SBC pulling plug on BWA

Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the BWA is considering the CBF's application for membership. </font>[/QUOTE]It surely does. Of course, BWA's consideration of an organization that came from the SBC and is actively competing with the SBC for funding from SBC churches surely doesn't constitute a loyalty problem by the BWA towards the SBC.

 

Jonathan, regardless of how you portray the changes in the SBC, everyone recognizes that it is a different entity from what it was 30 years ago. What's wrong with the BWA recognizing the organization that speaks for those churches which are no longer well-represented by the SBC? Don't those churches deserve a voice too?

Joshua

 

The BWA is to the SBC as the UN is to the USA.

 

If the CBF wants to be recognized, it should go through the established proper channels that all other "denominations" have to go through. The back-door shenanigans at the BWA over the CBF is a little too shady for me.

Besides, the SBC is pulling money from a bureacracy and putting it into ministry. How is this a bad thing, exactly?

 

Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the BWA is considering the CBF's application for membership. </font>[/QUOTE]The BWA is still getting $300,000.00 too much.

 

I suppose (since you're an SBC pastor) that to you this is a word of judgment on the BWA and the UN. To me it is a word of judgment on the SBC and the USA. The SBC conceit that it is the point of reference, the benchmark, for judging the legitimacy of Baptist faith and practice, when in fact it is not even a majority among USA Baptists, is reminiscent of the United States' willingness to act cooperatively in the UN and other international forums only when its own rather narrowly defined partisan position is reflected in the position of the body in question. If JBC and JBU can both be in BWA, so should CBF be able to enter alongside SBC. BWA does not and should not be the partisan tool of any subgroup of Baptists, not even the Mike Tyson of the bunch.

Haruo

 

I have no problem with the CBF being in the BWA if it leaves the SBC and forms their own denomination.

The SBC is a conservative evangelical Baptist denomination but the CBF and so called Mainstrean crowd are a minority. If they want a voice...then leave and form their own Baptist denomination.

 

And regardless of how one would portray the SBC as it was in 1979, everyone recognizes that, in 1979, it was a different entity than it had been in 1949. Same goes for 1919, 1889, and 1859.

Nothing is wrong the BWA wanting to recognize the CBF. But there is nothing wrong in the SBC in seeing a clear conflict of interest within the BWA when the BWA seeks to recognize the CBF while complaining about reduced funds by the SBC.

If the BWA wanted to take the high ground on this one, they should have demanded that the CBF completely separate itself from the SBC as a prerequisite to being recognized.

 

The CBF is separate.

If you don't happen believe it, what would it take to "separate" CBF from the SBC?

 

But Joshua,

Those Churches do have a voice. It is called the CBF. It is clear to me anyway that the SBC is different, so isn't it time for the CBF to move on. I agree that some of the ways the takeover was handled was wrong, but I also think that the long run is showing it to be a good thing. Of course, only time will tell. Isn't it time to move on?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I suppose (since you're an SBC pastor) that to you this is a word of judgment on the BWA and the UN. To me it is a word of judgment on the SBC and the USA. The SBC conceit that it is the point of reference, the benchmark, for judging the legitimacy of Baptist faith and practice, when in fact it is not even a majority among USA Baptists, is reminiscent of the United States' willingness to act cooperatively in the UN and other international forums only when its own rather narrowly defined partisan position is reflected in the position of the body in question. If JBC and JBU can both be in BWA, so should CBF be able to enter alongside SBC. BWA does not and should not be the partisan tool of any subgroup of Baptists, not even the Mike Tyson of the bunch.

Haruo </font>[/QUOTE]How can you speak so confidently about the SBC when you're obviously not one?

The SBC was getting pretty fed up with the BWA before the CBF deal ever came up. You cannot take people who have opposing doctrinal stances and walk arm in arm without generating friction. The CBF scenario is the latest friction and the one that provided the combustion.

And check your statistics about the SBC numbers in America. I think you'll find that we are still the largest Baptist group/denomination in American and still growing.

 

The CBF is separate.

If you don't happen believe it, what would it take to "separate" CBF from the SBC? </font>[/QUOTE]For starters, CBF folk could stop trying to solicit funds from SBC churches.

 

1.) Churches are autonomous, so the CBF has every right to ask for funds (like any other group) from individual churches.

2.) Can you give me an example of this?

 

The BWA is an inclusive group which embraces churches which hold to anti-Christian doctrine. If the SBC really wants to get back to the Bible it would immediately sever all ties with the BWA. As it is written,

"Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

Mark Osgatharp

 

What “anti-Christian” doctrine and groups are you referring to? Please be very specific. Furthermore, what is the harm in working together for common goals if indeed certain BWA member organizations hold to “anti-Christian” doctrine?

Since you are using this verse as a command from God to disassociate from religious groups that hold to differing interpretations of scripture, how do you justify regularly posting on BaptistBoard when there are obviously so many different points of view (some of them blatantly heretical like those posters who reject the doctrine of the Triune nature of God)? If you can participate in this association without committing sin, why can’t church groups associate together for common goals even if they do not agree on all doctrine?

 

Baptist Believer,

I am not playing your games. You and I both know what modernism is and that it is fully entrenched within the Baptist World Alliance. As a Landmark and fundamental Baptist, I hold modernism in absolute abhorence as a corrupt, infidel, and anti-Christian theology.

When I contend with infidels in this forum I am not having fellowship with them, I am fighting against them. By contrast, the Baptist World Alliance embraces all kinds into one fellowship to work together for common goals. God commanded His children to come out from among all such affiliations.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I have found it interesting and curious the number of people on the Baptist Board that associate entering into dialogue, discussion and debate on a publicly accessible internet forum with being equivalent to entering into cooperation, labor and fellowship with others through a medium such as the Baptist World Alliance. Why the connection?