Carter meets with SBC bloggers to discuss 2008 convocation

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by gb93433, May 17, 2007.

  1. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    http://www.abpnews.com/www/2160.article

    Carter meets with SBC bloggers to discuss 2008 convocation
    By Robert Marus
    Published: May 17, 2007

    ATLANTA (ABP) -- Former President Jimmy Carter met with several well-known Southern Baptist bloggers May 17 in Atlanta to solicit support for an unprecedented gathering of Baptists in North America.

    Carter, perhaps the world's most prominent Baptist layman, invited the bloggers and other Southern Baptist leaders to become part of the planning for the "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant," scheduled for next January in the Georgia capital.

    [Moderator Note: The BB Copyright Policy requires that one only quote enough material to get one's point across and then provide a source reference and a weblink if applicable. Please do not post direct quotes of entire articles or major sections of articles.]
     
    #1 gb93433, May 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2007
  2. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Says more about the real agenda and liberalism of Burleson et al than anything else.

    These are men who are attempting to make allies of every disaffected group oin the SBC so they can grab the power.

    A case in point is the argument over a private prayer language. At first it was that we need to allow those who have this "gift". Now it has that we must also accept all the "sign gifts".

    I am glad that I am going to the SBC convention so I can vote against this process.
     
  3. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    64
    Jimmy Carter;

    A man who cannot pronounce the word NUCLEAR correctly.
    It is not NOOK YOO LER.

    It's ok if W says it, he was a cheerleader in college.
    And flew planes.

    However, Jimmybaby was the NUCLEAR ENGINEER on a
    NUCLEAR SUBMARINE.

    Of course, if he were to tell you about it he'd say
    "I was a NOOK YOO LER engineer on a NOOK YOO LER
    powered submarine that was capable of launching
    NOOK YOO LER missiles."

    SBC should have NOTHING to do with this.
     
  4. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is another battle brewing in the convention and I think this one will be bigger, bolder, and uglier thant the last one. I am disappointedd to see Huckabee listed in participation. That certainly changes my mind on a few things.
     
  5. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed! (on each sentence!)
     
  6. Oasis

    Oasis
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom Bryant
    When I read the original article in this thread, I had a feeling Burleson was involved. You are absolutely correct Tom. Burleson, among others, want to control the SBC.
     
  7. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
  8. Oasis

    Oasis
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Burlenson is a liberal. Tries to wear the label of a moderate. There is no difference.
     
  10. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm glad Cole thinks Carter's overtures were well received. I'm terribly uncomfortable with this whole thing AND I'm not sure that right now I can verbalize all the reasons why. My thoughts are whirling. To be honest, they have less to do with Burleson and Cole and more to do with Carter and Clinton at this point. Political leaders directing Baptist agendas just isn't sitting well - even if those politicians are Baptist.
     
  11. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Oasis


    You know nothing of his theology if you think he is even remotely liberal.

    Here is what your Green wrote:

    "Burleson has also stated that he considers some individuals as “conservatives” even though they do not affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. By the way, there are no fundamentals of the faith IF the Bible contains errors."

    I assume you agree with him, so answer me this, which verse is wrong?

    2Ki 8:26 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

    2Ch 22:2 Ahaziah's age was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

    Was he 42 or 22?


    2Ch 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he put in the chariot cities and with the king at Jerusalem.

    1Ki 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.


    Did Solomon have 4000 stalls or 40,000 stalls?

    Perhaps Mr. Green will give us the answer in a future blog but for now could you tell us “liberals” how there are no errors in these texts????? And please give me your inerrant interpretation.


    This is what Burleson quotes:

    The Abstract of Principles, which every professor and employee at Southern Southern and Southeastern Seminary must sign, has an excellent statement on the fall of man.

    VI. The Fall of Man (The Abstract of Principles)

    God originally created man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

    The abstract teaches that every descendent of Adam is 'under condemnation' even though they are not 'actual transgressors.'


    He goes on to quote from the 2000 BFM:


    III. Man (The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message)

    Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.


    So tell me, which is the “liberal” view of Adam’s sin and what is the “conservative” view?

    And what about this statement makes him a liberal?

    "Now, I frankly believe that there is room for Southern Baptists who believe both interpretations. Some Southern Baptists believe condemnation is because of Adam's one sin, and others believe that no condemnation comes until there is personal, actual sin. I think the 'tent' is big enough for people who hold to these two different interpretations on this point of doctrine which is not an essential of the faith."

    I eagerly await your response.



    2 Tim 2: 1-4



    Since you obviously have listened to most or all of his sermons over the last 8-9 years I have also done, please tell me on what Biblical doctrine is he “liberal” on. Surely with all his on-line sermons it should be easy to find.


    I also eagerly await you answer.
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think you are right. Eventually I do not think there will be anything left to deal with. Maybe when that happens then people will get down to the business of what God wants rather than being formaldehyde to a dead situation.

