SBC Response to CBF Hiring LGBT administrative Staff

[JonC]

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.

I agree (although I have to admit much is my own suspicion of greed-self interest as a motivation). I guess folk just don't see that log in their own eye.

I can't justify supporting either party. The Democrat platform IS the sins of Roman's. The Republican platform seems to me to be self-serving. I opt out

 

[Rob_BW]

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/

What theologically liberal/moderate positions does he hold to?

I was pretty unimpressed with the complaints about his Apologetic approach to the Muslims.

 

[atpollard]

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

In THIS topic, only by you ...

That said, I also have concerns over the SBC's "position" with the Republican party. While I do not believe one can voice support for the Democrat platform without denying Christ through that agenda, I am concerned that many are substituting Christian political values for Christianity (and ignoring much to fit their faith into a political camp), I don't go to church to attend a GOP convention, but it seems many do.

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.

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 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.

"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.

 

[Aaron]

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?

There ya have it folks. This is what it was about. The accusation that it was about partisan politics is subterfuge.

To touch on the points . . . inspiration vs inerrancy. The inerrancy of the Scriptures rests on their transmission. Did they evolve as asserted by the now debunked Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP), or did the events unfold as described?

It can make one feel real heady to deny the histories and reported authorship of the texts and at the same time assert claim they have faith in them. "The Exodus never really happened, but the account is inspired."

If you understand the Mind of God, please explain that to us.

That's the age old liberal response to any solid biblical exegesis, or 'conservative theology.'

If you believe God revealed His mind, then the explanation is in the Scriptures. But the whole point of JEDP is to wrest authority from the Scriptures and place it into an elitist few who know better how to interpret the Scriptures and to tell us what is real and what is not.

"Creation didn't happen in six days."

"Moses couldn't be the author, there was no writing then."

"Isaiah was written over the course of two hundred years by many contributors."

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.

The Apostle of Grace said, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man."

Submit to the Apostolic authority in this respect, and the issues of homosexuality are moot.

And now, the old liberal chestnut . . .

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.

Really? Neophyte.

Anyway, not going to debate these points, but you see how FTW snip jumped on them. That's what the fight was about.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I agree (although I have to admit much is my own suspicion of greed-self interest as a motivation). I guess folk just don't see that log in their own eye.

I can't justify supporting either party. The Democrat platform IS the sins of Roman's. The Republican platform seems to me to be self-serving. I opt out

I've voted for Presidents from both parties. I vote the candidate not necessarily the party. The problem with just saying all politicians are greedy and should be removed, however, is that's making a statement about our form of government. Abandoning the political process is abandoning the vision of America. I know one good man in Congress, Rep. John Yarmuth of KY. I went to high school with him and his brother was president of my senior class. We need to reduce the impact of "dark money" and lobbyists and return our government to the people. Lincoln had the right idea, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If this dream fails America goes down.

 

[FollowTheWay]

What theologically liberal/moderate positions does he hold to?

I was pretty unimpressed with the complaints about his Apologetic approach to the Muslims.

This should not be about politics as it has been for the last 30 years. The new president is not controlled by they group that has had the SBC in a vise and fired good professors/missionaries for the last 30 years.

 

[FollowTheWay]

In THIS topic, only by you ...

"In THIS topic, only by you" ...Correct. That wasn't what I said.

 

[atpollard]

"In THIS topic, only by you" ...Correct. That wasn't what I said.

I quoted what you said, in context, for all to read and judge for themselves.

 

[FollowTheWay]

There ya have it folks. This is what it was about. The accusation that it was about partisan politics is subterfuge.

To touch on the points . . . inspiration vs inerrancy. The inerrancy of the Scriptures rests on their transmission. Did they evolve as asserted by the now debunked Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP), or did the events unfold as described?

It can make one feel real heady to deny the histories and reported authorship of the texts and at the same time assert claim they have faith in them. "The Exodus never really happened, but the account is inspired."

That's the age old liberal response to any solid biblical exegesis, or 'conservative theology.'

If you believe God revealed His mind, then the explanation is in the Scriptures. But the whole point of JEDP is to wrest authority from the Scriptures and place it into an elitist few who know better how to interpret the Scriptures and to tell us what is real and what is not.

