What Kind of Baptist Are you?

[JacobHall86]

Since we cant seem to agree on things inside of accepted Baptist Doctrine, I figured this thread would be needed, that way we could atleast see where others stand on Baptist Doctrines. Atleast a littl bit.

Notice there is not "Not Baptist" Option. That means its only for Baptists. If you are not a Baptist please dont vote, or even post. This is not for debate or fellowship simply to see who aligns themselves with what.

I am a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.

[HumbleMan]

I'm a member of an SBC church.

[edb19]

reformed (in large part due to my presbyterian upbringing)

[DeaconDean]

To use an old cleache (or however it is spelled):

"Southern Baptist born and bred, Southern Baptist till I'm dead."

God Bless

Till all are one.

[arunma]

I am Reformed Baptist. My church is affiliated with the Baptist General Conference, but I'm told that most BGC churches are not Reformed.

BTW, in case you were wondering Dean, the word you're looking for is "cliché."

[Seeker of the Truth]

i worked at the Southern Baptist Convention Center in Georgia one time fixing pipe and let me say, that place is beautiful, absolutly beautiful..especially the paintings...WOW... i guess you can have that when you get tithes from all southern baptist churches...

[JacobHall86]

Yea, the SBC place here is pretty nice.

[arunma]

i worked at the Southern Baptist Convention Center in Georgia one time fixing pipe and let me say, that place is beautiful, absolutly beautiful..especially the paintings...WOW... i guess you can have that when you get tithes from all southern baptist churches...

My church doesn't have any paintings... :cry:

[DeaconDean]

I am Reformed Baptist. My church is affiliated with the Baptist General Conference, but I'm told that most BGC churches are not Reformed.

BTW, in case you were wondering Dean, the word you're looking for is "cliché."


Thank you brother. I never was any good at spelling or grammer. Good thing I got you looking over my shoulder. God Bless you brother.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Flynmonkie]

I am a member of the SBC, however, I do not agree with all of its practices. Not anything essential to membership, nor salvation.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

[Atlantians]

Im a non-denominatibapticostamental with charismatic tendencies myself.

[Ringo84]

I'm a member of an SBC church, but I'm a liberal. I want nothing to do with the SBC and their fundamentalist take-over. The people in the SBC now are..... well, let's just say that I don't have much love for Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, or the rest of 'em.
Ringo

[aReformedPatriot]

I'm a member of an SBC church, but I'm a liberal. I want nothing to do with the SBC and their fundamentalist take-over. The people in the SBC now are..... well, let's just say that I don't have much love for Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, or the rest of 'em.
Ringo

What makes you a liberal? What do you reject that the conservatives accept? (and why don't you leave if you want nothing to do with them)

I am SBC/Reformed

[aReformedPatriot]

Im a non-denominatibapticostamental with charismatic tendencies myself.

so you really dont know what you are do you. :sorry:

[JacobHall86]

Im a non-denominatibapticostamental with charismatic tendencies myself.

So your not Baptist.

[HypoTypoSis]

Standing for everything is as bad as standing for nothing for in the end you fall for anything.

[JacobHall86]

Standing for everything is as bad as standing for nothing for in the end you fall for anything.

Actually, I disagree. Standing for everything, if you dont beleive it, is wrong.

I beleive the SBC, and I cherish it. It is the largest and best equipped to take the Gospel to the nations.

[JacobHall86]

I'm a member of an SBC church, but I'm a liberal. I want nothing to do with the SBC and their fundamentalist take-over. The people in the SBC now are..... well, let's just say that I don't have much love for Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, or the rest of 'em.
Ringo

I have a question, and this isnt meant to be a slam, but why stay Southern Baptist? The CBF shares alot of your beleifs about Scriptures, Women ordination and other things. Why stay in the SBC when you make it clear you dont like it.

BTW, Adrian Rogers is one of the greatest men to walk the planet.

[edb19]

. . . . The people in the SBC now are..... well, let's just say that I don't have much love for Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, or the rest of 'em.
Ringo

Having had the privelege of hearing Al Mohler speak several times all I can say is I'm sad you view him that way. He's truly a brilliant man much gifted by God.

[TwinCrier]

My church proclaims to be independent but we also proudly accept the title fundamental because it is more descriptive of what and how we believe where independent just denotes that we don't send dues to any denominational organization.

[California Dreamin']

I don't know what we are considered so I didn't vote but we're part of the Atlantic Baptist Convention.

[mesue]

...
Notice there is not "Not Baptist" Option...
Actually, this is the problem. Not if you attend a Baptist Church, but is Baptist-like considered Baptist?
I say no. I will make a poll for that so this thread isn't hijaked.
I attend Bible Baptist Church.
A Bible Baptist is one who believes in a supernatural Bible, which tells of a supernatural Christ, Who had a supernatural birth, Who spoke supernatural words, Who performed supernatural miracles, Who lived a supernatural life, Who died a supernatural death, Who rose in supernatural splendor, Who intercedes as a supernatural Priest, and Who will one day return in supernatural glory to establish a supernatural Kingdom on the earth.

[Flynmonkie]

Actually, this is the problem. Not if you attend a Baptist Church, but is Baptist-like considered Baptist?
I say no. I will make a poll for that so this thread isn't hijaked.
I attend Bible Baptist Church.
Sue, you might want to include Conservative, Moderate and Liberal because otherwise there is no indication of "likeness." In addition, just the SBC alone has experienced splits where some are concerned as Ringo stated with the fundamentalists, but feel they should stay. I am not sure what you are looking for, but those that are “not Baptist” might fit with some of those groups. This right now is the only indication to me of what seems to be the issue? All other basic tenants are agreed upon.

(I have never done a poll, otherwise I would!);) :D

[rainbowpromise]

My church proclaims to be independent but we also proudly accept the title fundamental because it is more descriptive of what and how we believe where independent just denotes that we don't send dues to any denominational organization.
Our church is independent as well. However where we used to be considered somewhat fundamental, I don't believe we are any longer.
I think our congregation is an odd mix, but we are a family.

[JacobHall86]

Mesue>>> That was my point, it was for Baptists only. Not almost baptist or like Baptist, but those who were members of a Baptist Church. If they arent members of a Baptist church the Poll was not open to them.

[RichardT]

My church proclaims to be independent but we also proudly accept the title fundamental because it is more descriptive of what and how we believe where independent just denotes that we don't send dues to any denominational organization.

I go to an independent

[Ringo84]

What makes you a liberal? What do you reject that the conservatives accept? (and why don't you leave if you want nothing to do with them)

I am SBC/Reformed
What makes me a liberal? My view on theological/political issues. My acceptance of the separation of church and state, like the early Baptists.

What do I reject that the conservatives accept? You got about five hours? Nearly everything.

The fundies disagreed with the moderates and liberals on certain theological issues. Did they discuss the differences with us and try to find some common ground? No, they took over. (1979) They pushed good Christian men and women out of the SBC and seminaries because they wouldn't tow a certain theological line. Thus, it was more like "you have to agree with usor you're out of here" instead of "we may not agree, but let's cooperate to keep up the Baptist establishment".
Ringo

[Ringo84]

Having had the privelege of hearing Al Mohler speak several times all I can say is I'm sad you view him that way. He's truly a brilliant man much gifted by God.
Well, I'm sorry too, but it's not me. It's his attitude.

I am so sick of fundamentalist sanctimony that I could scream. Honestly. Mohler spends more time drudging up contentious political/theological issues and attacking those that don't agree with him than anything else.
Ringo

[Flynmonkie]

so you really dont know what you are do you. :sorry:

He shouldn't have to; he is a Christian, which is SUPPOSED to be the only thing that counts....

I feel sorry for you that you don't seem to "get" that. :sorry: I am even sorrier for all those that are like you that keep deterring people from the desire to be a Christian by placing mandates on it God never intended.

People stay in their church because silly them, they believe Paul when he implies we should stay where we are when we find our faith. We don’t have to change anything if the basic belief is Christianity. Non-essentials are just that.

[Ringo84]

There should be a 'Non-Baptist' option. Non-Baptist denominations are as much Christian as we are.

The Baptist church is not the end-all and be-all of Christianity.
Ringo

[Gear853]

He shouldn't have to; he is a Christian, which is SUPPOSED to be the only thing that counts....

I feel sorry for you that you don't seem to "get" that. :sorry: I am even sorrier for all those that are like you that keep deterring people from the desire to be a Christian by placing mandates on it God never intended.

People stay in their church because silly them, they believe Paul when he implies we should stay where we are when we find our faith. We don’t have to change anything if the basic belief is Christianity. Non-essentials are just that.

amen brother! i'm currently going to an Independant church.:amen: since the pastor invited me. i been going ever since!

[JacobHall86]

There should be a 'Non-Baptist' option. Non-Baptist denominations are as much Christian as we are.

The Baptist church is not the end-all and be-all of Christianity.
Ringo

Noone said it was, but this is only for the Baptist Forum. Thats why there is only Baptists in the poll.

[Ringo84]

Noone said it was, but this is only for the Baptist Forum. Thats why there is only Baptists in the poll.
OK. That makes sense.
Ringo

[RobinD69]

I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church,but I consider myself other because anything that does not follow the Bible,I will not agree to.I am considered a Contraversial Christian because of my belief in the Bible and the true Church.

[JacobHall86]

He shouldn't have to; he is a Christian, which is SUPPOSED to be the only thing that counts....

I feel sorry for you that you don't seem to "get" that. :sorry: I am even sorrier for all those that are like you that keep deterring people from the desire to be a Christian by placing mandates on it God never intended.

People stay in their church because silly them, they believe Paul when he implies we should stay where we are when we find our faith. We don’t have to change anything if the basic belief is Christianity. Non-essentials are just that.