    I truly believe that God is letting them have their own way and leaving them to their own destruction.
     
  13. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberals have always used a type of double talk to express their views but remain under the radar of those who would appose them.



    The double talk of wade Burlenson:

    On Inerrancy

    "I have no problem using the word inerrancy to define my belief about the Bible, but find that there are other conservative, evangelical brothers, like Billy Graham, who believe the Bible like I do, but resist the word "inerrancy" because of a definition of the word that they do not believe to be of Biblical origin."

    There is nothig conservative about denying the inerrancy of scripture. Much of the battle in the 70's through the early 90's was over this one issue. When you cannot recognize which doctrines of scripture are inerrant then you have major problems. This is a liberal position. And defending such is not conservative either. The inerrancy of scripture is most certainly worth dividing over. Either it is a sure thing or it is not.


    On the 2000 BFM

    "The BFM 2000 is strong in many places and weak in just a couple of places. My major problem is that it is used like a "creed" when Baptists have historically been confessional people and not creedal people. What I can't understand is why Southern Baptists could not be accepted if they affirmed the 63 Baptist Faith and Message, or the First London Confession of Faith, or even their own confession if it is ORTHODOX regarding the essentials of the faith. When non-essentials of the faith become a part of a creed, you are asking for problems."


    Liberals always have had a problem with accountability. And when the funds come from the cooperating churches throughout the SBC then those who are overseeing the handling of those funds must be accountable to the very people that provide those funds. We must be good stewards of God's provisions.


    More on the BFM


    "I do not have a problem with people signing the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 if they are allowed to express their personal areas of disagreements before they sign it, so as not to violate their conscience. If the disagreements are not over the fundamentals of the faith, there is no problem. Frankly, ONLY fundamentals of the faith should be in major confessions and not particular interpretations of non-essential doctrines if the purpose is unity and cooperation."


    More double talk. Sign it but disagree with it. A very liberal view. No one is forced to be a trustee in the convention.




    These are just a few. I will say that I do agree with Wade on the unfortunate change in the "Priesthood of the Believer" to the "Priesthood of the Believers" in the 2000 BFM. But he holds to a liberal view on alcohol and women in the ministry. His thoughts on those issues can be found on his blog as can be the stuff I have quoted here. But since you hold a liberal view of scripture and deny the inerrancy of it I am curious to know just what doctrines do you find in error?
     
  14. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    I might also add that fellowshipping with Carter who believes that those who do not believe in Christ as the only means of salvation will still be redeemed by Christ, does not put you in a conservative light and reveals the willingness to fellowship with a heretic.

    Again the heresy of Carter is that he does not believe that Jesus is the only way. Those who are willing to associate with that are suspect at best. That type of postmodernism ecumenical attitude is not conservative.
     
  15. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are Jimmy Carter's thoughts about the gospel in his own words, given in full context:

    Q: Your first lesson on Ephesians describes man's reconciliation to God through grace and the sacrifice of Christ. Do you believe that grace ultimately applies to people who don't presently believe in Jesus?

    A: Yes, I do. I remember two things. One is that in John 3:16, which is probably the best known verse in the Bible - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son."

    And Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, said we should love our neighbors, but also love those who despise us and hate us and our enemies. So, the opportunity for everyone to be saved through the grace of God with faith in Christ applies to everyone.

    And I have been asked often, you know, in my Sunday School classes, which are kind of a give and take debate with people from many nations and many faiths - what about those that don't publicly accept Christ, are they condemned? And I remember that Christ said, "Judge not that ye be not judged."

    And so, my own personal belief is one of God's forgiveness and God's grace. That's the best answer I can give.​

    So, there is Carter's understanding of the gospel. I ask you, the Southern Baptist people: Does that gospel unite you with Jimmy Carter? As for me, I would have to entitle any post about Jimmy Carter in this manner: "What Divides Us Is the Gospel of Christ"



    Wade Burleson said... Bart,

    Bart, are you alleging that Mr. Carter does not believe in the exclusivity of Christ? Obviously, if that were so, he would not be an evangelical believer in the good news of Christ. However, after personal conversation with him it sounds to me like he is truly an evangelical with a desire to take the gospel to the nations.

    The quote you use simply tells me that Mr. Carter believes in common grace. Bart, I think you would agree with Mr. Carter that the 'grace' of God extends to every man, would you not? You and I may be more precise and call this 'common' grace, but not one time have I ever heard Mr. Carter say 'saving' grace is a possession of all men -- it is a gift only to those who trust Christ.

    He was quite clear with us yesterday that faith in Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary is the only hope for a sinner. You allege his answer belies a hidden universalism. I disagree. Ultimately, the only way to know is to ask him and talk with him. I'm wondering when you visited with him about your concern?

    Dialogue, a gracious heart, and a willingness to listen is the only way to determine where there is agreement. Until and unless Mr. Carter clearly denies the exclusivity of Christ, I'll take his word to me that he does not.
    May 18, 2007 8:54 AMhttp://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2007/05/burleson-cole-and-carter.html


    More double talk from wade.
     
