SBC Response to CBF Hiring LGBT administrative Staff

[FollowTheWay]

Baloney and patently false. The biggies that spilled out into my sphere at the time was the view of Inspiration, Calvinism and Feminsim.

Calvinism in my mind is a non-issue. The dispute rests on the difference between predestination and foreknowledge. If you understand the Mind of God, please explain that to us. I do reject the false belief in Limited Atonement. If by Feminism you mean using women to their full potential working to spread the gospel I disagree with you. That's a legalistic perspective based on the Law and the first covenant. We're now in Grace not under the law. I hope you understand that. You're using inspiration as a substitute for the usual word used which is Inerrancy. That again is a very difficult topic and there have been a number of conferences that grappled with it notably the one in Chicago.

Mat 18:9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Have you done this?

 

[FollowTheWay]

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.

Judge Pressler of Texas and Dr. Paige Patterson, recently fired president of SWTS, got together in New Orleans in 1967 to initiate plans for the takeover of the SBC.

Ironically, Pressler is charged with homosexual attacks.

3 men now accuse 87-year-old former Texas judge, Baptist leader of sexual misconduct

3 men now accuse 87-year-old former Texas judge, Baptist leader of sexual misconduct

A former Texas judge and prominent figure in the Southern Baptist Convention with a history of sexual misconduct dating back to the 1970s was still actively harassing younger men as recently as 2016, according to affidavits filed by two new accusers this month in the case against 87-year-old Paul Pressler.

Duane Rollins filed the initial lawsuit against Paul Pressler, 87, in October 2017, accusing his former Bible study teacher of sexually assaulting him several times a month over a period starting in the late 1970s, which became less frequent through the mid-1980s.

One of the former appellate judge’s accusers, Toby Twining, 59, says Pressler led him into a sauna at his ranch, a frequent site of Pressler’s Christian “men’s retreats,” and grabbed his privates.

But the other, Brooks Schott, suggests that Pressler may have been harassing younger men as recently as 2016. Schott, 27, accuses Pressler of inviting him into a hot tub naked with Pressler when he was employed at Pressler’s former law firm.

 

[atpollard]

My belief is that it means we should reach out to everyone with the gospel regardless of their gender, race, or sexual preference.

Then why did you use it to support Female Clergy? Were Jesus and Peter and Paul unable to reach any women with the Gospel?

From another topic:

Complementarianism

WE AFFIRM that God created mankind both male and female with inherent biological and personal distinctions between them and that these created differences are good, proper, and beautiful. Though there is no difference between men and women before God’s law or as recipients of his saving grace, we affirm that God has designed men and women with distinct traits and to fulfill distinct roles. These differences are most clearly defined in marriage and the church, but are not irrelevant in other spheres of life. In marriage the husband is to lead, love, and safeguard his wife and the wife is to respect and be submissive to her husband in all things lawful. In the church, qualified men alone are to lead as pastors/elders/bishops and preach to and teach the whole congregation. We further affirm that the image of God is expressed most fully and beautifully in human society when men and women walk in obedience to their God-ordained roles and serve according to their God-given gifts.

WE DENY that the God-ordained differences in men’s and women’s roles disparage the inherent spiritual worth or value of one over the other, nor do those differences in any way inhibit either men or women from flourishing for the glory of God.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 1:26–28, 2:15-25, 3:1-24; EPHESIANS 5:22-33; 1 CORINTHIANS 11:7-9; 1 TIMOTHY 2:12-14; TITUS 2

 

[atpollard]

I feel comfortable in sharing what I've done for the Lord at the Last judgement.

Ironically, Pressler is charged with homosexual attacks.

[Proverbs 20:19 NASB] 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip.

[2 Corinthians 12:20 NASB] 20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps [there will be] strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances;

 

[rlvaughn]

Judge Pressler of Texas and Dr. Paige Patterson, recently fired president of SWTS, got together in New Orleans in 1967 to initiate plans for the takeover of the SBC.

Ironically, Pressler is charged with homosexual attacks.

I accept the 1967 date without looking back to check. Patterson gone from Southwestern, yes. Pressler accused, yes, which may or may not turn out to be true, but even so these things do not discredit the thousands of sincere Southern Baptists who thought their convention was going in the wrong theological direction and wanted to stop the drift and used their votes to do so.

 

[Rob_BW]

I'm trying to juxtapose the claim of power grab against the makeup of the convention.

If the majority of the congregations were against liberal theology, and they must have since they had enough votes for a takeover, then why didn't the previous leadership represent the members?

 

[JonC]

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.

Politics should reflect our religion. Jesus is here, on earth today, in His Church. I suspect he would tell Christian's they can't serve two masters.

It does not matter if I agree or disagree with you. I am not the standard.

 

[Rhetorician]

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Unfortunately they are becoming an amalgamation of church and world (not that the SBC isn't, but the CBF is a little farther down the path).

Dear Bro. JonC,

Is this an accusation that the SBC is becoming "an amalgamation of church and world?"

If so sir, please put forth some proof. I know that your proof is seen through your perspective so please examine that too if you can dear brother. You are loved although we may not agree on your prejudices. But then again I have my own!! LOL! What concerns me is the prejudices I know even know about myself.

Get back to me when possible.

sdg!

rd

 

[Rhetorician]

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?

Dear Brother,

I think not, that "Inerrancy is a very difficult topic to define!" Have ye not read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? Seems to do a fair job of defining it. Then again you may not agree with the statement. Your choice?

sdg!

rd

 

[Jerome]

Have ye not read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?