And I feel sorry for you and those that are like you because you dont realize that People follow Doctrine. That is what growing in Faith is about as well. Learning Doctrine and following what you beleive. THats why The Lords Envoy said what he did because he mentioned 3 groups that have major belief conflicts.

If we all believed the same thing it wouldnt matter, but somewhere along the way someone has gotten it wrong, thats why you have differant denominations.

[arunma]

:sigh:

You'd think we'd all be able to get along on the Baptist forum. This isn't directed at anyone, but I hope that we can all consider this Scripture:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. (Philippians 2:1-2)

[Flynmonkie]

And I feel sorry for you and those that are like you because you dont realize that People follow Doctrine. That is what growing in Faith is about as well. Learning Doctrine and following what you beleive. THats why The Lords Envoy said what he did because he mentioned 3 groups that have major belief conflicts.

If we all believed the same thing it wouldnt matter, but somewhere along the way someone has gotten it wrong, thats why you have differant denominations.

Besides the fact the comment wasn’t directed to you [read: I did not ask for your opinion of your translation of TLE’s post]

I think I am fully aware of TLE's intent... he gave us full indication when he chose to complain to a point that caused a division of Christians in this forum. Now lets examine the issues, who has it wrong?

Christians are to divide us in difference, or encourage each other even in difference?

By all means if you believe the former.. This is an incorrect translation of scripture and obviously contradiction in Spirit. No matter what division of Baptist one is, the basic tenant of the faith is there.

Just to make sure you know the difference here..

Wrong would be to divide Christians based on selfish interpretations with the arrogant assumption you somehow have been graced with the truth above all others.

Wrong would be to ridicule, even passively, a professing Christian because they "don't know which cookie cutter mold they belong"

Furthermore, there is no need to feel sorry for me, I let God do His work and do not assume I can do it better. I have no worries. :D

[RobinD69]

If people will notice,most of the differences that seperate the denominations or even the churches of a particular denomination,have absolutely nothing to do with ones salvation.

[rainbowpromise]

If people will notice,most of the differences that seperate the denominations or even the churches of a particular denomination,have absolutely nothing to do with ones salvation.
Some do.

Some say it is enough to believe that Christ died for us on the cross. Others say believe and ....

[Flynmonkie]

If people will notice,most of the differences that seperate the denominations or even the churches of a particular denomination,have absolutely nothing to do with ones salvation.
Yes, Robin, Unfortunately, people don't realize this.:sigh:

[Erinwilcox]

If people will notice,most of the differences that seperate the denominations or even the churches of a particular denomination,have absolutely nothing to do with ones salvation.

Perhaps not their salvation, but definitely their views of God, His Word, His attributes, etc. I am not trying to be offensive when I say this and this is only my personal opinion:

Each individual should be in the church that they feel glorifies God the most.

To explain:

Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Obviously, there are many differences between denominations and churches in denominations. Also, there are many different kinds of doctrine. You need to place yourself in the church that you feel holds closest to scripture and glorifies God the most--that's not saying anything bad about the other churches out there--but every individual has the responsibility to find a place that they feel that is most glorifying to God--each man according to his own conscience.

Now don't get upset with me over this--it's only a personal opinion. . .

I am a member in a Reformed Baptist church (notice my lovely TULIP icon! ;) )

[Flynmonkie]

Perhaps not their salvation, but definitely their views of God, His Word, His attributes, etc. I am not trying to be offensive when I say this and this is only my personal opinion:

Each individual should be in the church that they feel glorifies God the most.

To explain:

Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Obviously, there are many differences between denominations and churches in denominations. Also, there are many different kinds of doctrine. You need to place yourself in the church that you feel holds closest to scripture and glorifies God the most--that's not saying anything bad about the other churches out there--but every individual has the responsibility to find a place that they feel that is most glorifying to God--each man according to his own conscience.

Now don't get upset with me over this--it's only a personal opinion. . .

I am a member in a Reformed Baptist church (notice my lovely TULIP icon! ;) )

Well then this confirms my suspicions, I should leave any church organization altogether because not one of them are perfect?:scratch:

Trust me when I say I would be out the door of this organization (not my church) if God placed another path in front of me. Several years of prayer, I guess this is where He wants me to be, for now.:sigh:

[Erinwilcox]

Well then this confirms my suspicions, I should leave any church organization altogether because not one of them are perfect?:scratch:

Trust me when I say I would be out the door of this organization (not my church) if God placed another path in front of me. Several years of prayer, I guess this is where He wants me to be, for now.:sigh:

No, no church will ever be perfect or anywhere close to it. I personally feel that I want to be in the place where I can glorify God the most and in the place that I feel holds doctrine closest to the Bible. And remember, that was only my personal opinion.

[Flynmonkie]

No, no church will ever be perfect or anywhere close to it. I personally feel that I want to be in the place where I can glorify God the most and in the place that I feel holds doctrine closest to the Bible. And remember, that was only my personal opinion.

Oh yes, Erin I understand, but I guess what I am saying is that sometimes we see things differently within our own church. A church we took time to be involved in, contribute to and get to know others. I feel that until something truly pivotal occurs, this is where you should stay. You have no idea how God may use you in this setting and what you might learn.[again totally within reason! If something is leading you to "sin" then that is obviously one of many reasons to "get out quick"!]

Being able to glorify God may be done in any church in various ways, the question is-- where can we actually learn more about Him and grow together in that glorification-- this is when it becomes an issue. You know?:scratch:

[Erinwilcox]

Oh yes, Erin I understand, but I guess what I am saying is that sometimes we see things differently within our own church. A church we took time to be involved in, contribute to and get to know others. I feel that until something truly pivotal occurs, this is where you should stay. You have no idea how God may use you in this setting and what you might learn.[again totally within reason! If something is leading you to "sin" then that is obviously one of many reasons to "get out quick"!]

Being able to glorify God may be done in any church in various ways, the question is-- where can we actually learn more about Him and grow together in that glorification-- this is when it becomes an issue. You know?:scratch:

Yes, I agree. God may use someone to bring about change, reformation, etc. and may be greatly glorified in the process--I'm not saying "Pack your bags this minute and see if there is any greener pasture," but if one is not being fed and is starving spiritually, then perhaps it's time to consider moving on. If there are doctrinal issues that you feel are HUGE, doctrine is important--you get my drift. Believe me, this is coming from a girl who has attended many churches and left many churches and I KNOW just how hard it is to leave. . .

[mlqurgw]

Claiming to be a believer doesn't make you one. I will be honest and say that there are several on this forum I do not consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. I do this not out of a I know better than they or have the correct doctrine but because I believe we worship different Gods. If you wnat to know what a person thinks of God all you need do is listen to them speak of Him. Their language gives them away. My dear Flynmonkie, I know this goes against what you think and believe but it really isn't a matter of being on different places on the path but one of different paths altogether. When I read someone speaking of the God I worship as a devil or a monster I cannot think we worship the same God. I do understand that most folks have been and are greatly influenced by what I consider a false religeion and it does break my heart but I cannot and will not compromise the truth of God just to get along. An untruth is still an untruth no matter how fervently one believes it. I will do my utmost to build up and encourages, strengthen and even teach those hre who are my brothers and sisters but I will not sit back and let wolves( even those in sheeps clothing) to devour the sheep. Most people think they would recognize one but they can't. They always look right and sound right and act right but they use subtlety and good sounding doctrine to deceive. If it apeals to the natural man it is wrong.

Oh Yeah. I am an Independant Baptist who believes and preaches the Sovereign Free Grace of God in Christ Alone.

[Flynmonkie]

Claiming to be a believer doesn't make you one. I will be honest and say that there are several on this forum I do not consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. I do this not out of a I know better than they or have the correct doctrine but because I believe we worship different Gods. If you wnat to know what a person thinks of God all you need do is listen to them speak of Him. Their language gives them away. My dear Flynmonkie, I know this goes against what you think and believe but it really isn't a matter of being on different places on the path but one of different paths altogether.

Ok, I am not sure how you think this goes against what I believe?

In addition, I have been part of these forums for quite a while, and I have yet to see a wolf in sheep’s clothing amongst any of the regular posters here? :scratch:

Certainly, no one that has major doctrine errors to the point of being called a wolf.:eek:

[JacobHall86]

I have seen a couple, not in here, but on other aprts of the forum. What they say and brag about doenst line up with what the claim to believe.

[DeaconDean]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, not are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them alone.

If I had to choose between putting a saloon or a liberal church on a corner, I'd choose the saloon every time. People who drink up the pay check in the saloon are less likely to become Pharisees, thinking that they don't need the Great Physician, than those who weekly swill the soporific doctrine of man's goodness.
- Jay Adams

What was true about liberalism yesterday is true for much of evangelicalism today. Machen comments about Liberal Theology early in the last century:

"[Liberal Theology] is opposed to Christianity, in the first place, in its conception of God. But at this point we are met with a particularly insistent form of that objection to doctrinal matters which has already been considered. It is unnecessary, we are told, to have a "conception" of God; theology, or the knowledge of God, it is said, is the death of religion; we should not seek to know God, but should merely feel His presence... With regard to this objection, it ought to be observed that if religion consists merely in feeling the presence of God, it is devoid of any moral quality whatever. Pure feeling, if there be such a thing, is non-moral. What makes affection for a human friend, for example, such an ennobling thing is the knowledge which we possess of the character of our friend. Human affection, apparently so simple, is really just bristling with dogma. It depends upon a host of observations treasured up in the mind with regard to the character of our friends. But if human affection is thus really dependent upon knowledge, why should it be otherwise with that supreme personal relationship which is at the basis of religion ? Why should we be indignant about slanders directed against a human friend, while at the same time we are patient about the basest slanders directed against our God? Certainly it does make the greatest possible difference what we think about God; the knowledge of God is the very basis of religion." --J. Gresham Machen in Christianity & Liberalism.

