Lifeway hocking copiers for Toshiba

If you are talking about what it takes for an unbeliever to understand the gospel, obviously who Jesus is and what He did is more important than the inspiration of Scripture. Yet this argument does not diminish the importance of the doctrine of inspiration. As you state in the second paragraph, there is an undeniable relationship between Jesus and the Scriptures.

I challenge someone to show one place in the Scriptures where Jesus every did anything to question or challenge the authority of God's Word.

Your argument of supreme Scripture elevation is a straw man. The John text is not focusing upon the elevation of scripture but it is a rebuke of the Jewish religious authorities' elevation of their own traditions and interpretations to the point they missed the central focus of the text itself. This passage in no way suggests the Word of God can be elevated too high.

If anything it is a warning against those who want to bring Scripture down to the level of their own understanding (or the guise of Higher Criticism).

The more I read, study, and rely upon the text, the more it points me to the lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ is elevated thru the elevation of God's Word.

The Bible is more than just a book (to borrow from the infamous Sizemore debacle). It is "a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."

 

"Years in the Lord's service does not guarantee doctrinal purity".
Its funny how Paul could only see through a glass darkly but Rankin and the rest of the SBC knows what is doctrinally "pure".
When you put doctrinal "purity" above all else, above love, above living in Christ, above service to our Lord, and you insist that people agree with you on all matters to the point of "purity", then I submit you are not only impure but rotting away on the inside. Paul may have mentioned something along those lines in Corinthians, but of course, he merely saw through a darkened glass and could not have been doctrinally "pure".
Sometimes the rotten means point directly to the rotten ends. Soon the SBC will be full of people who are "doctrianlly pure" (those of us who don't think of ourselves as perfect will be gone). If only their hearts could be as pure as they imagine their beliefs to be.

 

Doctrinal purity is very important. Christ is not standing physically next to us, holding our hand and saying yes this is ok and No that is a sin. So, what are we to do to find out if something is sin or not? Refer to Scripture, after all God provided it for that exact reason. They weren't the 10 suggeations for one to decide on their own if adultry is ok, they say adultry is wrong and a sin. The Scriptures aren't held higher than Christ, It is held high out of respect and honor and worship to God who authored the Scriptures. We are to obey His commands, if you do not read, or hold His words as holy and true, then how do you know you are living for God and not self? Human thought is skewed to self, by sin nature. By following His word, and stay true to it, you are obeying God, not holding Scripture higher.

 

Guys, I can't help but respond to this LifeWay thing. I'm SBC to the core! If I were anything else--I'd be plum ashamed!

I frequent the LifeWay Store in Jackson, MS quiet often. I also have a friend there who works management in that particular store. On one particular occasion I asked her why study/commentary books as well as other stocked items were so expensive. If you preach--those study books are your tools just like a mechanic who buys tools from Sears or Snap On! Study books are expensive! And I just thought I would ask this friend the reason why! Here was her response:

"Blackbird(she used my real name here)! The reason for the high cost is for the store to recoup from all of the shoplifting that goes on here!" God help the poor preacher who has to rip off study books!!

As for those copiers?! If you don't want one or can't afford one--mercy--don't throw a gasket! Just go on over to the store where they may sell them a little cheaper--and get you one there! I own ExxonMobil stock--but I ain't gonna throw a "hissy-fit" if they sell gasoline for 2 cents more than the dealer just up the road! Shucks, no! I'll go to the dealer up the road and buy my gas--then keep investing in ExxonMobil.

I feel pretty sure that SBC President Jack Graham or Exec/Treasurer Morris Chapman will both be calling Jimmy's office if they think things are getting a little out of control over in Nashville! So, don't sweat it! I tell ya! Some of you guys who gripe about the SBC--have been spending too much time out in the hot sun! Come on guys! Relax! Here's what I'm gonna do! I'm gonna invest in a offbrand copier from some giant discount store--set it up in the church office--and then just keep on being Southern Baptist to the core!

This is Blackbird! Over and out!

