Sodomites and Baptists

[J.R.Maddox]

This thread was not meant for all the SBC folks to bicker about politics. But, hey: if the SBC embraces sodomy, what will y'all do about it?

WHo in the world is bickering about politics? The premise tha was made had to do with how theological SBC leadership had to be

and as far as the SBC "embracing" sodomy...thats the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time...but like the brother before said...I would leave

what makes you think that the SBC is going to embrace sodomy?

j

 

[bapmom]

I thought the OP was about all Baptists in general.

That was what my reply was based on, not the SBC.

I do think that we are too close to accepting it as an "alternative lifestyle" within Christianity. Look at some of the posts on our own forum board down in the "Other Denominations" area. I even see some baptists who have made me wonder what they are thinking.

I don't think we can just sit back and think it won't happen to us. However, this is just one more reason I don't agree with organizations like SBC or other Associations. If the SBC convention leadership decided that they'd accept homosexuality as norm, and I was in an SBC church, I'd have to leave.....I'd hope that my church would leave, too. But it would cause so much heartache and disruption just to the local church body.
As independents we can disagree without the need to go through a huge controversy over severing ties (within the local body.)

 

[rbell]

The SBC on the whole is absolutely nowhere near "embracing sodomy."

That assertion is baseless.

 

[J.R.Maddox]

The SBC on the whole is absolutely nowhere near "embracing sodomy."That assertion is baseless.

THANK YOU! This is my point exactly...and the election of "Theolgians" is not needed to insure this. The SBC is a Convention of independent local church's cooperating in mission endeavors...the convention does not speak for the local church or believer for that matter.

J

 

[Revmitchell]

I am surprised that the character and qualifications of Dr. Hunt are being questioned because "He is popular". www.oneplace .com is a good place to listen to his sermons for free. I have personally heard him speak on several occasions and he is solid not weak. He is not an apostate preacher, but a fearless minister of the word of God. Maybe we should be quick to listen and slow, much slower to speak.

 

[J.R.Maddox]

I am surprised that the character and qualifications of Dr. Hunt are being questioned because "He is popular". www.oneplace .com is a good place to listen to his sermons for free. I have personally heard him speak on several occasions and he is solid not weak. He is not an apostate preacher, but a fearless minister of the word of God. Maybe we should be quick to listen and slow, much slower to speak.

How dare you insult the intelligence and call into question the discernment of many of the posters on this board...they will be highly offended!!! Don't you know that Dr. Hunt has said some things which call into question their unmoving and solid understanding of their oppinion of the Word of God...HOW DARE HE!

Seriously...your right on target and I could not agree more....but get ready, because you might get blasted by the intelligencia!

J

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Your question is irrelevant to this thread.

Joseph Botwinick

The talk about the SBC and the qualifications for president and the arminian/calvinism debate are irrelevant to this thread also. What was the OP's subject again??? Hmmmmmm and huh???

 

[Rubato 1]

Originally posted by J.R.Maddox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> This thread was not meant for all the SBC folks to bicker about politics. But, hey: if the SBC embraces sodomy, what will y'all do about it?

WHo in the world is bickering about politics? The premise tha was made had to do with how theological SBC leadership had to be

and as far as the SBC "embracing" sodomy...thats the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time...but like the brother before said...I would leave

what makes you think that the SBC is going to embrace sodomy?

j </font>[/QUOTE]A general thread topic does not degenerate from "Baptists and Sodomites" to "Who is going to be the nextSBC presidents w/o politics being involved. Hello.

No one made "an assertion" that SBC would embrace sodomy, people.

However, no one 50 years ago thought the SBC would one day embrace worldly music, ditch dress standards, or debate women in the pulpit, either.

 

[rbell]

Righto, Rubato, we should head back to extra-biblical legalism regarding music and dress. That'll solve everything.

(Turns up his David Crowder Band "I Saw the Light" and "No One Like You")

 

[Rubato 1]

Point proven.

Look up two words and get back to me: Modesty, Legalism.

Never mind: Legalism: adding to salvation, i.e. adding works to faith e.g. Mormons, JW's, and the other cults or denominations. It has nothing to do with living right while on earth and a child of God. Anyone who accuses Bible-beleivers of legalism because of how they believe we ought to dress does so out of convition and self-defense. It does not approach legalism. Look it up. In a book more than 25 years old.

Modesty: to "put down that which is aroused." A man may like the clingy, tight clothes of today, or even the men's apparel on women, but he cannot justify it. It is not legalism, it is a command of God that many prefer to ignore, re-define, or justify.
Can you argue with Biblical terms? Or are artificial, changeable words like "Legalism" your only defense?

 

[rbell]

Rubato,

I do not argue against "Biblical terms." I argue against folks such as you who equate the "sin" of contemporary music (musical style is NOT addressed in the scriptures), with the sin of homosexuality--which is universally condemned in the scriptures.