Major Theological Propositions of Liberalism

God: God is the loving immanent Father in constant communion with his creation and working within it rather than upon it to bring it to the perfection for which it is destined. God is the loving father who corrects his children but is not retributive in His punishment. “. . . The idea of an immanent God, which is the God of evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker who is the God of an old theology.”28 (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=177#P141_33596) Such a position breached the traditional barrier between the natural and the supernatural. “Miracle is only the religious name for an event. Every event, even the most natural and common, is a miracle if it lends itself to a controlingly religious interpretation. To me all is miracle”29 (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=177#P142_33940)

Man: No longer was man seen as radically sinful and in need of redemption. Rather he is in some sense in communion with God.. There was no infinite qualitative distinction between God and man. God was even to be known in measure and by analogy through study of the human personality. Emphasis was placed upon human freedom and ability to do all that God required, and eternity was interpreted as immortality of the spirit rather than the resurrection of the body.

Christ: Liberal Protestantism rediscovered the humanity of Christ, a truth that had been in practice ignored in previous generations. But, Liberalism went beyond a rediscovery of Christ’s humanity to a denial of his ontological deity. Instead of the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ became the perfect man who has attained divine status because of his perfect piety (god-consciousness). Jesus is the supreme example of God indwelling man. There is no qualitative distinction between Jesus and the rest of humanity. The distinction is quantitative; He is more full of God that other humans.

Religious authority: Whereas previous generations had seen the Bible as the ultimate practical authority for the Christian, Liberalism made authority wholly subjective based on individual spiritual experience. Ultimate authority was not to be found in any external source, Bible, Church, or tradition, but on the individual’s reason, conscience and intuition. The Bible became the record of man’s evolving religious conceptions. The New Testament was normative only in the teachings of Jesus. The rest of the New Testament falls victim to changing the focus of the gospel from the religion of Jesus to a religion about Jesus.

Salvation: Man is confronted with salvation in the person of Jesus. By following his teachings and the example of his life one enters into communion with him.

The Kingdom: This is a moral kingdom with God ruling in the hearts of humans. The kingdom is also manifested in society by the establishment of justice and righteousness in the political sphere. It will be finally established as God works through man in the historical process.
Principles:
The guiding principles of were distilled by Harnack in his What is Christianity? These were:

1. Universal Fatherhood of God
2. Universal Brotherhood of Man
3. Infinite value of the individual human soulAdditionally, Jesus Christ served as the Supreme example, the man who was perfectly God-conscious at all times, in whom God was perfectly immanent. HE lived his life by a "higher righteousness" governed by the law of love, independent of religious worship & technical observance. He lived out in his life the perfect example of which we may all become.

28 Henry Drummond, Ascent of Man (New York, 1894), 334.
29 F. Schleiermacher, On Religion, 88.

Who were the major leaders of this line of thought?

Immanuel Kant, Kant was not an atheist. He postulated the existence of God, but denied the possibility of any cognitive knowledge of him. It was man’s conscience that testified of God’s existence, and He was to be known through the realm of morality. Kant published another work Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone which set forth his conception that religion was to be reduced to the sphere of morality. For Kant this meant living by the categorical imperative-which he summarized in two maxims:
“Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
“Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.”
In other words, every action of humanity should be regulated in such a way that it would be morally profitable for humanity if were elevated to the status of law. In one sense this can be seen as a secularization of the Golden Rule.
Kant as a philosopher made no claims to being a Christian. Throughout his adult life was never known to utter the name of Jesus Christ, nor would he enter a Christian Church. When called upon to attend academic functions at the chapel of the University of Koenigsberg where he taught, he would march in his academic robes to the door of the chapel, then slip out of line and go home rather than enter the church.

G.F.W. Hegel, a contemporary of Schleiermacher gave the dominant shape to idealistic philosophy during the nineteenth century. A philosopher of history and religion Hegel proposed that all of reality is the outworking of Spirit/Mind (Geist).

Schleiermacher: Father of Liberal Theology
For Scheleiermacher, Jesus Christ was unique. Not that he was the God-man of historic orthodoxy, but rather in that he demonstrated in his life a perfect and uninterrupted God-consciousness,. He displayed the “veritable existence of God in him.” This was the redemption which Jesus accomplished. and brought to mankind. In this understanding the cross is not in a sacrificial atonement, but rather it is an example of Jesus’ willingness to enter into ‘sympathy with misery.’ Redemption was then the inner transformation of the individual from the state of God-forgetfulness to the state of God-consciousness. To put it another way, redemption is that state in which god-consciousness predominates over all else in life. Thus his theology was utterly Christocentric in that it was concerned with the example of Jesus as the perfectly god-conscious one.

Albrect Ritschl. Whereas Schleiermacher was mystic, seeing the center of religion in the feeling, Ritschl was more closely tied to Kant and saw religion in terms of morality and personal effort in establishing the Kingdom of God (a moral ethical Kingdom).

Adolf von Harnack

Specifically, the Gospel was seen as having nothing to do with the Person of the Son. It dealt with the Father only.24 (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=177#P122_29128) In this understanding, Jesus' preaching demanded "no other belief in his person and no other attachments to it than is contained in the keeping of his commandments."25 (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=177#P123_29314) Any doctrine of the Person of Christ was totally foreign to His ideas. Such doctrine lay not in the teachings of Christ Himself, but in the modifications introduced by His followers, especially Paul.
Harnack held that it was through the work of Paul that the man Jesus Christ was first seen to have more than human stature. It was he who was seen to have introduced modifications to Christianity by which the simple gospel of Jesus was ultimately replaced by adherence to doctrines relating to the Person of Christ. Moreover, Paul was seen as having been the one who first invested the death and resurrection of Christ with redemptive significance.
If redemption is to be traced to Christ's person and work, everything would seem to depend on a right understanding of this person together with what he accomplished. The formation of a correct theory of and about Christ threatens to assume the position of chief importance, and to pervert the majesty and simplicity of the Gospel.26 (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=177#P126_30681)

24 McGiffert, Christianity as History and Faith, p. 147.
25 Ibid., p. 129. Cf. McGiffert, p. 120. "But again when we assert our faith in the Lordship of Jesus, we declare that his moral standards and principles are the highest known to us, and we believe that they are the moral standards and principles of God himself. . . This was Jesus' ethical message to the world: 'Ye are all brethren,' 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'"
26 Harnack, p. 186. (Italics original.)

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=177

What does it mean to be "liberal?"

From M-W.com:

1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/openhanded) <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ample), FULL (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/full)
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/licentious)
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/loose) <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/broad-minded); especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms [emphsis mine]
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism) b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism); especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Also liberalism means:

1 : the quality or state of being liberal (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal)
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberty) and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity [emphsis mine] b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberties) d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

That is why I personally reject Liberalism. But if it is your "bag," God Bless you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[GordonSlocum]

I'm a member of an SBC church, but I'm a liberal. I want nothing to do with the SBC and their fundamentalist take-over. The people in the SBC now are..... well, let's just say that I don't have much love for Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, or the rest of 'em.
Ringo

Why attack Mohler and Patterson - just leave and join a "group" that thinks like you. No one is twisting your arm. It would be appreciated that you show a little more restraint in the approach you use toward things. Your post smacks of hate over difference.

[GordonSlocum]

Standing for everything is as bad as standing for nothing for in the end you fall for anything.


You are right, I am Sorry I made the post in haste. I apologize. I have removed its content and made this statement in its place.

[GordonSlocum]

Standing for everything is as bad as standing for nothing for in the end you fall for anything.

You are right, I am Sorry I made the post in haste. I apologize. I have removed its content and made this statement in its place.

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26449676#post26449676)
Standing for everything is as bad as standing for nothing for in the end you fall for anything.


You are a bitter person. Your post reveals a deep resentment toward the Love of God and God fearing people. It would be appreciated if you would tone it down toward Godly people. Disagree with doctrine if you may but don't make it personal .

Gordon,

Not in the least. A psychological assessment based on one sentence on a computer monitor written by someone never met several hundred miles distant is really quite unprofessional bearing no real worthwhile merit. go figger.

Now, then, as to my above referenced quote I will now take about twenty minutes of my time remaining on this earth to further explain something I would have hoped the one sentence above should have been more than sufficient:

One cannot mix multiple faiths, religions, denominational beliefs and leanings and expect to have a solid understanding of or scriptural belief structure much less a good life view on how to be a good person and Christ-like individual.

Hopping around mixing this-n-that belief picking and choosing entertaining any and every ol' thing that comes down the pike might make a jack of all beliefs but in the end the result is a master of none.

To mix, for example, all denominational beliefs, Universalism, New Age and humanist beliefs with a good sprinkling of Islam and Hinduism might result in a good one world religious view but other than that all that results is one really mixed up individual that hasn't the foggiest idea of what they believe much less why they believe what they believe.

That was my point.

HypoTypoSis

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26449676#post26449676)
Standing for everything is as bad as standing for nothing for in the end you fall for anything.

Yes, and it seems to most of us here that you have fallen into your "fall for anyting" catagory. You are bitter and why even come here and clutter up a good post. Tell us you are a liberal fine. Tell us what you believe fine. But blast and slam Baptist when you personally admit you are not a Baptist - just go somewhere else and be happy.

Gordon,

I don't recall if we have ever exchanged posts other than this and the one immediately preceding so it is with some confusion I feel compelled to write to you not understanding your reasoning for the unwarranted attacks in this and the previous post.

I can only assume you've either not read what I've written in the various threads of this forum or you've confused me with someone else for I have never in my life been a liberal nor advocated such and I have never "blasted and slammed" the Baptist nor have I ever said I was not a Baptist; in fact, based upon your profile, I have been a member of the SBC since before you were saved!

