In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does"
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
Opinion: A Christian and a conservative
- Thread starter gb93433
- Start date
In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does"
In one sense yes and in another no. God is sovereign. He is the one that humbles and exalts a nation.
Wow. Too stupid to see the truth, eh ? Insuts are all you have.
And to GB, no, turning the table over was not radical. Turning the temple into a den of thieves was.Self sacrifice wasn't radical, it was obediant. Christ came here and obeyed his father, in every facet of his existance. He fulfilled a promise. Radical is rejecting it. Radical is saying we evolved from monkeys. Radical is saying a fetus isn't human. Radical is painting an obediant, submissive savior as some ill-behaved hippie.
I'm not saying that Christians should live dual lives. They should live their Christian faith every day as followers of Jesus. this will affect how their work, their family life, their interactions with people on the street, and their political decisions.
All I'm saying is that making America a "Christian nation" has nothing to do with evangelism or furthering Christ's church. Those who think it does are deluding themselves and misrepresenting the Christian faith to everyone they make this claim to.
There has never been a "Christian nation" in all of history. Israel was the only nation that the Bible teaches had God's special favor. There's nothing that supports the claim that America has picked up the mantle from Israel as God's favored nation.
There is one perfect Christen nation operating in the world today. That's the Kingdom of God on Earth. Trying to make America seem to be The Kingdom of God is a serious misrepresentation of the gospel. America is a kingdom of this world. A great one. But in no way should it be confused with the Kingdom of God.
Jesus taught us that we should render unto Caesar (America) that which is Caesar's (America's). We are in this world but must not be of this world.
Strawman alert!
You consider the Kingdom of God a strawman?
Harold Garvey
New Member
Oh really? So you mean God wanted the Bible out of the schools so society would degrade to chaos and countless souls die and go to hell as a result?
You've got a very warped view of the Sovereignty of God, y'know!
I'd be careful not to confuse the god of this world and the Sovereign God of the Creation.:tonofbricks:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Another view of Mr. Carter:
Jimmy, We Hardly Knew Ye:
Carter Renounces the*SBC
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
*Jimmy Carter’s flamboyant departure from the Southern Baptist Convention drew the headlines away from the presidential election—if just for a moment. George Bush and Al Gore took a temporary back seat to America’s most hyperactive ex-president as Carter railed against the SBC and announced that he is no longer identifying with America’s largest evangelical denomination.
"I have finally decided that, after 65 years, I can no longer be associated with the Southern Baptist Convention," Carter explained. His announcement came in the form of a letter to be mailed to over 75,000 fellow Baptists on the mailing list of "Texas Baptists Committed," an activist group opposed to the conservative leadership of the SBC. Mr. Carter further explained that he feels "excluded by the adoption of policies and an increasingly rigid SBC creed."
Given the attention drawn by the announcement, one might be forgiven for assuming that the former president has been deeply involved in the SBC in recent years. The fact is, however, that Mr. Carter has been estranged from the SBC for two decades.
The smiling Georgia governor was elected President of the United States in 1976 with the overwhelming support of American evangelicals. Mr. Carter singlehandedly made "born again" a part of the nation’s popular language, and he became the nation’s most famous Sunday School teacher.
Nevertheless, evangelicals in general, and Southern Baptists in particular, abandoned Mr. Carter in his re-election bid just four years later. Once in office, President Carter proved to be a liberal on social issues such as abortion, appointing Sarah Weddington, the lead attorney from the infamous Roe v Wade case, as assistant to the president.
Evangelicals were baffled by the Carter presidency, and Southern Baptists were embarrassed. How could a man who claimed to be a "born again Christian" and who set a model for active churchmanship associate himself with the social revolutionaries advocating the redefinition of the family, abortion on demand, liberal sex education, and the Equal Rights Amendment?
The breaking point came with the 1979 White House Conference on Families, a landmark in the developing culture war. For evangelicals and other social conservatives, the conference, dominated by a liberal agenda, became a flash point of outrage.
Now, Mr. Carter is taking his aim at the Southern Baptist Convention. Over the past twenty years, the convention has experienced a transformation under conservative leadership. Grassroots Southern Baptists expressed their outrage at the increasing liberalism within the denomination by purging its moderate leadership and putting conservatives solidly in charge.
Eventually, Mr. Carter’s liberal allies in the SBC joined him out of office. The former president blamed the SBC’s conservative leadership, in part, for his election defeat. Over the past two decades, the SBC has taken clear stands in opposition to abortion, in support of the nuclear family, and against the homosexual agenda. For Mr. Carter, this is too much.
In a sense, Mr. Carter’s recent statements concerning the SBC should be seen as a pay-back for the 1980 election. Though the media gave his attack front-page priority, the announcement was not even news. President Carter’s estrangement from the SBC is over two decades old, and his departure from the SBC was announced seven years ago, when Mr. Carter appeared before the 1993 meeting of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship—a liberal group of churches disaffected from the SBC. "In the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship my wife and I found a home," Carter announced. "I pray that as Rosalynn and I cast our lot with this fellowship for the rest of our lives, we can be part of a transcendent movement." Mr. Carter’s most recent statement will surprise only those who have not been paying attention.
The former president claims that his decision to break with the SBC came after the convention’s adoption of a newly-revised statement of faith, the "Baptist Faith and Message," this past June. Messengers to the convention enthusiastically adopted the revisions, which put the cherished principles of the conservative resurgence right in the confession of faith.