 

I am sure that your posts does not imply the doctrinal purity is unimportant. If so, we might as well throw out most of church history. Recant Nicea, Constaninople, etc. Doctrinal purity is essential to the preservation of the gospel. Paul's teachings centered on the idea of receiving that which he preached, preserve it, and pass it to those who follow. Doctrinal purity is a must. Purity cannot be replaced by love or service.

Having said that, I do not maintain the SBC or IMB have an insight to what is pure and what is not (outside the fundamentals that holds orthodoxy together). I would suggest however that the SBC has the right to define itself according to what it believes and also has the right to ask its employees and representatives to work in accordance with that statement of beliefs. That is the issue here. We can argue till we are blue in the face on what is pure doctrine and what is not, but at the end of the day, the issue still is: does the SBC have the right to define itself doctrinally and then hold its employees accountable to that definition? My answer is yes.

Following your line of reasoning, let me ask you a couple of questions:

- If the IMB discovered a "faithful, tenured, loving" missionary was denying the resurrection, should he be held accountable?

- If the IMB discovered a missionary (use whatever adjectives you choose) no longer believed in believer's baptism and was sprinkling children with the assumption it bestowed covenantal grace (outside Baptist parameters), should he be held accountable?

If the IMB discovered a missionary was acting in direct contradiction of the approved statement of beliefs of the convention, should he be held accountable?

Hopefully you can see where I am going with this. Doctrinal integrity and purity is important. A criteria of beliefs is important. And if one cannot work in accordance with those beliefs, they should consider employment with a group with which they can identify.

 

I can agree with what you say here.

 

SBCbygrace,
You just don't get it. Because the SBC is so preoccupied with "purity" and their "right" to enforce it , they have completely lost sight of the big picture. Its not enough that these missionaries were approved by the IMB before they were commissioned. Now that the SBC has changed its faith and message, they want the missionaries to approve the change.
They should not have to. Many were hired pre-changes. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game-or do you? If you and the IMB think its ok to change the rules on someone then fire them if they don't agree, that tells me all I need to know about your point of view.
The jerks who have this idea wouldn't know purity if it bit them...and they want to make sure others are pure.
The vehemance with which they force this down other folks throats won't make this claptrap pure.

 

"Preoccupied with purity" ??? Now there's a thought. You speak to this subject like being concerned about doctrinal purity is a negative thing. O contrare -- doctrinal purity is essential to the preservation of the gospel.

I noticed you refused to answer my questions, so I will ask just one of them once more. If it was discovered that a SBC missionary who was approved on the 63BF&M was denying the bodily resurrection of Christ, do you think he should be held accountable?

The SBC is not asking the missionaries to "approve" the changes in the BF&M. What they are doing is a) defining their beliefs & b) asking those who receive the support of the SBC people work in accordance with and not contrary to the defined beliefs. If a missionary cannot do so, he/she needs to find support from a group with whom they agree.

Eg., if I were working for an organization for 15 years and suddenly the organization defined themselves in such a way that I could not agree with them, then I think it would be my moral and ethical obligation to seek a group that reflected my personal beliefs.

The SBC as a whole has the right to define themselves any way the whole decides. They can decide they believe Jesus was a fraud if they so choose (of course that would not happen but just using a hypothetical for an example). As an autonomous entity, they have the right to change, re-write, alter, or obliterate any "rule" they see fit. And you know what else? My local autonomous church and I as a believer have the right to be or not to be a part of any group we desire. It is called autonomy. It is the way the SBC functions. If you disagree with how things are functioning, you have the right to try and change them (just as the conservatives have done). Those who scream autonomy the loudest are often those who balk when the system bites them.

There's some of that Christian love to which you were referring earlier.

BTW, I have never had a single doctrine forced down my throat. I choose with my own volition with what I agree and disagree. Right now I am a SB by choice, but if the time comes I cannot agree with how they define themselves, I will align myself with those whom I agree.

The issues here are not complicated. No one is forcing you to do anything. Yet if you were employed by a group, it is only ethical you work in accordance to and not contrary to the defined belief statement of the whole.

One more point: if there is such an issue here, take it to the people. In the end, the SBC is controlled by the people in the pew. After all, that is how the resurgence took place.

