. I was wrong for singling out the Independent Baptists and I appologize and hope you can accept that.

I was frustrated ONLY at the people who have attacked the SBC and made cheap-shots such as, "good thing they changed the name of their bookstore, it was the only thing "Baptist" about them and such as that.

I personally do not know all of the different Baptist groups on this site and was tired and put out by people outside the convention making such comments and I was simply wrong. You have every right in the world to be mad and I don't blame you. I am still frustrated with the "individuals" who do not belong to a SB Church acting as if they hold the keys to the kingdom.

I only hope that you can forgive me for the attack that was not intended for you, but splattered onto you because of my anger and frustration which was definitely unChristian in attitude.

I make a new statement here and I want to be clear that I am talking ONLY about outsiders (may be any group, I don't know), but those that attack the SB churches from an outside position not knowing the pain and heartache we people trying to hold the convention together according to God's Word. I am frustrated with you folks and NOT a specific group or individual who has been Christian like and let the SBC work out its own problems -- right or wrong.

Again, I cannot say how sorry I am, please forgive me. After all we are brothers in Christ.

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Squire:


I am writing this at 0840 Pacific Daylight Time. So, I'll hold off until this after noon local to close the thread.

Hoping to shed more light than heat,
Keith<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want to thank you, Keith for holding open the thread until I could appologize to a Christian that I insulted because of my anger and frustration. I also appologize to you and everybody on the thread for blasting a group as a whole based on a few individuals. These typical remarks like mine are the things that can split churches, and I do not wish to be part of that. I'm sorry and thank you!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It gladdens my heart to see brethren being reconciled with each other. But, for the reasons I gave this morning I am closing this thread at this time.

On a personal note
I have just read the minutes of the my church's 1881 organizational meeting. Section 2 on Church Independence mandated a unanimous vote of the congregation before she (ekklesia is female if I remember my Greek correctly after 20+ years) could join any convention or association. This was later reduced to a 3/4 vote. While aligning herself with various organizations through the years: The Northern Baptist Convention c.1900, The Conservative Baptist Association 1948-1968, and now through our pastor The Fundemental Baptist Fellowship, my church has hewed to an independent path.

I am not going to add anything further on this topic. I will reserve my thoughts on how truly fundementalist the SBC is for another thread.

Hoping to shed more light than heat,
Keith