Hemphill In Denial!

Michael Dean was NEVER president of the BGCT. Michael has always been conservative but was more supportive of "moderate" (I hate these names!) Baptists but changed allegiances after Dilday was fired and Hemphill came to town.

And could someone list names and prove which Baptists are LIBERAL????? In most Baptist camps Liberal means "those who don't agree with me, and you know I am right!"

 

"The Baptist Standard stands by its story as reported in the April 21 issue," the newspaper said in response. "Every assertion in the article that was not directly attributed to a specific source was confirmed by a minimum of three knowledgeable sources."


In my opinion, The Baptist Standard is an anti-SBC propaganda paper that tends to put the SBC and it's agencies in a negative light. The Standard's reporting is not objective when dealing with the SBC. I will side with Ken Hemphill's story rather than The Standard.

 

Aren't you supposed to love your enemies? Why all the faces after this statement?

Neal

 

Before we provide you with a list could you give us a definition of "liberal" that you will accept.

 

"Liberal" to most conservatives is anyone who is to their left. A theological liberal is usually one who is SO open to the point of doubting or denying the deity of Christ, denying the inspiration of Scripture, denying the virgin birth, and is open to universalism. And somewhere I bet there will be someone who is to the left of that!

 

I think that liberals are usually anti-supernaturalists and often deny the resurrection. (Those that deny the deity of Christ and the resurrection are obviously not true believers but they may still claim to find some sort of 'higher truth' in the gospel story.)

There's a now retired Methodist minister here in town whom I watched on television early one Easter morning while I was getting ready to go to my church. I was nearly late because I stopped everything to listen carefully when he announced that Jesus was not resurrected - only the spirit of Christ (apparently the feeling of generousity and goodwill to others). In his view of things, the disciples changed from gloomy people, sad over the death of Jesus, to happy people, happy that they could carry on the mission of Jesus to others.

I waited for lightning bolts (or at least a significant number of the congregation to get up and leave during his sermon) but nothing happened except for a lot of yawns.

That's a liberal (and an unbeliever).

 

If This is an acceptable Definition of "Liberal" then I'm ready to begin the list.

"A theological liberal is usually one who is SO open to the point of doubting or denying the deity of Christ, denying the inspiration of Scripture, denying the virgin birth, and is open to universalism."

The Most obvious and flagrant liberal who meets this definition and who is still employed by a Baptist College with ties to a Southern Baptist State Convention is Dr. Kirby Godsey, President of Mercer University, Macon, Georgia. Author of the Book "When we Talk about God, Let's be Honest." The proof is in his book in black and white.

I yield the floor to others who may wish to add other names to this list.

 

I always thought that the definition of a liberal , in the eyes of ultra-Conservative SBC stalwarts like Rogers, Patterson, Pressler, Moore, et al, is someone who disagrees with their belief on one or more areas such as inerrancy, women in ministry, eschatology, etc.

 

Then you have thought wrong. Paige Patterson and Adrian Rogers both disagree with Al Mohler on Soteriology. Many Southern Baptist leaders disagree on Eschatology. There are even those within leadership roles in the conservative movement who believe women can be ordained to specific ministries other than Senior Pastor.

The one thing all SBC Conservatives believe and are consistent in is their position on the Inerrancy of Scripture.

 

True, Hardsheller. From what I have read and seen the Conservative movement in the SBC is made up of Dispensationalists ( Rogers, Vines, Patterson, Merrit, Land) and Calvinists (Mohler, Ascol, Eliff) and I would say at times is an uneasy alliance with major doctrinal differances but with unity on Inerrancy of Scripture.

There are many in the Reformed camp that are not opposed to Women Deacons as long as they serve in the Biblical office of Deacons as servants of the church (visiting the elderly, caring for the sick etc..) and not the unscriptural modern day Baptist view of Deacons as a governing body or pastoral advisors. As you said the key thing in the SBC that defines a conservative is the belief in Inerrancy which includes a broad camp of Southern Baptists.

 

Actually, the use of the word “inerrancy” and political assent to the “conservative resurgence”(sic) seems to be the thing that makes one a “conservative” in the SBC.

Then the carefully selected Baptist Faith and Message revision committee put forth their statement on scripture, ironically they didn’t use the word (or even concept of inerrancy) in their text:

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

In my opinion, their article is a stronger statement on scripture than a theory of inerrancy (which traditionally extends only to the original manuscripts) and is a better statement than a simple affirmation of inerrancy.

I can affirm this statement of scripture, although I would add that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” so as to ensure that one cannot interpret this article to mean that the written word is somehow elevated above the Living Word.

But the point here is, if “inerrancy” is allegedly the point of unity, why did they reject inerrancy for a stronger statement? And if the SBC promotes this view of scripture then why does the SBC leadership reject those who also reject theories of inerrancy?

Let’s face it, the controversy is primarily political in nature, not theological.

 

One day at the Founders' website, I found a link to a "Founders Friendly" church in New Orleans which has deaconesses.

 

Baptist Believer, I do not know all the reasons but maybe somebody more learned on this subject than I could explain. I like the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message and think it is a good doctrinal statement.

To say it is political in nature I believe is incorrect. It is true there are some conservatives like Richard Jackson who allied himself curiously with the "Moderate/Liberal" camp. Sure there are politics on both sides and I have seen some major cheap shots delivered by the "Moderate/Liberal" side at a State Convention and even at a local convention. I am not saying the Conservative side has not taken cheap shots in that I am sure that has happen but in my experience it has always been the the "Moderate/Liberal" side throwing the mud here in the Louisiana Bayou.

The issue of inerrancy was what dominated debate for so long in the SBC and the Moderate/Liberal side have lost the war. The Texas Baptist Convention seems to be the only survivor of the SBC civil war which is amazing since some of the original leaders of the Conservative resurgence were Texans.

 

Southern Baptists of Texas currently list 1303 affiliated churches. How long will it be until they achieve numerical parity with the BGCT?

 

....The BFM2K goes BEYOND being a doctrinal statement.
It will take a long time for the SBT to be as big as the BGCT (which alone is larger than most national denominations!) And within a short time the SBC will have division within their own ranks which has already begun. There are at least two "top dogs" who are fighting to be the #1 TOP DOG. Just an observation.

 

Spoken like a true Texan. We're the Biggest therefore we must be the Best!

 

I was stating fact in that comment and not sarcasm as in the reply.
This will be my final post on this board.

 

Nothing like knowing you have missionaries with integrity.

 

John MacArthur, obviously not a Southern Baptist (though he has spoken at the national Founders Conference), advocates deaconesses.

Mark Dever, a leader within the Founders, pastors a church (Capitol Hill Baptist) with deaconesses.

The thing to remember is that there is a HUGE difference between elders and deacons. These churches, Grace Community and Capitol Hill, have elders who RULE. The deacons are not a "ruling" body.

 

Strange, isn't it? We battle for 20+ years, and then don't even put "inerrant" in the 2000 BFM. What weird, wild, wacky stuff! Pure insanity!