-
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!
KenH this is the 2nd such blurb or blah..blah ..blah from you I thought I corrected
you before with some humor...So is God going to
correct you and convict you when you have a meet and greet with Condi Rice and she sees you waving
the confederate battle flag...just curious.
Hey you back there..with the flag...get out!!
but I am sure God has corrected you on that KenH
and you would not dare offend Ms. Rice.
you before with some humor...So is God going to
correct you and convict you when you have a meet and greet with Condi Rice and she sees you waving
the confederate battle flag...just curious.
Hey you back there..with the flag...get out!!
but I am sure God has corrected you on that KenH
and you would not dare offend Ms. Rice.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
I would certainly agree with the statement that we can not and should not judge anyone in terms of the validity of their Christian conversion. God will do that in the Final Judgement.
However, pastors and Christians alike need to form an opinion about another person's relationship with the Lord in order to evangelize. If someone comes out and says "I don't believe that Jesus Christ was divive and I don't believe that He died for my sins" I believe most of us would form the opinion that this person is not saved and needs for us to witness to him about the Good News.
This is a section on politics. Politics and religion have become so intertwined that is is almost impossible to make a sound decision about who to vote for without asking about the genuineness of their religious experience. That is certainly true about tyhe Religious Right who made no bones about their support of George Bush as the Christian candidate in the last two Presidential elections.
We don't have the final word on whether George Bush is a genuine Christian. The Lord does. But we did have the final say on whether he would become President (with the help of the Supreme Court). Therefore, what we're really asking is whether those who voted for Bush and support him have been misled by his claim to be a genuine Christian.
Here is what happened to a pastor who made a statement that was not as radical as the one George Bush made when he asserted that Moslems and Christians pray to the same God and have separate but equal paths to eternal life. (See my earlier post.)
This comes from the great state of Kentucky, my home state.
************************************************
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
Baptists withdraw invitation
McLaren can't speak at local conference By Peter Smith
The Courier-Journal
http://www.beliefnet.com/frame_offsite.asp?pageLoc=http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050301/NEWS01/503010397
The Kentucky Baptist Convention withdrew a speaking invitation to a well-known pastor and author after his latest book raised the possibility that people could be saved without becoming Christians.
The convention had heavily promoted the planned speech by Brian McLaren of Maryland at a two-day evangelism conference, which concludes today at Valley View Baptist Church in Louisville.
But church leaders withdrew the invitation late last month.
"I respect Dr. McLaren greatly and have appreciated his insights on reaching people in today's culture," the convention's executive director, Bill Mackey, said in a statement. But he said McLaren's "position diverges too greatly to be appropriate for this conference."
McLaren, pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church in Maryland, was listed in a recent Time magazine article as one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals.
He is a leader of what is known as the "emergent church" movement. In a book published last year, "A Generous Orthodoxy," he described this as an effort to go beyond traditional labels of liberal and conservative and find new methods to reach people who aren't being reached by churches.
He wrote that that not all people may need to be Christians to be followers of Jesus. Some people, he suggested, may be able to be "Buddhist … (or) Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus."
That statement was "clearly out of line," said Kentucky Baptist Convention President Hershael York, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "The one thing Kentucky Baptists agree about is the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That means Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation."
York also criticized McLaren's response when asked for his opinion on gay marriage. According to Time, he said that it "breaks my heart … that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side."
"O that life were so tidy that we could avoid the tough questions," York said. He said Kentucky Baptist staff members began reviewing McLaren's writings after receiving complaints from some pastors.
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. criticized McLaren in an entry in his blog, or Internet journal, which is influential among Southern Baptists. "Orthodoxy must be generous, but it cannot be so generous that it ceases to be orthodox," he wrote.
*************************************************
The key statement here is from a professor at the Southern Baptist Seminary:
"The one thing Kentucky Baptists agree about is the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That means Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation."
However, pastors and Christians alike need to form an opinion about another person's relationship with the Lord in order to evangelize. If someone comes out and says "I don't believe that Jesus Christ was divive and I don't believe that He died for my sins" I believe most of us would form the opinion that this person is not saved and needs for us to witness to him about the Good News.
This is a section on politics. Politics and religion have become so intertwined that is is almost impossible to make a sound decision about who to vote for without asking about the genuineness of their religious experience. That is certainly true about tyhe Religious Right who made no bones about their support of George Bush as the Christian candidate in the last two Presidential elections.
We don't have the final word on whether George Bush is a genuine Christian. The Lord does. But we did have the final say on whether he would become President (with the help of the Supreme Court). Therefore, what we're really asking is whether those who voted for Bush and support him have been misled by his claim to be a genuine Christian.
Here is what happened to a pastor who made a statement that was not as radical as the one George Bush made when he asserted that Moslems and Christians pray to the same God and have separate but equal paths to eternal life. (See my earlier post.)
This comes from the great state of Kentucky, my home state.
************************************************
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
Baptists withdraw invitation
McLaren can't speak at local conference By Peter Smith
The Courier-Journal
http://www.beliefnet.com/frame_offsite.asp?pageLoc=http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050301/NEWS01/503010397
The Kentucky Baptist Convention withdrew a speaking invitation to a well-known pastor and author after his latest book raised the possibility that people could be saved without becoming Christians.
The convention had heavily promoted the planned speech by Brian McLaren of Maryland at a two-day evangelism conference, which concludes today at Valley View Baptist Church in Louisville.
But church leaders withdrew the invitation late last month.
"I respect Dr. McLaren greatly and have appreciated his insights on reaching people in today's culture," the convention's executive director, Bill Mackey, said in a statement. But he said McLaren's "position diverges too greatly to be appropriate for this conference."
McLaren, pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church in Maryland, was listed in a recent Time magazine article as one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals.