Additionally, I am offended at your unfounded accusations and attacks, including telling me to leave and would kindly ask you in the future to cease and desist from such.

HypoTypoSis

[TwinCrier]

Why is it whenever we have a discussion here a few people have to whine about unity. Yes, we belong to several different denominations here, we also have different favorite flavors of ice cream. Let people defend their beliefs and opinions without accusation that they are causing division in the body of Christ.

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

I am a I.B. that affirms the views of the 1689 baptist confession.

And Love Spurgeon;

"God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."

Peace to u,

Bill

[holdon]

Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

We forgive you....

[BBAS 64]

We forgive you....

Good Day, Holdon

Thanks for the spirit of love :hug: .

I like Spurgeon (the author of the quote) am unashamed of my proclamation of the gospel which has been nick named Calvinism.

From the same work:


"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. SpurgeonPeace to u,

Bill

[holdon]

Good Day, Holdon

Thanks for the spirit of love :hug: .

I like Spurgeon (the author of the quote) am unashamed of my proclamation of the gospel which has been nick named Calvinism.

From the same work:


"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. SpurgeonPeace to u,

Bill

We love the truth. Including where and in as much Calvin, Augustine and Paul preached it.

To say that all Calvin and Augustine preached was truth is just: Popery.

[leytonstones]

I have to be honest and say that I didn't know there were so many different kinds of Baptists til I joined Christiand Forums online. I am in the UK so maybe that explains a lot. I think I would describe myself as IFB. I have to say I find so many kinds of Baptists rather confusing. Please excuse my ignorance on the matter, I am eager to learn.

Blessings :wave:

[RajunCajun86]

SBC born and raised

[edb19]

Good Day,

I am a I.B. that affirms the views of the 1689 baptist confession.

And Love Spurgeon;

"God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."

Peace to u,

Bill

No argument from me - Spurgeon's words were true >100 years ago and they're true today.

edie

[BBAS 64]

We love the truth. Including where and in as much Calvin, Augustine and Paul preached it.

To say that all Calvin and Augustine preached was truth is just: Popery.

Good day, Holdon

"We" :scratch:

Got a mouse in your pocket ??? Maybe 2...

POPERY...^_^ ROTFLMHO

I have the feeling you are using the "popery" out of it's historical context, and far removed from it's intended meaning. You would do well to pick up some works by Luther and Spurgeon and Calvin or Gill dealt with such issues. Redifining words do not contribute much.


Do tell what was the last work of Augustine or Calvin you sat and read.


Peace to u,

Bill

[holdon]

Good day, Holdon

"We" :scratch:

Got a mouse in your pocket ??? Maybe 2...

POPERY...^_^ ROTFLMHO

I have the feeling you are using the "popery" out of it's historical context, and far removed from it's intended meaning. You would do well to pick up some works by Luther and Spurgeon and Calvin or Gill dealt with such issues. Redifining words do not contribute much.


Do tell what was the last work of Augustine or Calvin you sat and read.


Peace to u,

Bill

Do you believe all Calvin and Augustine said was the truth? Please tell us....

[BBAS 64]

Do you believe all Calvin and Augustine said was the truth? Please tell us....

Good Day, Holdon

Third person pronoun "us"... did one of the mice get away ;) :P


Would claify the question a bit for me...

Feeling this is a trap... Answer my questions first

I am sure after understanding your knowledge of these mens writtings, I can better answer your question.

Peace to u,

Bill

[holdon]

Good Day, Holdon

Third person pronoun "us"... did one of the mice get away ;) :P


Would claify the question a bit for me...

Feeling this is a trap... Answer my questions first

I am sure after understanding your knowledge of these mens writtings, I can better answer your question.

Peace to u,

Bill

No, I have not the intention of trapping anybody. But I will not derail this thread any further. Nor should you, especially with the "S" behind your name.

And we know already what kind of baptist you are....

[JPPT1974]

Southern Baptist Conservertive Christian I describe myself as!

[BBAS 64]

No, I have not the intention of trapping anybody. But I will not derail this thread any further. Nor should you, especially with the "S" behind your name.

And we know already what kind of baptist you are....

Good Day, Holdon

This whole "we" thing really is quite funny....

Yes I answered the OP 2 pages ago, for some reason my answer caused you / "we" some concern, I was mearly trying to help in you all's understanding. People with "S" behind their name tend to want to do that, so that disscussion is helpful to you/we/us/them.

In Him,

Bill

[Razorbuck]

Adrian Rogers is one of the greatest men to walk the planet.


A loud Amen from over here!

I am an independent fundamental Baptist who views the SBC as liberal in a general sense, but I loved Dr. Rogers! His preaching changed my life.

[JacobHall86]

holdon and bbas 64, Go ahead with your discussion, as the OP i dont mind this thread being derailed if its for discussing Calvin and Augustine.

[BBAS 64]

holdon and bbas 64, Go ahead with your discussion, as the OP i dont mind this thread being derailed if its for discussing Calvin and Augustine.

Good Day, Jacob

Thanks for your kindness here, may be Holdon and I can wrap this up quick....

Holdon??

Peace to u,

Bill

[Ringo84]

A loud Amen from over here!

I am an independent fundamental Baptist who views the SBC as liberal in a general sense, but I loved Dr. Rogers! His preaching changed my life.
Liberal?! How did you come to that conclusion?
Ringo

[Ringo84]

I wasn't able to effectively debate with you about women, Deacon Dean, but I'm going to take you on about liberalism because I am a liberal. And I'm sick of seeing my political and theological beliefs being attacked and debased.

[Liberal Theology] is opposed to Christianity

Right there. First line that you cut and pasted is a biased statement that lumps all liberals together as though they all think alike. But if I've learned one thing from debating on these forums, it is that that is most definitely not true.

God is the loving immanent Father in constant communion with his creation and working within it rather than upon it to bring it to the perfection for which it is destined. God is the loving father who corrects his children but is not retributive in His punishment. “. . . The idea of an immanent God, which is the God of evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker who is the God of an old theology.”28 (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=177#P141_33596) Such a position breached the traditional barrier between the natural and the supernatural. “Miracle is only the religious name for an event. Every event, even the most natural and common, is a miracle if it lends itself to a controlingly religious interpretation. To me all is miracle”29 (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=177#P142_33940)

Well, first and foremost, evolution is not a religion. We'll start with that. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but I'm getting sick of seeing that touted as "truth".

Secondly, God is a loving father. He is willing to punish those that disobey, of course, but the first rule of parenting is not punishment but compassion. Our God is a God of compassion.

Besides which: who says that miracles never happen? I wasn't aware that there was some liberal spokesperson that spoke for all of us.

No longer was man seen as radically sinful and in need of redemption. Rather he is in some sense in communion with God.. There was no infinite qualitative distinction between God and man. God was even to be known in measure and by analogy through study of the human personality. Emphasis was placed upon human freedom and ability to do all that God required, and eternity was interpreted as immortality of the spirit rather than the resurrection of the body.

That's a lie. Most liberals (unlike Machen, I can't speak for all liberals because I'm not a mind reader) don't believe that man is sinless. That's a distortion. Those who say that God and man are equal are the radicals. Most liberals don't feel that way, and the rest of us shouldn't have to be lumped together like we all think alike.

But, Liberalism went beyond a rediscovery of Christ’s humanity to a denial of his ontological deity. Instead of the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ became the perfect man who has attained divine status because of his perfect piety (god-consciousness). Jesus is the supreme example of God indwelling man. There is no qualitative distinction between Jesus and the rest of humanity. The distinction is quantitative; He is more full of God that other humans.

There you (or Machen) goes again with the lumping together. Do all conservative Protestants think alike? I didn't think so.

Liberalism made authority wholly subjective based on individual spiritual experience. Ultimate authority was not to be found in any external source, Bible, Church, or tradition, but on the individual’s reason, conscience and intuition. The Bible became the record of man’s evolving religious conceptions. The New Testament was normative only in the teachings of Jesus. The rest of the New Testament falls victim to changing the focus of the gospel from the religion of Jesus to a religion about Jesus.

That's a distortion. Liberals hold the Bible to a position of authority. Remember how many times I had to tell you that in the 'women pastors' forum?

The Bible is a record of man's evolving religious beliefs. In OT times, they probably thought that every natural disaster, every unexpected death - anything like that - was an act of God. We've evolved enough, scientifically and culturally, to know that sometimes, hurricanes just happen. It's not necessarily God's doing.... it just is.

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/licentious)

That's a biased, untrue remark. And I noticed that you also quoted a dictionary definition that said, "not bound by orthodoxy". Well, if we were still "bound by orthodoxy", we'd be members of the Church of England or some other government church. Orthodoxy isn't always infallible.


1 : the quality or state of being liberal (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal)
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberty) and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity [emphsis mine] b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberties) d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

And what, pray tell, is wrong with liberty? Are we all supposed to think alike? Are we all supposed to interpret the Bible alike?

Why am I responding to your post? I'm responding because these days, 'liberal' is being twisted to mean that you have no moral. That you are Godless, sinful, traitorous, and everything else. When you care about ethical issues and often ruminate on them as I do, it's insulting for someone to say, "you're immoral".

I'm not necessarily saying that that's what your point is here. But I've had enough of the distortions and lies about liberals. If I didn't care about ethical issues, or Christianity, I wouldn't be here. I don't know what problem Machen has with liberals but I strongly suggest that he gets over it - and himself.
Ringo

[DeaconDean]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them alone.

First off brother, I never accused you of anything. I said:

That is why I personally reject Liberalism.

Did I not also say:

But if it is your "bag," God Bless you.

There you (or Machen) goes again with the lumping together.

Let me ask you a question?

Did I ever say that you or any other "liberal" were all lumped together?

Well, first and foremost, evolution is not a religion.