"Creation didn't happen in six days."

"Moses couldn't be the author, there was no writing then."

"Isaiah was written over the course of two hundred years by many contributors."

The Apostle of Grace said, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man."

Submit to the Apostolic authority in this respect, and the issues of homosexuality are moot.

And now, the old liberal chestnut . . .
Really? Neophyte.

Anyway, not going to debate these points, but you see how FTW snip jumped on them. That's what the fight was about.

My comment about "understanding the mind of God" was specific to understanding the roles of predestination, foreknowledge and free will in shaping men's lives and destiny. I personally no longer think the difference between foreknowledge and predestination is important enough to split communities of believers. If you do please explain and don't life my comments out of their context.

 

[Rob_BW]

This should not be about politics as it has been for the last 30 years. The new president is not controlled by they group that has had the SBC in a vise and fired good professors/missionaries for the last 30 years.

You said he was a moderate, what do you consider his moderate positions?

 

[Revmitchell]

You said he was a moderate, what do you consider his moderate positions?

His push for social justice for one.

 

[JonC]

I've voted for Presidents from both parties. I vote the candidate not necessarily the party. The problem with just saying all politicians are greedy and should be removed, however, is that's making a statement about our form of government. Abandoning the political process is abandoning the vision of America. I know one good man in Congress, Rep. John Yarmuth of KY. I went to high school with him and his brother was president of my senior class. We need to reduce the impact of "dark money" and lobbyists and return our government to the people. Lincoln had the right idea, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If this dream fails America goes down.

I don't believe all politicians are greedy. I'm speaking of the parties. I believe that the political parties are more than the candidates that represent the machine. I also believe that the Republican and Democratic parties are two sides of the same coin.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I don't believe all politicians are greedy. I'm speaking of the parties. I believe that the political parties are more than the candidates that represent the machine. I also believe that the Republican and Democratic parties are two sides of the same coin.

We, the people need to regain control of America as our forefathers envisioned. Corporations are not people as current law states. The Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United ase must be overturned to accomplish this. Right now big money rules America.

 

[Revmitchell]

We, the people need to regain control of America as our forefathers envisioned.

Uh you libs have no idea how they envisioned America. government run healthcare is against the founding of this country. I could go on but you get the point.

 

[JonC]

We, the people need to regain control of America as our forefathers envisioned. Corporations are not people as current law states. The Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United ase must be overturned to accomplish this. Right now big money rules America.

Not only that but look at the Federal Government in principle. What our forefathers envisioned was a small federal government serving the needs of larger state governments. No federally regulated education system. No federally regulated welfare system. No federal health care system. No federal interference with the internal aspects of states who govern themselves.

It will never happen. The Republicans claim they want a government as our forefathers envisioned but are (and will always be) unable to provide such a government. The Democrats openly reject the intent of our forefathers and the intent of the Constitution (the Democrat Party is progressive when it comes to the Constitution .... and I'm not sure they are always wrong).

 

[FollowTheWay]

Not only that but look at the Federal Government in principle. What our forefathers envisioned was a small federal government serving the needs of larger state governments. No federally regulated education system. No federally regulated welfare system. No federal health care system. No federal interference with the internal aspects of states who govern themselves.

It will never happen. The Republicans claim they want a government as our forefathers envisioned but are (and will always be) unable to provide such a government. The Democrats openly reject the intent of our forefathers and the intent of the Constitution (the Democrat Party is progressive when it comes to the Constitution .... and I'm not sure they are always wrong).

Reagan talked about reducing the size of government and reducing government spending. he ended up increasing both by a fair amount.

 

[Rebel1]

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).

Could you explain that, Jon?

 

[JonC]

Could you explain that, Jon?

They are adopting the principles of the world (worldly views on gender issues, on the role of Scripture, SSM, etc.).

 

[Revmitchell]

They are adopting the principles of the world (worldly views on gender issues, on the role of Scripture, SSM, etc.).

They have always been extreme liberals.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Supporting women as either pastors/Elders, denying eternal Hell, approvomng of abortiond and gay marriages would be some Liberal viewpoinst!