Dr. Curtis Hutson

He was critical of the convention and did not have SBC speakers at Sword conferences while he was editor. Strangely, he seemed not to realize that his position differed from that of Dr. John R. Rice. He passed away some years ago, so he may have a slightly different perspective now. My comments are based upon my recollections of things he wrote while he was editor of the Sword of the Lord.

 

He was very anti SBC. He like Hyles felt it had gone "liberal". He was even critical of any IFB who affliated with SBC preachers. Documentation, No. I used to listen to his tapes 20 years ago. Go back and read The Sword Of The Lord when he was editor, that will give you a sense of his views.

 

Dr. Curtis Hutson was someone who my Pastor was very fond of. He considers him his most valuable mentor and friend. Even when he was very frail from illness, he kept on preaching. I've met his wife and his daughters. But he died before I had a chance to meet him.

If you don't find what you're looking for on the internet. You might try asking my Pastor. I think my church is linked in my profile. If anyone would know what he stood for it would be him.

Nice to hear someone ask about a Pastor that I've actually heard of before.

 

Yes, Dr. Curtis Hutson spoken against SBC by written articles in Sword of the Lord often.

I understand how does he felt toward SBC.

I met him twice. I love him so much. I respect him very well.

I ama truly independent fundamental baptist.

SBC is not perfect.


BUT, there is NO difference between SBC and IFB. Both are not perfect.

Some SBC churches are very good, some SBC churches are better than IFB churches.


I am sure God do truly blessing on both SBC and IFB who serve God.

I prefer not criticize against on either sides. Let God take care of them.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

DeafPostTrib--you hit the nail right on the head!! Amen!! Thanks!!

We need to remember that Dr. Hutson's words on the SBC was BEFORE the so-called conservative resurgence beginning in 1979!---which in deed it could be said so of the SBC. As far as his preaching? No better than any other ultri-Conservative SBC'er I've heard on the SBC platform!

WisdomSeeker's advise should be well taken--her pastor IS one who would have known Brother Curtis well! Thanks, Laurenda!

Brother David

 

Is there not a difference between an IFB and SBC?

 

Yes. SBCers are the real fundamentalists.

 

Yes there are differences. The letter "I" stands for independent, meanign they are not affiliated with the convention. An SBC church, by definition, cannot be independent. In doctrine there will not be much difference among the conservative SBC and the IFBs. In practice there may or may not be a difference. But they are not the same and the SBCs are not the "real fundamentalists." Many IFBs are not real fundamentalists ...

 

Being a Southern Baptist pastor, I am surprised to learn that I am not an independent Baptist! My church is self-governing, indigenous, and autonomous. The SBC in no way tells my church what it can and cannot do. Isn't that what being independent is all about???

 

I am pretty sure Larry clarified by saying that an independant is unaffiliated with the convention. If your SBC church is not really Southern Baptist, then yes, you are an independant.

Gunther, SBC because I believe the Bible

 

I am not trying to incite you at all but rather trying to gain some information since I am an IFB in search of a church home in an area where no true independent fundamental churches exist.

How do you justify the cooperative programs that take authority and autonomy away from the local church? In particular, the missions program and seminaries. Do you not believe that an autonomous local church should review missionaries before supporting them?

Also, the SBC churches here all seem to be involved in ecumenical organizations called "ministerial alliances." These groups include Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, SDA's, etc. One church I visited had previously allowed a woman UMC minister to preach in their church. Another had allowed a Catholic priest to preach in their church.

How do SBC's a) compromise for fellowship with people claiming to be Christians but rejecting fundamental Bible doctrines and b) justify fellowshipping with compromisers?

 

I am not trying to incite you </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know about inciting anybody else but for a person who's not trying you're doing a dang good job of inciting me.

By the way the cooperative program in no way makes my church subject to the SBC. The word is cooperate and that is just what we do. We are not forced nor are we told how much we must give, it is churches working in cooperation with each other to further the cause of Christ. Is it perfect? no but I don't know of any independant church that is either.
Murph

 

Sorry. I am actually being very sincere. I don't know how to phrase it in writing any better. These are real concerns for someone coming from my background into a potential union with an SBC church.

But do you endorse missionaries individually or do you entrust that responsibility to someone in the SBC hierarchy.

IFB's cooperate as well. However, they know the people they send into the missions field and usually correspond with them personally.

I think this is a wonderful idea. No missions could be accomplished without multiple churches cooperating.

I agree. My concern is whether too much responsibility is aquiesced to someone that you don't know to support missionaries you don't know. I am not even saying that any of these people are untrustworthy.

These are genuine concerns that I would like an answer to. I am not trying to condemn the SBC but I don't want to be a poor steward of that which God has entrusted me with.

 

Scott, I would not be a part of a church where the leadership took part in those stupid "ministerial alliances". They imply that unity is more important than truth. That "preacher" has NOTHING of value to say.

Of course, if it is indeed a theologically barren area, you might want to consider joining with others and starting a church.

One problem is that so much of "Baptists" today is liberalism. If it isn't theological (KJVO, non-premill, errancy of Scripture, etc), it is social (pro-choice, communism, etc).