I know of about 120 million Americans who would disagree with you.

Liberals hold the Bible to a position of authority. Remember how many times I had to tell you that in the 'women pastors' forum?

Evidently that's not entirely true. Your stance about the scriptures quoted in the thread in question show that that is not the case (biblical authority). (Ex. 28:1, Ex. 29:9, 1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:6) But that is not debatable in this thread. So I'm not going to violate the rules and get into that area. Moving along.

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/licentious)

That's a biased, untrue remark. And I noticed that you also quoted a dictionary definition that said, "not bound by orthodoxy". Well, if we were still "bound by orthodoxy", we'd be members of the Church of England or some other government church. Orthodoxy isn't always infallible.

If you have a problem with this statement, then I suggest you take that up with Merriam-Webster. That is their quote, not mine.

2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberty) and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity [emphsis mine]

And what, pray tell, is wrong with liberty? Are we all supposed to think alike? Are we all supposed to interpret the Bible alike?

See that right there is the problem with "Liberal Theology" in general. They tend to take "liberties" with God's word. Most people here agree that the Bible is the Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible word of God. If you disagree with that, I say God Bless you. But I do agree with that, whole-heartedly! And furthermore, as I was taught in seminary, the Bible is also the Only, certain rule of Faith and Practice. I do not take liberties with God's word and change it's meaning for what is in the book. As some others do. Mind you, I'm not accusing you personally of doing this.

Why am I responding to your post? I'm responding because these days, 'liberal' is being twisted to mean that you have no moral. That you are Godless, sinful, traitorous, and everything else. When you care about ethical issues and often ruminate on them as I do, it's insulting for someone to say, "you're immoral".


See my eariler comment. Have I personally accused you of any of this? Did I call you "Godless?" Did I call you "sinful?" Did I say anything about your "ethical issues?" Did I say you personally were "immoral?"

I have never said this of you. Did I say: "Ringo84 your a Liberal, and your theolgy smacks of Liberal Theology?"

I don't know what problem Machen has with liberals but I strongly suggest that he gets over it - and himself.

Friend, before I say what I'm gonna say, I pray God that you ask forgiveness for what you said right there.

J. Gresham Machen died in 1936.

I'm not gonna get into what was wrong with your previous statement.

You seem to have some sort of problem with me, I don't know what it is. Maybe because I don't take liberties with God's word. Maybe it is because I do take the Bible literally in some cases. I don't know what it is really. But you seem to have some sort of problem with me, so to keep from irrating you, I'll not argue with you, I'll not debate with you, I'll just say God bless you in your convictions. And I thank God that your convictions are not mine.

From this "Conservative, Fundamental, Baptist", I say God Bless you brother. I wish you grace, peace, and prosperity.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Ringo84]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. I bear the full weight of them alone.

First off brother, I never accused you of anything. I said:



Did I not also say:





Let me ask you a question?

Did I ever say that you or any other "liberal" were all lumped together?



I know of about 120 million Americans who would disagree with you.



Evidently that's not entirely true. Your stance about the scriptures quoted in the thread in question show that that is not the case (biblical authority). (Ex. 28:1, Ex. 29:9, 1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:6) But that is not debatable in this thread. So I'm not going to violate the rules and get into that area. Moving along.





If you have a problem with this statement, then I suggest you take that up with Merriam-Webster. That is their quote, not mine.





See that right there is the problem with "Liberal Theology" in general. They tend to take "liberties" with God's word. Most people here agree that the Bible is the Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible word of God. If you disagree with that, I say God Bless you. But I do agree with that, whole-heartedly! And furthermore, as I was taught in seminary, the Bible is also the Only, certain rule of Faith and Practice. I do not take liberties with God's word and change it's meaning for what is in the book. As some others do. Mind you, I'm not accusing you personally of doing this.



See my eariler comment. Have I personally accused you of any of this? Did I call you "Godless?" Did I call you "sinful?" Did I say anything about your "ethical issues?" Did I say you personally were "immoral?"

I have never said this of you. Did I say: "Ringo84 your a Liberal, and your theolgy smacks of Liberal Theology?"



Friend, before I say what I'm gonna say, I pray God that you ask forgiveness for what you said right there.

J. Gresham Machen died in 1936.

I'm not gonna get into what was wrong with your previous statement.

You seem to have some sort of problem with me, I don't know what it is. Maybe because I don't take liberties with God's word. Maybe it is because I do take the Bible literally in some cases. I don't know what it is really. But you seem to have some sort of problem with me, so to keep from irrating you, I'll not argue with you, I'll not debate with you, I'll just say God bless you in your convictions. And I thank God that your convictions are not mine.

From this "Conservative, Fundamental, Baptist", I say God Bless you brother. I wish you grace, peace, and prosperity.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Did I ever say that you or any other "liberal" were all lumped together?

No, but look at those quotes. Do they not lump all liberals together? Do they not all act as though all liberals think alike?


See that right there is the problem with "Liberal Theology" in general. They tend to take "liberties" with God's word. Most people here agree that the Bible is the Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible word of God. If you disagree with that, I say God Bless you. But I do agree with that, whole-heartedly! And furthermore, as I was taught in seminary, the Bible is also the Only, certain rule of Faith and Practice. I do not take liberties with God's word and change it's meaning for what is in the book. As some others do. Mind you, I'm not accusing you personally of doing this. [/.quote]

There you go. Don't you think that puts all liberal together into one mold, as though we all think alike? What if I said that all "conservative fundamental Christians" were thus and so? You probably wouldn't appreciate it.

I believe the Bible's inspired. I believe it's authoritative. But inerrant? No. But I won't go into that here since that's not what the thread's about.

[quote]
See my eariler comment. Have I personally accused you of any of this? Did I call you "Godless?" Did I call you "sinful?" Did I say anything about your "ethical issues?" Did I say you personally were "immoral?"

I have never said this of you. Did I say: "Ringo84 your a Liberal, and your theolgy smacks of Liberal Theology?"

No you didn't, but it's the same kind of stuff. Only in this instance, it's theological rather than political.

You didn't say those things. I was just using them as an example. Liberals have allowed less intelligent, more ugly conservatives than you to trash the word 'liberal' and what it means.

J. Gresham Machen died in 1936.

I'm not gonna get into what was wrong with your previous statement.

I'll level, DD. I frankly don't care who he was or when he died. He's still wrong to lump liberals all together the way he did in that book. I would use even more strong language, but I'd probably get in trouble.


You seem to have some sort of problem with me, I don't know what it is. Maybe because I don't take liberties with God's word. Maybe it is because I do take the Bible literally in some cases. I don't know what it is really. But you seem to have some sort of problem with me, so to keep from irrating you, I'll not argue with you, I'll not debate with you, I'll just say God bless you in your convictions. And I thank God that your convictions are not mine.

No no! That's not what I want. I came here to debate!

I don't have a problem with you, DD. You tend to jump to conclusions when you post and then say, "well, I'm not going to debate with you anymore". Don't jump to conclusions. I'm reacting against attacks on liberalism, not you. And I realize that liberalism's bad rep isn't your fault.

I don't really agree with about 95% of what I've seen you post already. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the issues and come to an understanding. Having said that, I won't compromise on some issues, and my adherence to liberalism is one of them. As long as we understand that, we're OK. OK?
Ringo

[mlqurgw]

Good Day, Jacob

Thanks for your kindness here, may be Holdon and I can wrap this up quick....

Holdon??

Peace to u,

Bill Ideleted my post because it was a flame and I ought not haveposted it. But it was funny.

[DeaconDean]

No, but look at those quotes. Do they not lump all liberals together? Do they not all act as though all liberals think alike?

[quote]
See that right there is the problem with "Liberal Theology" in general. They tend to take "liberties" with God's word. Most people here agree that the Bible is the Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible word of God. If you disagree with that, I say God Bless you. But I do agree with that, whole-heartedly! And furthermore, as I was taught in seminary, the Bible is also the Only, certain rule of Faith and Practice. I do not take liberties with God's word and change it's meaning for what is in the book. As some others do. Mind you, I'm not accusing you personally of doing this. [/.quote]

There you go. Don't you think that puts all liberal together into one mold, as though we all think alike? What if I said that all "conservative fundamental Christians" were thus and so? You probably wouldn't appreciate it.

I believe the Bible's inspired. I believe it's authoritative. But inerrant? No. But I won't go into that here since that's not what the thread's about.



No you didn't, but it's the same kind of stuff. Only in this instance, it's theological rather than political.

You didn't say those things. I was just using them as an example. Liberals have allowed less intelligent, more ugly conservatives than you to trash the word 'liberal' and what it means.



I'll level, DD. I frankly don't care who he was or when he died. He's still wrong to lump liberals all together the way he did in that book. I would use even more strong language, but I'd probably get in trouble.



No no! That's not what I want. I came here to debate!

I don't have a problem with you, DD. You tend to jump to conclusions when you post and then say, "well, I'm not going to debate with you anymore". Don't jump to conclusions. I'm reacting against attacks on liberalism, not you. And I realize that liberalism's bad rep isn't your fault.

I don't really agree with about 95% of what I've seen you post already. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the issues and come to an understanding. Having said that, I won't compromise on some issues, and my adherence to liberalism is one of them. As long as we understand that, we're OK. OK?
Ringo

As I said before, God Bless you and your convictions.

[Ringo84]

Why attack Mohler and Patterson - just leave and join a "group" that thinks like you. No one is twisting your arm. It would be appreciated that you show a little more restraint in the approach you use toward things. Your post smacks of hate over difference.
Hate over difference? No, that's their M.O. I hate their attitudes and their tactics. Their take-over in 1979 did more to divide Baptists than anything in Baptist history. There was no excuse for it.

