Carter meets with SBC bloggers to discuss 2008 convocation

So the Bible contains errors. You are now a "liberal" according to many. Some see inerrancy and lack of any error as the same thing:

Thesaurus
Noun1.inerrancy - (Christianity) exemption from error; "biblical inerrancy

Dictionary ​

​

in·er·ran·cy (ĭn-ĕr'ən-sē)
n.
Freedom from error or untruths; infallibility: belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

So under those definitions you do not hold to inerrancy. How does it feel to be a liberal?

Perhaps we can agree with John Ankerburg on his definitions:

A. What inerrancy does claim:
1. To constitute an absolutely errorless original text. Inerrancy means that what the Bible teaches is true without a single error in the original manuscripts.
2. Inerrancy does not refer to manuscript copies or translations.


http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD0799W3.htm

So depending on what ones definition of inerrancy is I can certainly see someone refusing to sign any document saying the Bible contains no errors. I can also see Burleson's view of cooperating with such people.

 

There were not any documents presented to Burleson that stated such. As far as the signing the 2000 BFM well he is not required to sign it or to be a trustee. But remaining a trustee and not agreeing to the 2000 BFM is not an option. And as far as your aplication of inerrancy you have misapplied it clearly.

 

And what the writers knew or did not know is irrelevent. The scriptures were inspired by the Holy Ghost and therefore written by God. God is not limited by knowledge therefore the scriptures nor its penmans were neither with regards to God's revelation of himself.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2Ti 3:16 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


The problem with the liberal justification of their denial is that they always leave God out of the picture.
[/FONT]

 

Without any evidence, this is gossip.

 

Then don't. Don't pastor a SBC church. It's that simple. But in the meantime, try not running down the entire SBC.

 

If takes a fair amount of arrogance for you to assume that you know about me or my church.

Is the SBC perfect - no. Far from it. But there still some great churches in the SBC that are preaching the Gospel and leading many to faith in Christ. There are still many Godly pastors in many SBC churches.

And since you would never pastor in a SBC church, why are you getting so bent out of shape over what the SBC does?

 

Very simple: He is just trying to cause divisions within the SBC to weaken it. He has withdrawn from the SBC and should keep it that way!

 

It is hard to disagree with that.

 

SBCPreacher,

I got saved in a SBC church, called to preach in a SBC church attended SEBTS .(17hrs. from receiving degree.) First church I pastored was SBC.I have been invovled in SBC life since I was 7 years old.

I admire and respect men such as Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, James Merritt, Johnny Hunt, Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, R.G. Lee, Criswell, and some others. As well as all the other SBC preachers who preach in your average as well as small sized churches.

I hate to see the ole ship go down but liberalism must be defeated not marginalized for the sake of the SBC machine not to implode.
When dealing with theological liberalism you have to obliterate it from a church or organization or it will only rear up again with a new disguise.

SBCpreacher don't you dare complain of the "politics" of the convention while at the same time reaping the benefits of being a convention pastor. Yeah she (the SBC ) ain't perfect in other words what your saying is yeah we still have churches that have pastors who deny that the Bible is infallible, we still have women pastors even though the BF & M refutes the practice. But you know we have to sacrifice a little leaven in our SBC bread because all in all we ( the SBC) do so much good through the CP. Blah blah blah.

Oil and water cannot mix neither can theological conservatives and theological liberals. Yet the SBC seems to think they can make that happen?

The old school SBcers are getting old. The new breed of SBC pastor has been to indoctrinated with the false view of tolerance and lacks understanding when comes to the importance of standing up for doctrinal purity within a denomination.

How many times have I heard something like this in a SBC meeting of some sort:

"Oh we can set aside some of our doctrinal differences in order to work together for the cause of evangelism".

How warm and fuzzy that sounds yet it reeks of ignorance.

Your doctrine will determine how you evangelize and just what kind of discipleship you will perform.

The proof of that is in the SBC pudding that is before our very eyes.
Where did all these half cocked pastors and churches come from that have this low opinion of doctrine. Why it came from the fruits of setting aside doctrine for evangelism.


You've got me all wrong SBCpreacher, I would love to see the SBC succeed and it might very well do that but it won't neccesarily be with the hand of God upon her there are just to many libs. hidden in the SBC woodpile.

 

Ditto!:thumbs:

 

CSL, you've made what...10 posts?

As far as I can tell, you've run down the SBC in every one of 'em. That brings some thoughts to mind...

• There are thousands of SBC churches, and many, many faithful and Godly folks serving God in the SBC.
• Just because you perceive you've had your cornflakes TT'd in by a few doesn't give you the right to run down an entire denomination.
• Not every pastor under age 75 is of the devil.
• Since you aren't SBC, why not focus on where you are, and let God deal with the group to which you don't even belong?
• I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to "reaping the benefits of being a convention pastor." Last I checked, if there's any benefits for SBC pastors, it's because they've set them aside out of their own income. You seem quite misinformed about this particular issue.

 

Study Carter...he has drifted away from Baptist doctrine, hasn't he?
And Clinton? My goodness, no, there is no way what is supported there is under God's guidance.

Debbie Mc

 

There are no benefits of being what you call a "convention pastor," whatever that is. I do not pastor in the convention - I pastor in the local church.

I have never once said that we need to compromise on Biblical doctrine. On the contrary, I have said many times from the pulpit of my church that there is no room for compromise on Biblical doctrine.

I think your error is in assuming that all SBC'ers are the same. Making assumptions is always a bad idea.

Again, if you are not part of the SBC, then leave us alone. You probably have enough to worry about in your own denomination. Every one of them has problems of their own.

And one more thing. If any church or denomination succeeds, it will ONLY be because the hand of God is upon it. If we're trying to do this "church thing" on our own, we will fail. It is only by the grace of God that any church is successful in reaching others for Christ. I don't know how you pastor, but I can't do it except for the grace of God.