As if inerrancy is the most important word about Scripture?
Isn't inerrant a red flag term? Wouldn't it be preferable to understand the Bible as 'truthful' / 'authoritative' / 'both a divine and human book'?

 

[rlvaughn]

In case anyone is looking for it:
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

 

[FollowTheWay]

Then why did you use it to support Female Clergy? Were Jesus and Peter and Paul unable to reach any women with the Gospel?

From another topic:

Nonsensical. i quoted the Bible to support the role of women. ????

 

[FollowTheWay]

[Proverbs 20:19 NASB] 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip.

[2 Corinthians 12:20 NASB] 20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps [there will be] strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances;

I'm talking about charges that will be pursued in American courts. Do you accept our form of justice/

 

[FollowTheWay]

I'm trying to juxtapose the claim of power grab against the makeup of the convention.

If the majority of the congregations were against liberal theology, and they must have since they had enough votes for a takeover, then why didn't the previous leadership represent the members?

well, at this point a change of direction seems to be taking place. A moderate was elected president of the SBC for the first time in 30 years. I assume by your statement and especially since the vote wasn't even close that you accept the will of SBC churches and will follow it. correct/

 

[FollowTheWay]

Politics should reflect our religion. Jesus is here, on earth today, in His Church. I suspect he would tell Christian's they can't serve two masters.

It does not matter if I agree or disagree with you. I am not the standard.

I would agree that Christ's perspective would be that we need to serve him and not a political party as lord. I believe that we should speak out on moral issues but never associate the faith with any political party or candidate. Statement like "Democrats can't be Christians" are not in line with the true gospel.

 

[JonC]

Dear Bro. JonC,

Is this an accusation that the SBC is becoming "an amalgamation of church and world?"

If so sir, please put forth some proof. I know that your proof is seen through your perspective so please examine that too if you can dear brother. You are loved although we may not agree on your prejudices. But then again I have my own!! LOL! What concerns me is the prejudices I know even know about myself.

Get back to me when possible.

sdg!

rd

No, brother, it is not as accusation the SBC is becoming so. I believe the SBC has always been (to some extent) an amalgamation of church and world as it is not the church.

As evidence of what I view as an increasingly worldliness, I'd offer its treatment of Patterson and the "me too movement". Perhaps this is just a coincidence (I actually think it a bit past time for Patterson to step down), but it seems odd to my suspicious mind that the issue corresponds with the worldly ideas expressed in the movement (not that the church should ignore issues). Perhaps I could ignore this if it was not the resolutions on immigration that also followed suit. Or the resolution of the dignity of women, or on abuse, or on renouncing the heresy called the "curse of Ham" as justification for racism. Or in 2017 the resolution on defunding planned parenthood (which I'd agree with), and on the anti-gospel of alt-right white supremacy. Or even the SBC declaration that Christians should not fly the rebel flag (I could not care less). I also believe that support for Beth More as president of the SBC was political and reactionary.

Do you know what all of these have in common? Every one of these resolutions are reactionary - not to an event but to the world's reaction to an event. As such, I believe it nothing more than political maneuvering. What the SBC should be doing is taking BIBLICAL stances out front.

If flying the rebel flag is a sin then the SBC should have come out long ago and said so....not waited for the political bandwagon. Same with abuse, racism, planned parenthood, etc.

I hope this helps (and, for the record, my church membership is at a SBC church. I've moved and am looking for another, but this was a very godly church....I'm not bashing SBC churches in any way).

 

[JonC]

I would agree that Christ's perspective would be that we need to serve him and not a political party as lord. I believe that we should speak out on moral issues but never associate the faith with any political party or candidate. Statement like "Democrats can't be Christians" are not in line with the true gospel.

I agree. It is one thing to say that the democrat platform is evil and another all together to say that Democrats can't be Christians.

 

[atpollard]

You are dishonest in your conversation.

Nonsensical. i quoted the Bible to support the role of women. ????

Yes, you did.

I'm talking about charges that will be pursued in American courts. Do you accept our form of justice/

My acceptance of our form of justice is irrelevant. You are repeating slanderous gossip about a Christian brother for no purpose but to discredit him because you disagree with his theology. I should not need to tell you that is wrong. Jesus already did many times.

Statement like "Democrats can't be Christians" are not in line with the true gospel.

"Democrats cannot be Christians" was said by no one except you. The message was no Christian can support the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-deviancy, pro-injustice platform that the Democratic party has currently embraced.

Time to shake the dust off and leave you.
Whatever "Way" you are "Following", I want no part of it if it is based on denying what you said, gossiping about people you disagree with, and embracing abortion and the LGBT agenda.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I agree. It is one thing to say that the democrat platform is evil and another all together to say that Democrats can't be Christians.

Of course, there are elements of the Republican platform that are evil as well especially those which would take away necessary support from the needy.

 

[FollowTheWay]

You are dishonest in your conversation.

Yes, you did.


My acceptance of our form of justice is irrelevant. You are repeating slanderous gossip about a Christian brother for no purpose but to discredit him because you disagree with his theology. I should not need to tell you that is wrong. Jesus already did many times.


"Democrats cannot be Christians" was said by no one except you. The message was no Christian can support the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-deviancy, pro-injustice platform that the Democratic party has currently embraced.

Time to shake the dust off and leave you.
Whatever "Way" you are "Following", I want no part of it if it is based on denying what you said, gossiping about people you disagree with, and embracing abortion and the LGBT agenda.

I disagree. Many times here the Christianity of democrats has been denied.