Of course I know nobody is twisting my arm! I was only expressing 'What Kind of Baptist [I] Am'. Is that not what this thread is about?
Ringo

[mlqurgw]

Hate over difference? No, that's their M.O. I hate their attitudes and their tactics. Their take-over in 1979 did more to divide Baptists than anything in Baptist history. There was no excuse for it.

Of course I know nobody is twisting my arm! I was only expressing 'What Kind of Baptist [i] Am'. Is that not what this thread is about?
RingoI am not SBC and am no great fan of Mr. Mohler although I do agree with his soteriology. Having said that I don't believe you were even born in 79 so you don't realy have a grasp of all the circumstances that led to the so-called takeover. All you really know is what you have read and that was more than likely biased. Actually your liberalism is simply idealism in a cloak. The only problem with it is it don't work in real life.
Come back in 20 or 30 years and we will see how liberal you still are.

[aReformedPatriot]

I am not SBC and am no great fan of Mr. Mohler although I do agree with his soteriology. Having said that I don't believe you were even born in 79 so you don't realy have a grasp of all the circumstances that led to the so-called takeover. All you really know is what you have read and that was more than likely biased. Actually your liberalism is simply idealism in a cloak. The only problem with it is it don't work in real life.
Come back in 20 or 30 years and we will see how liberal you still are.

Mohler is the president of my seminary and I really like his dog Baxter.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/R_albert_mohler_jr_media-downloadable-portrait-color-low.jpg

Mohler sends his appreciation that you agree with his soteriology. He insists that, "this is a very good thing despite our differences."

Anyways, I like Dr. Mohler. He is a godly man who is honest about what he thinks and is down to earth when you get to chatting with him. I think he can be all up in society's face (if I may say it like that) a bit too much seeing as how we cannot expect the damned to act and have the morals as if they were saved, but even then his political tendancies and views are something which I find interesting. My biggest complaint about the man is that he is a staunch proponent of prohibition. :P Oh, my naivty and simplicity (sp?) is quite bolded by that isn't it? :P

[blessdbethname]

Southern Baptist Convention.

woot

[53Isaiah]

I am a Bible believer and follower of Christ fellowshipping in an independent fundamental Bible believing Baptist church.

Jesus Christ
woot!

[Katakalupto]

I'm FreeWill Baptist so I chose other.

[Robinsegg]

I'm a member of a Southern Baptist Convention church. I grew up in, was saved in and was baptized in an American Baptist Association church.

Rachel

[Ringo84]

I am not SBC and am no great fan of Mr. Mohler although I do agree with his soteriology. Having said that I don't believe you were even born in 79 so you don't realy have a grasp of all the circumstances that led to the so-called takeover. All you really know is what you have read and that was more than likely biased. Actually your liberalism is simply idealism in a cloak. The only problem with it is it don't work in real life.
Come back in 20 or 30 years and we will see how liberal you still are.
Having said that I don't believe you were even born in 79 so you don't realy have a grasp of all the circumstances that led to the so-called takeover. All you really know is what you have read and that was more than likely biased.

Oh, I see. I'm young, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about? Try again. I know a little something about the politics behind the take-over in 1979. I may not have been there, but that doesn't mean I don't know what's going on. And anyway, calling "whatever I read" bised because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint is pretty transparent.

Actually your liberalism is simply idealism in a cloak. The only problem with it is it don't work in real life.

Well, that may be your opinion, but I see things differently.

Come back in 20 or 30 years and we will see how liberal you still are.

Probably not too far away from what I am now.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

I will back up Ringo in that simply because hes young he doenst know.

I am younger than RIngo and I know about the Charge Dr. Rogers led in the Convention. He is an amazing man of God and Im glad he did what he did.

[Daisysqueaks]

Belong to an SBC

[Ringo84]

I will back up Ringo in that simply because hes young he doenst know.

I am younger than RIngo and I know about the Charge Dr. Rogers led in the Convention. He is an amazing man of God and Im glad he did what he did.
Thanks for the support. I'm still disgusted by the take-over, but I appreciate the fact that someone my age doesn't buy into the "you're too young to understand anything" argument.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Thanks for the support. I'm still disgusted by the take-over, but I appreciate the fact that someone my age doesn't buy into the "you're too young to understand anything" argument.
Ringo

And for the record, Im disgusted that they had to have a "takeover". If things hadnt gotten so far off base it wouldnt have been a problem.

Adrian Rogers FTW!

[Ringo84]

And for the record, Im disgusted that they had to have a "takeover". If things hadnt gotten so far off base it wouldnt have been a problem.

Adrian Rogers FTW!
They didn't have to have anything. I doubt very seriously that things had gotten so "off base" that one would be necessary.

They couldn't find common ground and try to work it out? It would have been much better if they had. And I'll tell you: I think they'll be judged for what they did. Disagreements about theology are one thing. Forcing out anyone who doesn't tow your theological line and ignoring them, thereby making them powerless and appearing as though they and their opinions don't count, is quite another. There was no need and no excuse for that kind of militantism, and Rogers, Mohler, and all the rest will have to answer for it someday, I believe. Our God is not a God of exclusion - of ostracizing those that have different theological belief than you. I don't care how "bad" things had supposedly gotten in the SBC.

I'm not saying all of that to attack you, JacobHall86, but to attack those that were responsible for the very-unchristian take-over in 1979.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Rogers and the Men who helped him fought for Doctrine adn the Word of God. THe Liberals who were trying to change things didnt beleive in the infallability of the Word of God. They did what they needed to do. The Baptist faith has always been Based on the Bible, and the fact that it is inerrant.

If someone doesnt want to beleive that, fine, but dont lead teh Convention astray in the process.

[Ringo84]

Rogers and the Men who helped him fought for Doctrine adn the Word of God. THe Liberals who were trying to change things didnt beleive in the infallability of the Word of God. They did what they needed to do. The Baptist faith has always been Based on the Bible, and the fact that it is inerrant.

If someone doesnt want to beleive that, fine, but dont lead teh Convention astray in the process.
THe Liberals who were trying to change things didnt beleive in the infallability of the Word of God. They did what they needed to do. The Baptist faith has always been Based on the Bible, and the fact that it is inerrant.
Several untruths there, Jacob. I'll address each one.

"The liberals...didn't believe in the infallibility of the Word of God"
> That's a lie. Not only are you lumping all liberal Baptists together, but you're putting words in their mouths that they never actually said. Just because you aren't an inerrantist doesn't mean you don't believe the Bible. That's spin.

"They did what they needed to do."
> What they 'needed to do' was try to find some common ground and work their differences out, instead of ostracizing those that didn't completely agree with them and create a situation where the opinions of those that disagreed didn't matter. It was a very unchristian action.
Did Jesus ostracize those that disagreed with Him? No, he sought to work it out with them instead of durther dividing the church by militantly blackballing his opponents.

"The Baptist faith has always been Based on the Bible, and the fact that it is inerrant"

No, I don't think so. The Baptist faith has always been about congregationalism versus church hierarchy, the Priesthood of the Believer, separation of church and state (or, religious freedom). Inerrancy is a fairly new issue.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Several untruths there, Jacob. I'll address each one.

"The liberals...didn't believe in the infallibility of the Word of God"
> That's a lie. Not only are you lumping all liberal Baptists together, but you're putting words in their mouths that they never actually said. Just because you aren't an inerrantist doesn't mean you don't believe the Bible. That's spin.

"They did what they needed to do."
> What they 'needed to do' was try to find some common ground and work their differences out, instead of ostracizing those that didn't completely agree with them and create a situation where the opinions of those that disagreed didn't matter. It was a very unchristian action.
Did Jesus ostracize those that disagreed with Him? No, he sought to work it out with them instead of durther dividing the church by militantly blackballing his opponents.

"The Baptist faith has always been Based on the Bible, and the fact that it is inerrant"

No, I don't think so. The Baptist faith has always been about congregationalism versus church hierarchy, the Priesthood of the Believer, separation of church and state (or, religious freedom). Inerrancy is a fairly new issue.
Ringo

The Liberals who tried to take over the convention did not beleive in the infallability of the Word of God. Thats what sparked Dr. Rogers and the others.

They werent blackballed, they were outvoted. The Gospel and its truth should never be compromised so people wont feel left out.

The Baptist Church is about congregationalism and religious freedom (which is differant than SoCS, very differant) and its not a new issue. Its simply something that was never questioned until the last half of the past century.

[Ringo84]

The Liberals who tried to take over the convention did not beleive in the infallability of the Word of God. Thats what sparked Dr. Rogers and the others.

That's still spin and "lumping together", Jacob. I'm not an inerrantist, but I believe the Bible. I simply don't believe that every period, dot and dash is supposed to be absolutely literal. Is that any reason to blackball me? I didn't think so.

They werent blackballed, they were outvoted. The Gospel and its truth should never be compromised so people wont feel left out.

Not exactly. Both my parents were ministers during the take-over, and I've been told that the "liberals" (or, non-fundamentalists) were indeed outvoted.....when the deck had already been stacked with fundamentalists. So basically, the fundamentalists took over and then simply didn't allow the so-called "liberals" to speak - no matter what they said. That is not the way we're supposed to treat our brother and sisters in Christ, despite doctrine.

And people were left out. They were pushed out of an organization they had been a part of for (possibly) years due to militantism and an invented controversy about Bible interpretation. It wasn't fair. There had never been a problem before the fundamentalists became power-hungry and invented an issue (which, despite what you say, hadn't seemed to be a problem before they made it one. Maybe before '79, people had worked out their differences instead of simply "taking over") to divide us.

(which is differant than SoCS, very differant)

No, I disagree. They're one and the same. But that's a different thread. We can discuss that elsewhere, if you like.
Ringo

[quote]

[JacobHall86]

The Convention voting works like this.

Everyone there votes. Whoever has more on one side wins. Dr. Rodgers and others had more people who saw things like he did there.