I also have a great problem with someone who villifies an entire denomination "ditching dress standards." Friend, we have a standard at my church...but it is not dictated to us by the SBC. And it's wrong to insinuate that simply because I don't favor a convention-wide edict on the proper length of inseams, that somehow I enjoy watching half-nude women prance around, or get my jollies watching men dress as ladies.

"Legalism" is not an artificial term. Jesus had a great amount of problem with the Pharisees and their legalism. He was quite harsh at times to them because of it.

But your post--linking musical styles and (an imputed) dress standard with an embracing of homosexuality is ridiculous.

Come see what God is doing at our church--He is blessing us almost beyond belief. I rest easy at night knowing that, although I am not perfect by any means, I am leading our students in the way He would have me do so.

(end of rant...sorry to hijack)

 

[Rubato 1]

Anyway, I guess that's the end of this thread! That's all, folks! Where's Porky? Porky?

 

[J.R.Maddox]

A general thread topic does not degenerate from "Baptists and Sodomites" to "Who is going to be the nextSBC presidents w/o politics being involved. Hello.

Bro...you don't have a clue to what your talking about. First of all my posts were directed towards arrogance and the defense of a Christian Brother who's integrity in the pulpit was being attacked by someone who admittedly had not hardly ever heard him preach.

How you get politics from that will remain a mystery...as far as your comments about Mormons, tight clothes and arousal...man...I am going to leave that alone…

Again, I am new to this board but one thing this thread has taught me...there are a lot of really uptight, strange and somewhat frustrated brethren that gather here

J

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by J.R.Maddox:
Again, I am new to this board but one thing this thread has taught me...there are a lot of really uptight, strange and somewhat frustrated brethren that gather here

Well, I agree with you on that, but I think that we probably differ in that I place you in that category.

 

[J.R.Maddox]

In other words "Physician, Heal thyself!" LOL!!!!

You may have a point! hehehehe

J

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by rbell:
Righto, Rubato, we should head back to extra-biblical legalism regarding music and dress. That'll solve everything.

(Turns up his David Crowder Band "I Saw the Light" and "No One Like You")

So, having standards and convictions is legalism? Don't think so, rbell. But, the lack of them could be called liberalism and a departure from that which is good and acceptable to use what was once held as sin as a tool to 'reach the lost'. Again, Don't think so. And, if you want to call it legalism, then I guess I'll have to once again wear the term legalist.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Revmitchell:
I am surprised that the character and qualifications of Dr. Hunt are being questioned because "He is popular". www.oneplace .com is a good place to listen to his sermons for free. I have personally heard him speak on several occasions and he is solid not weak. He is not an apostate preacher, but a fearless minister of the word of God. Maybe we should be quick to listen and slow, much slower to speak.

Amen, Amen!

I have heard Dr. Johnny Hunt preach in chapel here at SEBTS numerous times. He can really "shuck the corn" (that means preach up a storm for all you non-southerners out there). He is solid in his proclaimation of the gospel and his theology.

 

[rbell]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rbell:
Righto, Rubato, we should head back to extra-biblical legalism regarding music and dress. That'll solve everything.

(Turns up his David Crowder Band "I Saw the Light" and "No One Like You")

So, having standards and convictions is legalism? Don't think so, rbell. But, the lack of them could be called liberalism and a departure from that which is good and acceptable to use what was once held as sin as a tool to 'reach the lost'. Again, Don't think so. And, if you want to call it legalism, then I guess I'll have to once again wear the term legalist. </font>[/QUOTE]You misunderstood my point...if you'll re-read my replies you will note that (I used dress as an example) I do have standards. They are biblically informed. But I was replying to a post that intimated that by not having a strict, legalistic, convention-wide policy in the SBC, that we were heading straight into embracing the gay agenda. I simply objected to two things:
(1) It ain't the SBC's job to dictate dress and music standards.
(2) Don't lump all your pet concerns together and claim they are on equal biblical footing. The Bible does discuss the morality of dress. It does not discuss the morality of musical style.

Anyway back to the topic at hand: I can't think of a single SBC leader--even those on the periphery of SBC life--that embraces an acceptance of homosexuality.

 

[bapmom]

The problem is not the leadership of any one convention or association at this point. The problem is the growing numbers of NON-leaders who are within our ranks right now and are accepting homosexuality, while still calling themselves Baptists. They're raising their kids to think this way, too. Eventually ya have to think it'll have an effect on Baptists as a whole, unless there are groups willing to stand up and still declare the truth.

 

[rbell]

Bapmom, I still think there are very, very, very few SBC folks that accept the homosexual agenda.

The kids who have grown tolerant of the gay agenda are NOT being taught. That is the problem. Parents aren't couneracting the messages fed to them by the media, etc. But I hear tons of SBC folks standing up and talking about this problem.

There are a very small number of former SBC folks now affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship who embrace the gay agenda (the numbers aren't large, even in that bunch).

Of course the gay agenda is a huge problem in our country. But I don't think acceptance of it is a huge problem in Baptist circles.

I realize I keep going back to SBC, and that limits the scope. Forgive me...it's the only bunch I feel like I know well enough to comment on.