News: Birmingham Baptists reject Baptist Faith statement

Agreed. I think we need to get back to Original Sin (or total depravity if you're a fan of Monsieur Cauvin)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

pesky Calvinists.

 

Amazing! With what ease you insert your opinion into a thread dealing with Southern Baptist polity and theology.

Matt, Is there any subject under the Sun that you do not feel duty bound to speak to?

 

Hardsheller, with all due respect I don't understand the reason for the harsh statements you made above. Maybe I'm not seeing the entire picture, but it seems to me that Matt was only agreeing with the position you yourself took on the issue of original sin. So why the bitter response?

 

Sorry, But the first topic in this thread was about Southern Baptists in Birmingham and the BF&M so I must have mistakenly assumed that it would be OK to discuss the SBC's BF&M.

 

Apparently you didn’t check the link. It’s a side-by-side comparison between the texts of the 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. There is not commentary there, just the facts.

If you think that simply presenting two Southern Baptists side-by-side as publishing an “agenda”, then there’s little hope of having an intelligent conversation. </font>[/QUOTE]I hate to burst your bubble; however, I did check the link before I posted my reply. I saw that it was a side-by-side comparison. However, I know the source of that comparison and the agenda behind making the comparison. Besides, I would hope that every Southern Baptist who is interested in this debate would have already read a copy of each document. It has after all been nearly three years since the BF&M 2000 was put into place. My point in posting was an attempt to encourage "Jim" to post his thoughts on the issue.

If anyone posting on this thread is unwilling to admit that the Mainstream group was started with a purpose and driven by an agenda which rejects the inerrancy of the Scripture then you are correct... intelligent conversation is impossible here.

 

Ah yes, facts and information must be irrelevant if they come from someone with whom we disagree...

Once again a faulty standard is raised...

The Mainstream Baptist network grew out of the Texas Baptist Committed group who were resisting the political takeover of the state convention by sympathizers to the SBC's political direction. (If you haven't realized it yet, many BGCT people are inerrantists who recognize the falseness of the "conservative resurgence"(sic).)

Many of us who are involved in Texas Baptist Committed/Mainstream are not "inerrantists" because we believe that the term is not quite honest and also diminishes the authority of the scriptures -- we believe that the Bible was completely reliable when it was written and remains reliable today, while the "inerrantist" position (by definition) believes the original manuscripts were without error and the copies we have have been slightly corrupted - but we've figured out most of the textual problems.

The non-inerrantist position I speak of focuses on the message and teaching of the Bible while the inerrantist position I mentioned focuses on textual issues (error/lack of error).

The most ironic thing about this aspect of the controversy is that the acceptance of the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts is a fairly settled issue with the Texas Baptist Committed/Mainstream crowd while the SBC "inerrantists" are still trying to lynch people whom they think may not completely agree with their lesser view of the texts.

But I guess we can't have an intelligent conversation...

 

I was just trying to help out.Didn't mean to start anything, I don't post much just read and try to learn

 

The oversimplification of the differences between the '63 BFM and the BFM 2K is really funny. Wasn't the improved wording of the statement on Scripture what got the left so up in arms? Of course it was. They conveniently point to women as pastors and "submit" because it's an appeal to emotion, not reasonable thinking. It should also be pointed out that the BFM 2K has received overwhelming support by state conventions, local associations, and local churches. The fringe that has recoiled from it is small indeed.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 6:30 p.m. ET by one of the Moderators. Get your last "comments" in now.

SheEagle9/11
Moderator

 

This line of argument is faulty... The majority can be wrong -- especially when they are prompted and misled by their leaders.

To use an extreme example of this problem, I ask of you:

Who won the popularity contest between Jesus and Barabbas?

(edited for typo)

[ May 04, 2003, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Page three let's close down by first thing in the am may 5th.
Murph

 

As per Murph, it is now closing time.

SheEagle9/11
Moderator