NOBTS Situation

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
BB, there are MAJOR theological differences that existed.

Theological differences are matters of opinion -- they result from differences in interpretation.

If it was simply opinion, a new statement of faith never would have been drafted. And if it was drafted, no one would have left over it.

The “statement of faith” is also a matter of opinion/interpretation regarding theology.

Folks often pretend that theological issues are not matters of opinion so they can think the worst of those with whom they disagree. As Christians, we should be above that.

 

[Daniel David]

Well, Paul and others used theological truths to even determine if fellowship is possible. Basic matters of theology are not subject to interpretation. On such issues, it is necessary to draw a line and say you will not cross it.

 

[RandR]

Anybody know why BP sent out a second story about the NOBTS board meeting in which they basically apologized for the first story?

I haven't compared the two to note the differences. Has anyone?

 

[TaterTot]

Dr. Kelley has written an eloquent article on this subject that can be found at www.nobts.edu
Click on "The Baptist Way - A Personal Perspective"
Its long, but if you are really into this issue, you might wanna read it!

 

[go2church]

What the EC of the SBC needs is more folks like JGrayhound...willing to do just about anything just cause WE think it is a good idea! New Orleans is doomed for sole membership, regardless what is "voted" In Indiana or what Louisiana law says. Kelly is on his way to Hemphill-like land, here's your money and a new title...now go away! Sad considering the tremendous mission field that New Orleans represents.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Well, Paul and others used theological truths to even determine if fellowship is possible.

Yes.

Basic matters of theology are not subject to interpretation.

Sure they are. One can’t avoid interpretation… Of course, some willingly misinterpret and some accidentally misinterpret the scriptures.

On such issues, it is necessary to draw a line and say you will not cross it.

Yes. That’s why I had to leave the SBC. In my opinion, the 2000 BF&M elevated the Bible to a position more important than Christ. I cannot in good conscience remain in fellowship or support a group that does that.

 

[JGrayhound]

Originally posted by go2church:
What the EC of the SBC needs is more folks like JGrayhound...willing to do just about anything just cause WE think it is a good idea! New Orleans is doomed for sole membership, regardless what is "voted" In Indiana or what Louisiana law says. Kelly is on his way to Hemphill-like land, here's your money and a new title...now go away! Sad considering the tremendous mission field that New Orleans represents.

Blah blah blah

The SBC attorney tried to show them that the Louisiana law excuse doesn't hold water as well.

I have read what Kelley says, and I have read/heard responses to him/it.

The only thing he is left with is a disagreement on what is best for NOBTS. (Autonomy and LA law doesn't hold up.) Ultimately, though, it is the convention's job to make a decision to protect itself, they are in charge of NOBTS in an ultimate sense.

I am not going to go along with everything the EC says blindly...but in this case I believe they are right and have the authority to do what they are.

People, SBC institutions do not have autonomy!!!

 

[RandR]

They're autonomous from each other.
They're autonomous from the EC, Lifeway, Annuity Board, IMB, and NAMB.

That does NOT mean that they don't still answer to the trustees elected by the churches. They do. That does not mean they aren't be responsible to the will of the messengers in Greensboro next year. They will.

Messengers don't elect the EC to run the seminaries. They elect the SEMINARY BOARDS to run the seminaries.

Perhaps the EC would prefer that messenger dissolve all the individual trustee boards and name the EC the "trustees" of each institution...

 

[JGrayhound]

They're autonomous meaning they are seperate but they are not autonomous in the sense that baptist churches are autonomous.
True?

 

[go2church]

It used to true, cooperation is not control. The current SBC leadership can't seem to get that!

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
Well, Paul and others used theological truths to even determine if fellowship is possible.

Yes.

Basic matters of theology are not subject to interpretation.

Sure they are. One can’t avoid interpretation… Of course, some willingly misinterpret and some accidentally misinterpret the scriptures.

On such issues, it is necessary to draw a line and say you will not cross it.

Yes. That’s why I had to leave the SBC. In my opinion, the 2000 BF&M elevated the Bible to a position more important than Christ. I cannot in good conscience remain in fellowship or support a group that does that. </font>[/QUOTE]One thing you're right about BB. It's Your Opinion which is a minority opinion in the SBC.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
…On such issues, it is necessary to draw a line and say you will not cross it.