 

Ok, I'll answer your questions. Sure, the SBC has a right to ensure that the missionaries aren't heretics. That's why the have job interviews before the missionaries are hired. I may be mistaken, but doesn't the IMB actually meet the missionary before he is commissioned? I was under the impression that the IMB actually took the time to interview these folks and detrermine what they believed BEFORE they were sent into the field. It seems like if the IMB did this, they would know already if the missionaries were in fact Christians and what they believed.
So now answer my question. Why is it that ensuring doctrinal "purity" is more important than treating our missionaries as Christ would want us to?
I guess you can tell this subject angers me. Rankin and Co are so arrogant they think they know what is "pure" theology. And apparantly, it cannot be determined during the confessional portion of the hiring process, and one's record in the field. It can only be determined by whether or not a person will sign the BF&M (this year's-just and wait and see what you have to sign next), a document created by human hands, with human failings. Its an imperfect statement of the Christian faith. But you had better sign it if you want to keep your job.
Do you think Jesus would require people to sign the BF&M before he commisioned them?

 

The prospective missionary is put through the ringer in that interview. The majority of the folks posting on this site believe that the SBC takes any ole "Tom, Dick, Harry, & Jane" and just throws them into the Congo or down yonder in the Amazon. The Missionary comes from a local SBC church--but when they are appointed they become employees of the SBC IMB! That's why the interviews.

 

That is exactly my point. If the IMB did their job right, then they know what these folks are about before they are commissioned. Requiring them to sign this sheet of paper afterwards is an insult to them. Its so ridiculous it would be a joke if it weren't so un-baptist and wrong.

 

Enough said.

You cannot be suggesting that once the hiring is done that accountability stops. You missed the whole point of my questions. If you recall, the questions were regarding missionaries who were already serving (thus have been thru the process). Anyone familiar with SBC life and church history in general knows that people's view change drastically. Just ask Clark Pinnock. As a matter of fact, he is a prime example. Here is a man who was a leading spokesman for the inerrancy movement and taught such men as Vines and Patterson and yet now I doubt he could teach at any of the SBC seminaries.

My point is that doctrinal accountability must continue even after the missionary is on the field. If a godly missionary decides he believes believer's baptism is wrong, he should stop receiving SBC funds and become a Presbyterian or Methodist.

I would reiterate again that doctrinal purity is not "more important" than treating missionaries properly, but neither must doctrinal accountability by neglected in the name of love.

You are angered by this??? Couldn't tell by your posts

To use your phrase, Rankin & co. do not claim to have a monopoly on pure doctrine, but what they do have the right to do is make sure our missionaries are working in accordance to and not against the defined statement of beliefs of the people they represent. This is the point to which I keep returning but which you continually neglect in your posts.

This issue is not about years of service or what the "rules" were in 1960-70. This is about "how have Southern Baptist defined themselves in 2002?" Whatever the answer is to that question, the leaders have the right to make sure those who receive the support of the SBC people agree with that statement of beliefs.

Whether one agrees with the statement or not, it is still the defining statement of beliefs. Once again, if one cannot work in accordance to the statement, find an organization with which you can agree and work.

Actually I believe that "abandon everything, hate mom & dad, let the dead bury the dead, take up your cross" approach was enough to scare off any imposters.

 

Actually I believe that "abandon everything, hate mom & dad, let the dead bury the dead, take up your cross" approach was enough to scare off any imposters.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]so why dosen't the SBC use that approach instead of the forced signing? Shouldn't he be our guide? Do they think they are better than Jesus? Your answer implies Jesus would not force people to sign it. Then how do you justify it? Why is Jesus wrong and you are right? Cite me an example where Jesus (that is who you and the IMB claim to follow, right?) forced folks to sign anything. I seem to recall that Jesus asked for Peter's personal confession IN HIS OWN WORDS, not a parrotting of what someone else said (which were the wrong answers, by the way).
As for continued accountability, why not another confessional interview like when they were hired? ISN'T THAT WHAT JESUS DID for Peter's accountability?
The SBC/IMB approach is simply un-biblical, un-Christian, and un-baptist.

 

Your reply shows no rationality on this subject matter. Comparing the requirement to sign the BF&M2K with Jesus' method of calling followers is definitely oranges and apples. For one, we are not the omniscient God therefore we have to hold people accountable for what they believe.