BTW, the Liberals would ahve done the same to the Conservatives if they had more voters.

[Ringo84]

Everyone there votes. Whoever has more on one side wins. Dr. Rodgers and others had more people who saw things like he did there.

They had more votes only after they had plotted and planned to stack the deck way back in the 1960s. It was no normal "Republicans gain control in 1994" kind of deal; it was a completely planned maneuver.

BTW, the Liberals would ahve done the same to the Conservatives if they had more voters.

You think so? I'm honestly interested. I don't think so. I don't think that the so-called "liberals" wanted anything like that to happen - even if they were the takers-overs. I dunno. Anyway, it's academic.

But notice something? You and I agree on almost every issue. But you've neither blackballed me nor I you. We're discussing the issues and finding common ground. We may still not agree when we leave this forum, but at least we're having a dialogue. That's how we're supposed to work out differences: as people who respect their opponents and their beliefs - even if they don't agree.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

It should have been planned. If enough people didnt think the President and other people represented the majority of the SBC they did waht they needed too. They didnt take anything over, they took it back.

[Ringo84]

It should have been planned. If enough people didnt think the President and other people represented the majority of the SBC they did waht they needed too. They didnt take anything over, they took it back.
But they didn't represent the majority. They were a small minority who imposed their narrow theology on the rest of us. There was never a problem before they created one.

And I disagree that they "took it back". There had never been a power grab like that before in the SBC. There had never been an issue where well-meaning Baptists hadn't been able to find common ground.

What the fundamentalists did was wrong. It divided us. It ostracized well-meaning Christians who didn't fit a narrow focus of doctrine and theology.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

It was not wrong, and it did represent the Majority. Thats why the SBC is the second largest denomination in the country, only behind the RCC.

Even with the CBF split and it representing most of the the ones who were "blackballed", they are still much smaller than the SBC.

The ones who supported Dr. Rogers were the majority and are still today.

[Flynmonkie]

What the fundamentalists did was wrong. It divided us. It ostracized well-meaning Christians who didn't fit a narrow focus of doctrine and theology.
Ringo

I know my family left during this time (which people repeatedly told me nothing happened when the “SBC” took over.) Although, my granddaddy was a deacon in the SBC, we ended up at an Independent church, which was also fundamental. We had a thread about this a while back. I am really tired of trying to decipher that title anymore; you get responses all over the place! You know? No one seems to know what IS fundamental anymore. It is certainly not referred to positively it seems. But sadly, I believe the term is so confused, those Christians that are fundamental for the right reasons – are demeaned in the conflict.:sigh:

[Ringo84]

It was not wrong, and it did represent the Majority. Thats why the SBC is the second largest denomination in the country, only behind the RCC.

Even with the CBF split and it representing most of the the ones who were "blackballed", they are still much smaller than the SBC.

The ones who supported Dr. Rogers were the majority and are still today.
If it was the majority, why'd they have to stack the deck before voting? If there had truly been a majority who felt that way, they wouldn't have needed to stack the deck with like-minded fundamentalists.

Doesn't matter how small the CBF is. How many Presidents of seminaries and other people were blackballed who never joined the CBF?
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

If they dont agree with the SBC statements of faith they should be blackballed.

The conservatives didnt "stack the deck". It was simply that conservatives hadnt gone to meetings in a while until it got bad, thats when Dr. Rogers led the charge and took back the Convention.

[Ringo84]

If they dont agree with the SBC statements of faith they should be blackballed.

The conservatives didnt "stack the deck". It was simply that conservatives hadnt gone to meetings in a while until it got bad, thats when Dr. Rogers led the charge and took back the Convention.
If they dont agree with the SBC statements of faith they should be blackballed.
What statements of faith? You mean the BFM (Baptist Faith and Message)? That sounds creedal - "you have to sign on the dotted line or you're going to be blackballed". I don't believe in creedalism, as a Baptist.

The conservatives didnt "stack the deck". It was simply that conservatives hadnt gone to meetings in a while until it got bad, thats when Dr. Rogers led the charge and took back the Convention.
That's not what happened. The fundies exploited some kind of loophole so that they could continue electing fundamentalists into the SBC. In 1979, they used that invented majority to take over. It was a carefully orchestrated maneuver. You make it sound as though the fundamentalists just started coming back to meetings and created a majority for themselves.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Yes to the BFM.

What loophole?

the voting process is this, whoever shows up from a Church votes. If more members from the conservatives showed up they win.

There wasnt a loophole.

[Ringo84]

Yes to the BFM.

What loophole?

the voting process is this, whoever shows up from a Church votes. If more members from the conservatives showed up they win.

There wasnt a loophole.
I don't know if it was a loophole, but they manipulated the vote so that they could win and the "liberals" would not. Those they didn't force out of the SBC they pushed out. There was no great "revolution". It was a take-over.
Ringo

[JacobHall86]

Noone was forced out, if they left it was on their own accord.

And they had more people show up to vote, tis that simple.

[DeaconDean]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herin are mine and mine alone. I alone bear the full weight of them. That's not what happened. The fundies exploited some kind of loophole so that they could continue electing fundamentalists into the SBC. In 1979, they used that invented majority to take over. It was a carefully orchestrated maneuver. You make it sound as though the fundamentalists just started coming back to meetings and created a majority for themselves.So the fundies are to blame for everything?How about liberal baptists who question the "virgin birth" as far back as 1947?"In 1947 SBTS invited Dr. Nels S. F. Ferre to deliver the "Gay" lectures at the Seminary. Ferre was at that time a professor at Vanderbilt University and had written a number of well-known books that were filled with blasphemy. Dr. David Otis Fuller wrote a tract exposing the rank unbelief of Ferre. We shall give a few quotes from Fuller's tract. Ferre wrote a book titled: "The Christian Understanding of God." On page 186 he said, "We have no way of knowing, even, that Jesus was sinless . . . " On page 191 Ferre said, "Mary, we remember, was found pregnant before her engagement to mild Joseph. Nazareth was hard by a Roman garrison where the soldiers were German mercenaries. Jesus is also reported throughout a continuous part of the history of art, it is claimed, to have been blond . . . Hence Jesus must have been the child of a German soldier!"In his book, "The sun and the Umbrella," Ferre said, "Jesus never was nor became God" (p. 112). "The use of the Bible as the final authority for Christian truth is idolatry." (p. 39). He also said there can be "the Hindu branch of the Church of the living God" (p. 122). "Hinduism is good and wise" (p 117). "What a spiritual people this religion has produced!" (p. 119).In spite of Ferre's infidelity, he lectured at SBTS and other Southern Baptist schools. Dr. George A. Buttrick, a National Council of Churches liberal, has also lectured at SBTS and at other Southern Baptist schools. In his book, "The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt," Buttrick said on page 162, "Literal infallibility of Scripture is a fortress impossible to defend . . . " He said on page 167, "In retrospect it seems incredible that the theory of literal inspiration could have ever been held." According to Buttrick on page 170, the inspiration of the books of Obadiah and of Revelation is not better than that of the uninspired apocryphal books. In addition, he was the editor-in-chief of the blasphemous commentaries named, "The Interpreter's Bible."PROOF THAT SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICALSEMINARY PRODUCES UNBELIEFIn 1976, Noel Wesley Hollyfield, Jr., wrote his thesis for a Master of Divinity degree from SBTS, Louisville, KY. Hollyfield's thesis was titled: "A Sociological Analysis of the Degrees of 'Christian Orthodoxy' Among Selected Students in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary." His thesis was read and approved by the SBTS committee composed of G. Willis Bennet, chairman, E. Glenn Hinson, and Henlee Barnette. Their approval indicates that they believe that the contents were accurate and the conclusions validated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Diploma----1st Year----Final Yr.-----Grad.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS---------Students----M.Div.------M.Div.-------Students
I know God really exists & I have no doubt about it.-------------100%--------74%---------65%---------63%
Jesus is the Divine Son of Godand I have no doubts about it.--------100%---------87%---------63%--------63%
I believe the miracles actuallyhappened just at the Bible saysthey did.---------------------------------------96%---------61%---------40%--------37%
The Devil Actually Exists:Completely true.----------------------------96%---------66%---------42%--------37%Probably true.---------------------------------4%---------18%---------26%--------15%
Probably not true.----------------------------0%---------12%---------23%--------32%
Definitely not true.----------------------------0%----------5%----------9%---------15%
There is Life Beyond Death:Completely true.---------------------------100%---------89%---------67%-------53%Jesus Was Born of A Virgin:Completely true.-----------------------------96%---------66%--------33%-------32%Probably true.----------------------------------4%---------17%--------33%-------37%
Probably not true.-----------------------------0%---------14%--------21%-------15%
Definitely not true.-----------------------------0%-----------2%--------12%------15%
Jesus Walked On Water:Completely true.-----------------------------96%---------59%--------44%-------22%Do You Believe Jesus WillActually Return To EarthSome Day?
Definitely.------------------------------------100%--------79%---------56%--------53%
HOW NECESSARY FOR SALVATION DO YOUBELIEVE THE FOLLOWING TO BE?
Belief In Jesus As Saviour:Absolutely necessary.--------------------100%--------85%--------60%--------59%Holding The Bible To BeGod's Truth:
Absolutely necessary.----------------------73%--------42%--------33%--------21%
TO WHAT DEGREE DO THE FOLLOWING HINDER SALVATION?
Being Completely Ignorant OfJesus As Might Be The CaseFor People Living In OtherCountries:
Definitely---------------------------------------70%--------24%--------26%--------26%
Being Of The Hindu Religion:
Definitely---------------------------------------39%--------29%--------16%--------21%
Probably---------------------------------------17%--------17%--------26%--------16%
Possibly------------------------------------------9%--------36%--------42%--------42%
Not hinder--------------------------------------35%--------19%--------16%--------21%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollyfield's thesis proves that modernism is being taught at SBTS, and that it is having a devastating effect upon the students. The SBJ in a digest of Hollyfield's thesis correctly said, "The MORE EDUCATION students get at Southern Seminary the LESS THEY BELIEVE." The thesis of 159 pages contains numerous charts which show beyond any doubt that the more education Southern Baptist students have and the longer they study at SBTS, the more liberal and modernistic they become in doctrine. In this tract we intend to reproduce some of the more relevant information revealed in these charts.Keep in mind that Hollyfield was a student at SBTS and that his thesis had to be written and approved before he could receive his Master of Divinity degree. His statistics were gained by using a standard 37 question questionnaire that was answered by the students. If his method had been unfair and biased, no doubt the three member faculty committee would have rejected the thesis.Hollyfield considers the students under 7 different statistical tabulations. For our purpose we shall consider only four of his statistical groups, which will give us an overall picture of the modernism that SBTS is producing. For the convenience of our readers, we shall number these four divisions of students and explain what they are. William E. Hull And Other Liberals At SBTSWilliam E. Hull was a teacher for many years at SBTS until he resigned in 1975 to become pastor of the First Baptist Church, Shreveport, Louisiana. Many observers feel that he has the inside track on becoming the next president of SBTS, but a strong move is being made by conservatives in the SBC to keep that from happening.In 1970 Hull was the Dean of the School of Theology at SBTS. He preached a sermon at the Cresent Hill Baptist Church in Louisville, where he and many of the faculty and students of SBTS were members, entitled, "Shall We Call The Bible Infallible?" The sermon was printed in "The Baptist Program" in Dec. 1970. We are indebted to William A. Powell for printing that sermon in his book, "The SBC Issue & Question." Hull's sermon is a bold attack against the infallibility of God's Word, wherein he lists four reasons why we should not call the Bible infallible. Although he tried to shield his attack by using temperate words, nevertheless, it is a brash effort to convince his listeners that the Bible contains errors.He claims that the Bible is not infallible, since the word "infallible" is not found in the Bible. This is the same tactic employed by Unitarians to try to deny the Trinity, and is not really worthy of consideration. He says that the confessions of faith do not use the word "infallible" with the exception of the Second London Confession of 1677. Even though "infallible" is not in the New Hampshire Confession and the SBC Confession of 1925 and 1963, Hull surely knows that the framers believed it and that their confessions say the same thing in other words, when they said that the Bible has "truth without any mixture of error, for its matter." If he was not a blatant liberal he would admit it was so. In fact Dr. Hershel Hobbs, the chairman of the 1963 SBC committee that drew up the statement of faith, has said more than once that they meant by the confession that the Bible was infallible. Every liberal tries to pit Moses against Jesus and to accuse those who believe in inerrancy of bibliolatry. Hull said, "Consider for a moment what would happen if the biblical dialectic between infallible God and fallible man were dissolved by a one-sided emphasis on scriptural inerrancy. Religious history is a sad record of how easily this position is distorted into bibliolatry. Some of the scribes in Jesus' day held such a high view of Scripture that they put Moses above the new word that God was trying to speak through his Son." What a cheap shot Hull has taken by comparing the scribes of Jesus' day to those who believe in inerrancy today. Jesus never cast doubt on the inerrancy of any O.T. scripture and Hull knows this to be true.Hull said that infallibility was not practical and then went on to say, "The cumulative force of the evidence is overwhelming: no it is not wise to call the Bible 'infallible.'" He also said, "On the other side are those who have just as clearly seen the human character of the Bible. They know that its dates do not always agree, that its doctrines develop, that its grammar is sometimes confused. They cannot give up this recognition of the humanity of its writers, for to do so would require them to fly in the face of established facts and to repudiate the advances of science in recent centuries." Yet, when Hull resigned in 1975 from the faculty of SBTS, Duke McCall said that he was not fired and that he did not leave because of his lack of faith in the Bible.Is it any wonder that the final year of the M.Div. students, 35% are not sure that God exists, 37% are not sure that Jesus was the Divine son of God, 60% do not believe the miracles of the Bible really happened as the Bible says, 67% do not believe that it is completely true that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that 56% are not completely sure that Jesus walked on water. Students cannot listen to men like William Hull and retain their faith in God's Word!!http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/apostasyatsbts.htm