Yes. That’s why I had to leave the SBC. In my opinion, the 2000 BF&M elevated the Bible to a position more important than Christ. I cannot in good conscience remain in fellowship or support a group that does that. </font>[/QUOTE]One thing you're right about BB. It's Your Opinion which is a minority opinion in the SBC. </font>[/QUOTE]I’m sure my opinion scarcely exists in the SBC. Those who hold my opinion have also already left.

When and if the SBC changes the BF&M to reflect a biblical perspective on Christ and the scriptures and ceases to be so reactionary, strident and unChristian toward those who don’t rubber stamp the “conservative resurgence” (sic), I might encourage our church to strongly support the SBC again.

 

[Hardsheller]

BB - You started off saying you left the SBC over the 2000 BF&M because it elevates the Bible, etc.

Now you have added three more qualifying reasons why you may have left.

So your leaving is not just about theology is it?

 

[RandR]

JGray,

True. They are not autonomous in the same sense as individual churches.

They are responsible to the churches through the seminary trustee boards elected by the messengers sent through the churches. The EC is not a part of the equation.

 

[gb93433]

When I was in seminary I heard an associate pastor and the pastor (who is now a trustee)talk about how important it was to visit one of the first time visitors because he was wealthy. All in the name of Christ of course. The chairman of the trustees at the seminary was later to be found out shacking up with a couple of ladies in his church all in the name of Christian counseling. He was the same person who was part of the conservative resurgence who called Dilday a liberal. I guess we know who the real liberal is now.

Why would the SBC universities have large placards showing those who gave large sums of money to the school. Is that honoring to God to honor someone because of their large contribution. Isn’t that secularism at its finest!

The SBC posts what each church gives and recognize the people who give large gifts to the seminary and SBC. Show me where the Bible supports that kind of nonsense. Too many idols of honor.

How about a case where the local association and the state convention would not say something to the church I was pastoring by allowing a practice they knew about to go on that had been in existence for over 20 years that was right from hell. Any time you have deacons who see nothing wrong with letting the Mormon bishop preach you have serious problems. I also wrote one of the big shots in the conservative resurgence and he did nothing also. I talked with the local association and they tole me they could do nothing, Finally one of the local pastors (not SBC) spoke with some of the deacons. How's that for the SBC claiming to believe the Bible and no guts to stand up for what is right. I was told over and over by SBC leadership to leave that church. But the SBC did nothing to help me. That church should have been disciplined not just take their money and run. While I was there the church grew more than they had ever seen in its 60 year history, mostly by new believers. Now they have a sweet pastor who is a former state worker that they like. But the church isn't growing.

Yes it about theology. It’s about the theology of faith put into practice like James writes. When I wrote one of the former SBC presidents who was one of the leaders in the conservative resurgence I expected to get help. All I got was platitudes.

The SBC has some great pastors who are busy trying to win people to Christ while the leaders sit and shout how they believe the Bible, but when called upon to do something they are out to lunch. Leaders lead. They come forward not just tell people what they ought to do. While I was in that church it was the pastors who encouraged me to stay. But it was the leaders in the SBC who encouraged me to resign.

I thank God for the professors I had in seminary. But did I ever get a surprise when I got out and started mixing with the SBC leaders. While I was in seminary I saw professors who were tired of the whole mess. It’s a good ol’ boy club. Don’t tell me that out of all the people qualified to teach preaching at SWBTS that the finest they could find was one who was the son of a big shot in the SBC whose son had graduated from Pat Robertson’s school at Regent University. What happened to those who graduated from an SBC school.

Why is it that the SBC has now brought in people outside of the SBC and put them on their boards as advisors? They have different theology and are not even Baptist.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:

One thing you're right about BB. It's Your Opinion which is a minority opinion in the SBC. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Does that mean the majority in the SBC are right? You do know that at best only ten percent of the members can give reasons for their faith. It is that same ten percent that share their faith too. So where does that leave the other ninety percent? Ignorant of what they believe. They really don't know their Bible. They let the preacher tell them what to believe and then they compare preachers.
Where do you think so many Mormons come from? The former Mormons Iknow tell me they come from mainly two sources The RCC and SBC.