No one is suggesting "Jesus is wrong and the IMB is right." What I am saying is that the analogy is problematic.

If I recall, the missionaries have been granted the opportunity to say IN THEIR OWN WORDS where they disagree with the defined beliefs of the SBC.

In a way what the IMB is doing is another confessional interview. I am tired of reiterating the point, but you continue to miss it. The IMB is simply asking its missionaries to adhere to and/or work in accordance with the adopted statement of beliefs of those that support them. If they cannot, they need to explain why or find a group with whom they agree.

Are you saying this is an unreasonable request? Once again, if we set no parameters, there is no way to guarantee doctrinal purity in any area. What would keep one who denounces the resurrection from serving as a missionary? You have the right to disagree with the adopted statement (and subsequently the right to leave the SBC if one desires). Likewise the SBC has the right to set its own parameters.

You are repeatedly missing the point. Deal with these issues.

 

I see nothing wrong with signing a statement requireing doctrinal purity. Again, think about it in terms of being a car salesman. Ford Motors hires you to sell their cars. You convince the customer that Ford is the best car on the road. Ford doesn't want you driving a Chevy in front of the customer.

In the same way, you get hired to be a Southern Baptist missionary. They spend "Boo-kuu" amount of money on your salary and on transportation for you to and fro--the way I got it figured-they don't want to pay you "Southern Baptist" dollars and you go on over to "Tim-buck-to" spreading Assembly of God doctrine!

 

Lets talk about who gave up what. Most of these folks deny themselves contact with their family members (or at least extended family if they take their kids with them) and give up alot in terms of salary and U.S. comforts to live over there. They gave up much of their lives to serve God. So here are these folks, doing the Lord's work, many of them putting their lives and/or health at risk living in some foreign land speaking a foreign language, possibly in a jungle or other run-down place, and most of these folks have been doing this for a number of years.
Then the SBC changes the BF&M, the IMB assures folks that missionaries won't be asked to sign it, then Rankin forces them to or they lose their job. Rankin admits there is no reason to suspect these folks of having contrary beliefs, he just makes them do it anyway.
If this is what the SBC wants to do, they deserve what the get. The problem is, God requires better of us, and it is the missionaries and those who need them that will suffer.

 

Originally posted by SBCbygrace:
You are repeatedly missing the point. Deal with these issues.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I am dealing with it, by pointing out how you have no scriptural support for your position. When you can think of something based on scripture, feel free to post it. When you can't picture Jesus doing what you support, that should tell you something. Deal with that.

[ July 24, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

Based upon your response to blackbird(?) and the one above, I have figured out the problem: you have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do you continue to refuse to answer the question I have asked in almost every post regarding whether one should receive support from an organization with which they disagree?

Can you answer it? Will you answer it?
I am beginning to wonder.

Another simple question that addresses the point you raise above about Christ: should we discount the Apostle's Creed? What about Nicea? What about Chalcedon? I am just trying to follow your logic here.

Also could you point me to that text where Jesus gave a preliminary interview and examined the theology of his followers? After all using your logic, we have to follow the exact model Jesus gave.

Give me a break. Until you are willing to address the primary issues, stop wasting my time.

 

sbcbygrace,
Jesus asked for a personal confession from Peter. So Baptists ask for personal confessions because it follows Jesus. A confessional interview follows this model.
Yeah, the church has had creeds, just like it has had child molesters. But that doesn't mean we have to be proud of them.
You keep demanding that I agree with you-I'm not going to. The missionaries were hired to preach the gospel. The Baptist faith and message is not the gospel. Change it, I don't care, but its not a basis to remove someone.
No, they don't have the right to hire people under one set of rules, change the rules, then force people who don't agree with the rules to leave.
My answer is no.
My answer is no.
The answer to your question is no, they don't have a right to do it.
My answer is no.
I'll be eagerly awaiting your next post that says I did not answer your question (the answer is no, by the way).
Still waiting for your scriptural support for forcing people to sign the BF&M (is the lack of support not telling you anything yet?).

[ July 24, 2002, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]