  16. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I had a discussion with someone much older than myself about that issue and his impressions were that Carter does not believe that at all. If I remember right it was Mohler who made that statement. Mohler has also been credited with making inflammatory statements that were simply not true and ridiculous. I wrote him some emails on other issues and never once ever received a reply. Mohler likes to make noise and stir up people. He is at a seminary filled with young people. Let him get off of his high horse and make those same statements and leave the discussion open with older people and you wil find the young buck won't be so proud any more.

    If one carefully reads the transcript, Carter does not make such a claim but leaves the judgment up to God. As a former president and political figure he needs to carefully weigh his words and the impact it may have on those he tries to reach in other countries. I have never seen someone who openly condemns Muslims ever win one. Yet some of the major leaders in the SBC were so stupid to say such words. We saw the uproar it created.

    A lot of people would be quick to criticize Jesus today if someone came up to him and asked about how to inherit eternal life and he told that person to sell all they have.

    Many people are quick to criticize those who stress doing good works.

    Almost everytime I have been on a job working for someone and they liked my work it opened the door for the gospel. If it had not been for my work I would have never had the opportunity. Some are very well known people and God has opened the door wide open for me to talk with them then and for years later.

    What reason do people have to know more about the God we think we know until they view the God we think we know as genuine--God. They will not care how much we know until they know how much we care. Our love for them is the one thing that should stick out. Some of the hardest people want to know what makes a person different. Three years ago I had begun to pray for a man who told me that Christians were idiots and he told me it was because of those who followed the TV preachers. I listened to him for two hours without hardly saying anything. Eventually he asked me about why I was different. God opened his heart some. We have had several discussions since. I try to show him a lot of respect and buiold him up. I know that I have been a positivce influence on him. I know because he has told other people. He has done many things for me personally. Other people have commented on the affect I have had on him. I genuinely care for him and pray for him.

    Prov. 16:7, "When a man's ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him."
     
  17. Oasis

    Oasis
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper
    No offense, but you'll have to keep "eagerly" awaiting. I didn't post that article to get into a verse by verse battle over Wade Burleson. I've heard him preach; I've read some of his beliefs through his own blogs; I've read several interviews with him; I've spoken to some ex-members of his congregation here in Enid over the last few years. 2 Timothy has already provided a couple of the doctrinal issues. Overall, he might be considered conservative in charismatic pentecostal circles, but not in the SBC. I should have said that he is a moderate who embraces doctrinal liberalism. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

    Take care.
     
    #17 Oasis, May 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2007
  18. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    For you to say such a thing clearly shows that you have never read any books written by liberals or ever met one.

    That is a lot better than what Henry Blackaby said about many who claim to have conservative theology and live like practical atheists. Personally I do not have much respect for some of the leaders of the SBC who would put down some of theprofessors and leaders in the earliest days of the SBC. It is because of those men that the SBC was anything. If things were left to the Norrisites there would have been nothing left. Norris' old church was almost dead and gone until just a few years ago.

    I never understood what I heard a preacher say one time until I moved to the south and saw the fighting in the SBC. He said, "You can be a fundamentalist but you don't have to act like one."

    Keil and Delitzsch literally feared for their life among the liberals. Luther did too.

    I belive from what I know of some of the leaders in the SBC that practical atheism has crept into the SBC among its leaders more than most would care to know about or admit.

    Burleson is a long way off of liberalism.

    I have a good friend from Europe who told me one day that the liberals and fundamentalists lie in the same bed just at opposite ends. Some of them are so ridiculous that even non-Christians find them unbelieveable.

    If you read the books of some of the earliest SBC leaders I think you would find that the current SBC is further away them than Burleson is today. When I read the theology of some of the current SBC leaders and compare it to the SBC leaders of the late 1800s and early 1900s there is a huge difference in commitment and study. When I read men like A. T. Robertson and Broadus and then compare that to Patterson, Mohler and Land there is a huge gap. So much of a gap that the men of today look like they have never studied nor ever been in the battle.
     
  19. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the Current SBC and it elected leaders are MUCH more conservitive than the liberal embracing Burleson. Yes, there is much in-fighting at present with the SBC but much of it is keeping the liberal and Charasmatic OUT of the SBC.

    I love how you toss out accusation without substance or substantiation, but cap it off with "...more than most would care to know about or admit. " as though it is some hidden secret or that only those of the Burleson, Clinton pairing can see.

    You crack me up. :laugh:
     
    #19 Allan, May 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2007
  20. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0


    God has already made that judgement and revealed it to us in His world. it is an essential of the faith and non negotiable. If you cannot stand on Jesus being the only way then you do not have a relationship with the one true and living God. And that includes Carter. What you have said is a prime example of the liberalism I am talking about.
     

Share This Page

Loading...