For Mr. Carter, this was the last straw. In his letter, he stated that some of the provisions "violate the basic premises of my Christian faith." He drew particular attention to the fact that the statement limits the office of pastor to men "as qualified by Scripture." In limiting the office of pastor to men, the convention was doing nothing more than identifying with the vast majority of Christians around the world. Carter, whose pastor is a man, rejects this limitation.
In fact, he blames the biblical restriction on the human authors of Scripture, who were "fallible human beings who shared the knowledge and beliefs of their times." In this statement, Mr. Carter draws attention to the theological chasm that separates him from the SBC. The issue that brought the conservative movement to leadership in the SBC was biblical inerrancy. Arguments like those offered by Mr. Carter were precisely those rejected by the convention.
Mr. Carter’s curious blend of liberal theology and liberal positions on moral issues sets him far apart from the SBC--and this is no recent development. The former president has supported the cause of gay rights, and co-chaired a Human Rights Campaign effort in Georgia. The Southern Baptist Convention refuses to compromise the Bible’s clear teaching that homosexuality is sinful. The SBC champions biblical inerrancy, affirming that Scripture is truth "without any mixture of error." Mr. Carter has recently admitted to doubting the validity of some biblical miracles. "But I now believe that, even if some of the more dramatic miracles recounted in the Gospels could be untrue, my faith in [Christ] would still be equally precious and unshaken."
Unshaken? Southern Baptists have spoken clearly. Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. Severed from that confidence, it is a short step to discounting the Bible’s teaching in favor of a relativistic consensus based in modern thinking. We can simply dispense with awkward teachings as the unfortunate legacy of "fallible human beings."
When citing theologians, Mr. Carter likes to mention Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich—hardly evangelicals. Indeed, Tillich, one of the most notorious figures in 20 th century theology, did not even believe in a personal God.
Mr. Carter has also moved toward some form of inclusivism in salvation. In a 1996 interview with The New York Times , he said "I cannot imagine an innocent person being deprived of God’s eternal blessing because they don’t have a chance to accept Christ." Mr. Carter has been critical of Southern Baptist witnessing efforts to Jews and Mormons and is seemingly open to salvation through other religions. Once again, he is in direct conflict with the convictions of Southern Baptists.
The timing of the Carter announcement was no accident. Mr. Carter has acknowledged his hope that his letter will have maximum impact on behalf of those seeking to lead churches out of the SBC, and into the CBF. He has taken aim at the plans of the Georgia Baptist Convention to adopt the 2000 "Baptist Faith and Message" as their own confession of faith.
Looming behind this effort is the Baptist General Convention of Texas. The leadership of the Texas convention is opposed to the SBC and is seeking to sever its historic relationship with the national convention in its meeting later this month. The BGCT will attempt to break the Cooperative Program and defund the SBC’s six seminaries, executive committee, and ethics agency.
Carter’s letter is being mailed by the Texas Baptists Committed group, along with a tape by Charles Wade, the BGCT executive director. The effort puts Mr. Carter, out of office now for almost twenty years, back in campaign mode.
In the end, Mr. Carter’s theatrical denunciation of the SBC makes a powerful symbolic statement. He places himself squarely with those who champion the very positions the SBC has rejected, and dares to call these "the traditional beliefs that, for generations, have sustained our ancestors and us in a spirit of unity and cooperation."
In the years of his forced retirement from the presidency, Mr. and Mrs. Carter have done much good. They have built houses for the poor, helped to eradicate disease in Africa, and worked for peace. It is no small tragedy that he should end his life in opposition to the Southern Baptist Convention. Those who would champion the former president as a model of moderate hostility to the SBC do him—and themselves—no service.
Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
Do you believe that the will of the people should be in line with the will of God?
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
Perhaps we are not communicating very well. My point of view is from the world not that of a Christian. Radical Christianity is very much in contrast to the things of the natural man. In Christianity worshipping Christ is at the center. At the center of man is self. Christ gave himself so that man might live. Man did nothing for another.
Ungodly human behavior is normal and natural for the natural man. Christ is not the natural man. Christianity is supernatural and from God. Therefore it is radical. If Christ did not institute repentance and change then he was no radical. He was a natural man then. But He is God and he wants one to repent not be like the natural man who does not accept the things of God. You do not think that dying to self is radical but natural? Love is natural and not radical?
Repentance was commanded before Christ came to Earth. He did not come to change anything, rather to fulfill it.
Individuals don't go to hell because of the type of country they live in. They go to hell because they reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. This is exactly the kind of thinking that I think the "America is a Christian nation" advocates tend to support and also exactly why I think they have been so destructive to Christ's church.
Is Christianity limited to a particular cultural setting? Have you actually kept up where it is that the church is growing the most?
Think for a moment when Jesus was alive and the conditions He and His disciples faced. Was God sovereign then?
There are incredible moves of God today in some of the more liberal parts of our country. I know the pastor of a church that began with one church in 1999. Ten years later they have planted 30 new churches. Recently they went to one small town and had 20 show up the first week and 80 the next week. That story was been repeated many times before.
Harold Garvey
New Member
have you been smoking something?
Harold Garvey
New Member
You must be on another wavelength here.
Sometimes I can't believe the things people post here. Do you actually disagree with my statement that people go to hell because they reject Jesus Christ?
If you think you're saved because "America is a Christian nation" I'd suggest a rethinking of your philosophy.
Harold Garvey
New Member
Just where have you EVER gotten that opinion!?
Do you actually think I would disagree with the Gospel?