No wonder liberialism is leading us down a wrong path! But hey, that's just my two cents worth.
God Bless
Till all are one.

[Ringo84]

Noone was forced out, if they left it was on their own accord.

And they had more people show up to vote, tis that simple.
That's untrue.

* Honeycutt, for instance, was forced out of Southern Seminary.

* Rick Johnson and Jeph Holloway of Southwestern are being forced out because they refuse to, as I said earlier, "sign on the dotted line" of some doctrinal statement.

So many other people were pushed out because they weren't "fundamentalist enough". So it's not as simple as having "more votes". It's a matter of forcing control.
Ringo

[Ringo84]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not typical of Baptists in general, nor are they the opinions of CF. The opinions expressed herin are mine and mine alone. I alone bear the full weight of them. So the fundies are to blame for everything?How about liberal baptists who question the "virgin birth" as far back as 1947?"In 1947 SBTS invited Dr. Nels S. F. Ferre to deliver the "Gay" lectures at the Seminary. Ferre was at that time a professor at Vanderbilt University and had written a number of well-known books that were filled with blasphemy. Dr. David Otis Fuller wrote a tract exposing the rank unbelief of Ferre. We shall give a few quotes from Fuller's tract. Ferre wrote a book titled: "The Christian Understanding of God." On page 186 he said, "We have no way of knowing, even, that Jesus was sinless . . . " On page 191 Ferre said, "Mary, we remember, was found pregnant before her engagement to mild Joseph. Nazareth was hard by a Roman garrison where the soldiers were German mercenaries. Jesus is also reported throughout a continuous part of the history of art, it is claimed, to have been blond . . . Hence Jesus must have been the child of a German soldier!"In his book, "The sun and the Umbrella," Ferre said, "Jesus never was nor became God" (p. 112). "The use of the Bible as the final authority for Christian truth is idolatry." (p. 39). He also said there can be "the Hindu branch of the Church of the living God" (p. 122). "Hinduism is good and wise" (p 117). "What a spiritual people this religion has produced!" (p. 119).In spite of Ferre's infidelity, he lectured at SBTS and other Southern Baptist schools. Dr. George A. Buttrick, a National Council of Churches liberal, has also lectured at SBTS and at other Southern Baptist schools. In his book, "The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt," Buttrick said on page 162, "Literal infallibility of Scripture is a fortress impossible to defend . . . " He said on page 167, "In retrospect it seems incredible that the theory of literal inspiration could have ever been held." According to Buttrick on page 170, the inspiration of the books of Obadiah and of Revelation is not better than that of the uninspired apocryphal books. In addition, he was the editor-in-chief of the blasphemous commentaries named, "The Interpreter's Bible."PROOF THAT SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICALSEMINARY PRODUCES UNBELIEFIn 1976, Noel Wesley Hollyfield, Jr., wrote his thesis for a Master of Divinity degree from SBTS, Louisville, KY. Hollyfield's thesis was titled: "A Sociological Analysis of the Degrees of 'Christian Orthodoxy' Among Selected Students in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary." His thesis was read and approved by the SBTS committee composed of G. Willis Bennet, chairman, E. Glenn Hinson, and Henlee Barnette. Their approval indicates that they believe that the contents were accurate and the conclusions validated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Diploma----1st Year----Final Yr.-----Grad.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS---------Students----M.Div.------M.Div.-------Students
I know God really exists & I have no doubt about it.-------------100%--------74%---------65%---------63%
Jesus is the Divine Son of Godand I have no doubts about it.--------100%---------87%---------63%--------63%
I believe the miracles actuallyhappened just at the Bible saysthey did.---------------------------------------96%---------61%---------40%--------37%
The Devil Actually Exists:Completely true.----------------------------96%---------66%---------42%--------37%Probably true.---------------------------------4%---------18%---------26%--------15%
Probably not true.----------------------------0%---------12%---------23%--------32%
Definitely not true.----------------------------0%----------5%----------9%---------15%
There is Life Beyond Death:Completely true.---------------------------100%---------89%---------67%-------53%Jesus Was Born of A Virgin:Completely true.-----------------------------96%---------66%--------33%-------32%Probably true.----------------------------------4%---------17%--------33%-------37%
Probably not true.-----------------------------0%---------14%--------21%-------15%
Definitely not true.-----------------------------0%-----------2%--------12%------15%
Jesus Walked On Water:Completely true.-----------------------------96%---------59%--------44%-------22%Do You Believe Jesus WillActually Return To EarthSome Day?
Definitely.------------------------------------100%--------79%---------56%--------53%
HOW NECESSARY FOR SALVATION DO YOUBELIEVE THE FOLLOWING TO BE?
Belief In Jesus As Saviour:Absolutely necessary.--------------------100%--------85%--------60%--------59%Holding The Bible To BeGod's Truth:
Absolutely necessary.----------------------73%--------42%--------33%--------21%
TO WHAT DEGREE DO THE FOLLOWING HINDER SALVATION?
Being Completely Ignorant OfJesus As Might Be The CaseFor People Living In OtherCountries:
Definitely---------------------------------------70%--------24%--------26%--------26%
Being Of The Hindu Religion:
Definitely---------------------------------------39%--------29%--------16%--------21%
Probably---------------------------------------17%--------17%--------26%--------16%
Possibly------------------------------------------9%--------36%--------42%--------42%
Not hinder--------------------------------------35%--------19%--------16%--------21%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollyfield's thesis proves that modernism is being taught at SBTS, and that it is having a devastating effect upon the students. The SBJ