You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. My own opinion would be that seeking control of the convention so as to keep the seminaries from sinking into theological liberalism is definitely about theology.
-
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!
SBC Response to CBF Hiring LGBT administrative Staff
- Thread starter FollowTheWay
- Start date
Inerrancy is a very difficult topic to define. It does not refer to a literal translation. That's clear. Otherwise if your right eye offends you you should pluck it out. I happen to believe that (as I stated in another reply) the New testament and the second covenant support a full role for women in the church. These were the two primary theological identified by the fundamentalist faction. What do you call theological liberalism? i would include such things as doubting the divinity of Christ and His virgin birth or questioning God's role as creator of the universe. Also questioning the death and resurrection of Jesus as well as the concept of the Trinity. Questioning the existence of Satin or the reality of heaven and Hell. Personally, I do not believe in a 3,000 or 6,000 year old earth. What else would you include?
It was both. The major issue is repeating itself to an extent - and that's how far the Convention started to drift from the churches it represented (expressed largely in the seminary). The SBC was better off (theologically) after the churches that would comprise the CBF left.
Skippy doesn't understand the convention when he/she/it say things like they do. The concern was about the bible and how it was being taught in our seminaries. In order to make that change it was necessary to make changes politically but those politics are how the convention is run. So to say it was about politics and not about theology is absurd. Further the evidence about the motivation of theology is seen in how our seminaries were dealt with. That just cannot be ignored. Skippy just says whatever he/sh/it wants to be true with no evidence to support it.
Some great Seminary professors and missionaries were fired because of this split. My brother was at the SBTS when Mueller came in to be the hatchet man. I disagree with you assessment about the impact of the takeover. The SBC has been declining in membership and I'm afraid will take a major hit after their alliance with Trump.
Okay - call it a power grab - a grab which in part brought conservatives BACK to the seminaries.
I am not looking for agreement or disagreement. While I agree that the SBC has been declining in membership, the comment itself is reflective of a misunderstanding of the issue.
When I say that the SBC was better off, I mean that the SBC was more Christ-like after they fired those in question. Now they have, IMHO, gone the same way as those who were dismissed (even if for different reasons), It was, as you say, a "power grab", but only in that two very different ideologies were struggling for control. It was only inevitable that one would prevail. But that is the past (and, unfortunately, the SBC is not what it was back then).
Look at it through the political lens. Do you believe that a person can be a Christian and support the Democrat platform? Scripture says "no", but what does your heart tell you? That's how things played out back then. There was a group of liberals striving to control the SBC, but the majority of churches were still striving for a biblical basis (based on what they believed to be the inerrant Word...literally). There were many issues and many ways this took shape, but ultimately the dispute was that simple.
The "great" liberals.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Since we are ripping verses out of context to draw meaning, does that mean Paul also supported gender fluidity?
The issues during the CR was not about women's role in the church. It centered around inerrency (which is not complicated nor hard to define) and Genesis. When you do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve then you create a theological crisis with the gospel.
It may not be a decline in membership - rather how many people have joined new churches without canceling membership at their previous church. Could be that the local church is pruning it membership list.
Perhaps. But I believe it is declining. There are so many "non-denominational" churches gaining membership (from my experience, gaining members from SBC churches).
It is important to remember that if the SBC is declining such is not necessarily a negative reflection on its spiritual state. Anyone can draw a crowd....if that were the goal.
Just_Ahead
Active Member
Groan...
Baloney and patently false. The biggies that spilled out into my sphere at the time was the view of Inspiration, Calvinism and Feminsim.
They never left. But the quality of the professors at the SBTS is not as good as it was previously.
Politics and religion should never mix. The reason is from a faith perspective primarily. Which party do you think Jesus would join if He were on Earth today? Making statements like "A Democrat can never be a Christian" is extremely harmful to our Christian outreach. YOU automatically cut the group you can effectively reach with the gospel by making a statement like this one. That's why the SBC is less effective in gaining converts to the Lord. Does that really make you feel good?
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. You're set in your ways. I feel comfortable in sharing what I've done for the Lord at the Last judgement.
Specifically who are you talking about? Dale Moody? He fought against the change to easy-believism expressed in the 1960 BF&M.
My belief is that it means we should reach out to everyone with the gospel regardless of their gender, race, or sexual preference.
I think it is fair to point out that the conservatives wanted to have or regain control of the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention. So in that sense it might be called a "power grab" -- though that is a clearly intended pejorative term -- and it had to be done "politically," that is, by means of garnering enough votes to get people in the proper positions to have "power." To pretend it had nothing to do with theology is either a result of not knowing there were theological differences between liberals/moderates and conservatives/fundamentalists, or of deliberately trying to skew the perception.
I find it interesting that those who talk about the fundamentalist political power grab would seem to have us think that the liberals were just flower children floating on clouds with no interest of political control of the SBC. But many of them took their marbles and left when they lost power, so it obviously did some attraction for them.