 

[JGrayhound]

Yeah, the SBC is not where it needs to be in the preparedness of the saints.

But if you think the CBF or some other group is better off you are mistaken. The CBF is not exactly bounding with scholarship, whereas one SBC seminary in particular is head and shoulders above any other baptist school in terms of scholarship and production of theological astute men.
Your beloved moderates/liberals are what destroyed any sort of Biblical aptitude we might have had at this point.
Liberal scholarship in the seminaries translated into death in the pew...that is pretty clear looking back.
As Michael Green says, "Heterodoxy is all very novel in the classroom; it is extremely unsatisfying in the parish."

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
BB - You started off saying you left the SBC over the 2000 BF&M because it elevates the Bible, etc.

Yep. Still say that.

Now you have added three more qualifying reasons why you may have left.

Nope. I added three additional things that I would want to happen before I would consider joining the SBC again. I didn’t like those things (and more) when I was with the SBC, but they didn’t motivate me to leave.

So your leaving is not just about theology is it?

It is not just about theology, but mostly it is.

While I certainly don’t like the way many people in Southern Baptist leadership have acted and don’t like the way a number of folks (several of them I know very well) have been treated (they’ve been lied about and had their names dragged through the mud for political purposes), I stayed with Southern Baptists hoping to be a positive force for change.

When the 2000 Convention adopted the 2000 BF&M and then the leadership spread the lie that those who opposed it had a low view of scripture (the whole “the Bible is just a book” comment that was yanked out of context and distorted), I knew it was time to leave. For the sake of my Christian witness in the world, my conscience will not allow me to support or identify that false teaching.

But in order for me to care about coming back, there needs to be some basic changes:

- Personal integrity in the leadership demonstrated by Christ-like behavior. (If they say they “believe the Bible”, then they should start acting like it and be concerned about telling the truth even if it doesn’t help their agenda.)

- An end to the culture of lies and defamation promoted by the convention leadership and Baptist Press. (Baptist Press has very little integrity in my opinion because of many of the articles they run. Russell Moore’s writings for Baptist Press, in particular, are masterpieces of selective truth-telling designed to lead the SBC faithful to false conclusions about the CBF and BGCT.)

- Apologies and possible reparations to those professors and others who have been fired, threatened or lied about because they did not fit the political agenda. (I know the details of at least four who have been so maligned although I do not have permission to tell most of their stories. I have also personally been threatened.)

 

[gb93433]

When you have the chairman of the trustees shacking up with ladies in their church and men who won't take a stance other than to call someone a liberal. You've got serious problems. Those wimps are practical liberals. They were more concerned about what the world and students might think than what the truth really was. When you have trustees lie about why they fired Dilday you have liars and that makes them practical liberals. They had every right to fire Dilday. But they did not have the right to lie to the press and students about it. They didn't have the right as leaders to endorse convenient theology. I understand some of those "liars" are still there. So you have it; liars leading as trustees at the seminary. How's that as an example that is above reproach? If that's what you want then join the ranks of the SBC liberals who are proud to call themselves by another name--conservative. I do not see them as conservative. How can someone who lies really be counted on to take the Bible seriously? He is more concerned about how he looks before the world rather than what God thinks.

The SBC leadership are practical liberals. They say they believe the Bible but I have yet to see evidence of that.

Certainly there were some liberals. That needed to be taken care of. I can't think of any professors that I had at SWBTS that I would call a liberal.

Did you read the article inside the cover of the most recent Southwestern News? What do you think of that theology?

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:

One thing you're right about BB. It's Your Opinion which is a minority opinion in the SBC. </font>[/QUOTE]Does that mean the majority in the SBC are right? You do know that at best only ten percent of the members can give reasons for their faith. It is that same ten percent that share their faith too. So where does that leave the other ninety percent? Ignorant of what they believe. They really don't know their Bible. They let the preacher tell them what to believe and then they compare preachers.
Where do you think so many Mormons come from? The former Mormons Iknow tell me they come from mainly two sources The RCC and SBC. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Are you still actively involved in a local Southern Baptist Church?