Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jerome, Apr 25, 2015.
Young Pastors Object
It was because he is a 7th Day Adventist and the Pastor's Conference is prior to the SBC National convention.
It had nothing to do with the idea of Dr. Carson being "too liberal".
Read about it from Dr. Willy Rice's post about it
To reiterate what was quoted in the OP, the 'Baptist21' outfit had a laundry list of 'concerns' about Dr. Ben Carson's invitation:
So I guess we ought to take Merrit's word for it rather than the word of the man who invited the good doctor.
Who in the world is this 'Merrit' of yours?
On the point that some say that we are all God's children, that idea is false. While God created humans, His children are those who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour. All other humans are technically children of Satan.
Sorry, meant to write Akin. But my point is still valid. read what was written by the guy who was in charge of inviting Dr. Carson.
Are we looking for a national pastor to represent our theology, whether right or wrong, or are we looking for a President of the United States? The President of the United States is not there to speak to our particular theology nor is he there to be our personal preacher. He is there as the political leader of a vast host of theologies from Christianity to Atheism.
:thumbsup: :thumbs: :thumbsup:
Carson is running for President so therefore not eligible to speak to a denominational meeting.
Personally, I am tired of wishy-washy theology. The unorthodox should remain silent on the subject.
For what its worth, this isn't about Dr Carson running for President. This is about the SBC inviting someone from a different denomination that holds to some significantly different theological positions.
Frankly, I don't think any politician or anyone seeking elected office should ever speak to a denominational meeting of any denomination. Dr Carson's invite was odd and I am glad they've withdrawn it.
The SBC vanguard that wants access to the Oval Office and the hallways of power needs to take a step back. This isn't Kingdom activity. It shouldn't be honored at our denominational meetings.
Having taken part in discussions over at sbcvoices I can tell you there is much concern that Carson was being given a political platform.
I disagree with your despairing remarks about the SBC of course. I ushered at the meeting where Quayle spoke years ago but then he was already Vice-President. He spoke on cultural issues such as Murphy Brown wanting a baby without a husband, etc.
Carson is no expert on theology but on the essentials of the faith I am certain that he is orthodox.
I think that untrained politicians should avoid theological comments after listening to Obama's theological ignorance for the past years.
He can't help himself.
He is SDA which means he believes if you worship in Sunday you will fie and go to hell.
Right, but the day that one worships on is not an essential of the Christian faith, and that is Scriptural.
In the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message in the section on XVII. Religious Liberty, it says this:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7,24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.
I cannot see where it is a goal of the SBC to have some sort of political influence, which they have never had before.
Certainly, Hillary has open contempt for the SBC since her husband was asked to leave. And Obama seems closest to the Metropolitan Church and is fixated on crusades and inquisitions and bitter enders and high horses and has little use for Christianity.
As for the current field of GOP candidates, the only one that I know who is SBC is Ted Cruz.
George W. Bush, of course, is a Methodist and the Methodist Church helped him recover from alcoholism. Baptists, as everyone knows, only go into liquor stores in order to get empty boxes.
In conclusion, the charge against the SBC of currying political favor goes against the clear doctrinal statement of the SBC.
As for politicians such as Gov. Pence, also close to the Metropolitan Church, it seems the only role they find for Christianity is to preside at sodomite weddings and to cater the cakes and flowers for sodomite weddings.
Saw this on Jerry Vines' interwebsite about those Adrian Rogers chose to speak at the Pastors Conference in the late 1970s:
They've had Vice President George Bush (an Episcopalian) speak, and Oliver North!