He is a leader of what is known as the "emergent church" movement. In a book published last year, "A Generous Orthodoxy," he described this as an effort to go beyond traditional labels of liberal and conservative and find new methods to reach people who aren't being reached by churches.
He wrote that that not all people may need to be Christians to be followers of Jesus. Some people, he suggested, may be able to be "Buddhist … (or) Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus."
That statement was "clearly out of line," said Kentucky Baptist Convention President Hershael York, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "The one thing Kentucky Baptists agree about is the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That means Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation."
York also criticized McLaren's response when asked for his opinion on gay marriage. According to Time, he said that it "breaks my heart … that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side."
"O that life were so tidy that we could avoid the tough questions," York said. He said Kentucky Baptist staff members began reviewing McLaren's writings after receiving complaints from some pastors.
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. criticized McLaren in an entry in his blog, or Internet journal, which is influential among Southern Baptists. "Orthodoxy must be generous, but it cannot be so generous that it ceases to be orthodox," he wrote.
*************************************************
The key statement here is from a professor at the Southern Baptist Seminary:
"The one thing Kentucky Baptists agree about is the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That means Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation."
as quoted by StraightAndNarrow
Therefore, what we're really asking is whether those who voted for Bush and support him have been misled by his claim to be a genuine Christian.
Again you have nailed it StraightAndNarrow.
Truth is never a very popular opinion and many a blind follower of the Religeous Right will criticize you for your stance.
Therefore, what we're really asking is whether those who voted for Bush and support him have been misled by his claim to be a genuine Christian.
Again you have nailed it StraightAndNarrow.
Truth is never a very popular opinion and many a blind follower of the Religeous Right will criticize you for your stance.
No. Bush's christianity played no part in him getting my vote.
Yes, KenH you are correct but then again Bush never served in a command that put him in danger or pitted him against a known enemy. Had Bush served in Viet Nam there would have existed the possiblity that he could have committed a war crime. Bush was very fortunate to be the son of a then U.S. Congresman and somehow managed to be taken into the Air National Guard.
Yes, KenH you are correct but then again Bush never served in a command that put him in danger or pitted him against a known enemy. Had Bush served in Viet Nam there would have existed the possiblity that he could have committed a war crime. Bush was very fortunate to be the son of a then U.S. Congresman and somehow managed to be taken into the Air National Guard. </font>[/QUOTE]Kerry was not some underprivileged kid... and he only spent 3 months in combat with highly disputed service.
Bush spent several years flying very unreliable aircraft on intercept missions. If I am not mistaken, he logged more hours in aircraft that had a nasty habit of falling out of the sky than Kerry did in combat... and far more hours than Kerry actually had under fire.
The worse things he apparently did were to not show up for drill a few times (a pretty common occurrence for Guard/Reserve personnel in the 70's and 80's) and work a deal to get out early. Kerry may have committed war crimes and without much question massaged reports and his service record... yet the press spent more time vetting the National Guard story... again than it did looking into accusations against Kerry.
That said, I voted against Kerry due to the fact that he flip-flopped on numerous issues indicating that he has no real courage of conviction (known by numerous more earthy terms)... and the ones that he didn't flip flop on, I completely disagree with him about.
I don't agree with Bush on many things. I don't think he always surrounds himself with people I trust. But he does apparently believe in his ideals with conviction. He is a good leader and is very loyal. Contrary to Dem and media attempts to paint him with mud, he demonstrates a good deal of personal integrity and courage of conviction.
One thing that grates on Bush's opponents is that he is unapologetically "not them". He doesn't agree with them, behave like them, derive his values from the same worldview, etc... and refuses to ask their permission or even say he's sorry.
That's one of the things I like best about him.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
This page has passed the ten page limit - it will be closed no sooner than 1800 EST today.
BTW, I served in the US Army Reserves until '94. Unless the regs have changed... there is no such thing as being AWOL for weekend drill.
Unless Bush was under orders for Active Duty on the weekends he might have missed (which would be very uncommon), he was simply absent.
An absent member would not be paid. The commander could also count it against them on their review. They could be taken off special status like flight status.
The most severe thing a commander could do is drop the soldier from their roster. If that happened to a soldier that had not met their active reserve requirement, they could be immediately placed on active duty to fulfill their obligation.
Unless Bush was under orders for Active Duty on the weekends he might have missed (which would be very uncommon), he was simply absent.
An absent member would not be paid. The commander could also count it against them on their review. They could be taken off special status like flight status.
The most severe thing a commander could do is drop the soldier from their roster. If that happened to a soldier that had not met their active reserve requirement, they could be immediately placed on active duty to fulfill their obligation.
Scott,
Bush had too also spend extra time training to fly his aircraft. We never hear about what he specifically did while in the Guards. Point is if he had been given the oppurtunity to have served in Viet Nam he could have just as easily committed war crimes as well, no one can say for sure and it really proves nothing in the end. KenH stated it as a reson for why he didn't vote for Kerry. Personally I didn't vote for Kerry either because of his grandstanding at the Democratic Convention, it made me ill to see him salute and state that he was reporting for duty.
Bush had too also spend extra time training to fly his aircraft. We never hear about what he specifically did while in the Guards. Point is if he had been given the oppurtunity to have served in Viet Nam he could have just as easily committed war crimes as well, no one can say for sure and it really proves nothing in the end. KenH stated it as a reson for why he didn't vote for Kerry. Personally I didn't vote for Kerry either because of his grandstanding at the Democratic Convention, it made me ill to see him salute and state that he was reporting for duty.
poncho
Well-Known Member
My Confederate battle flag stays in my study. I don't parade it around in public because the politically correct crowd has made it unpalatable for me to do so.
But on this board - just for you ASLANSPAL:
</font>[/QUOTE]A confederate internationalist? Isn't that like a paradox or something?