Featured Joseph Prince

Word of faith can sound for awhile orthodox, but eventually their heresy comes in, especially when they espouse God was a failure, jesus died a sinner and got born again, God just a giant man etc!

 

But then isn't this the same with that of the Baptists?

For instance, much of the "not right with God" preaching done in the past 50 or so years - particularly attributed to IFB types - has been a mix of half truth and a lot of human devices.

I am seeing more and more pew sitters in the Baptist ranks that run strictly upon what "sounds good" to them, rather than what the Scriptures declare.

The typical Baptist believer holds that the blessings of God upon them is indicated by how well off they are and how healthy they are.

The typical has no clue that the blessings may be a trick by the adversary to distract them from having thankful heart to God.

The typical modernist Baptist would rather embrace all worldly standards and call it liberty of the spirit, than rage war with the world and lusts of the world.

TBN has its faults and the word of faith/knowledge folks are generally wrong. No doubt.

But, the adversary is far more in bed with the typical Baptist assembly than would be considered polite to be admitted by them.

 

good post, but main difference is most baptist churches teach sound doctrine, but at times fail to practice them, while WOF just wrong in both doctrines and practices!

 

Which equals 100% heresy. :thumbsup:

See above.

 

I agree.

Well, I used to agree.

Back in the day, I could agree.

Well, maybe agree.



Actually, the typical SS literature and "training union" literature has been a boiling problem for decades. I recall even back in the early 60's how some discerning teachers would cast aside the programs of the SBC in favor of a systematic teaching of Scriptures.

I recall the time when such SBC schools as Baylor would have much the same rules of conduct that such schools as BJU have held and been much maligned. Now, all manner of life conduct is acceptable and consider normal in most SBC colleges and seminaries.

Wrong doctrine is lived out in wrong living. The typical playboy preacher of the sexual freedom revolution years (think 1960s, 70's, ...) have produced a congregations of little worth - those that talk Bible, but have little true Biblical standards. Those that place value upon world and worldly over God and Godly.

The typical Baptists have been plunging head long into excusing sin for so long that they are generally no longer excusing but embracing.

Isn't it true that preachers who condemn the world and the things of this world are pictured in the typical pew sitting Baptist church as "heretical?" Not in the way we on the BB would define the word, but in the modernist thinking toward one who is just an embarrassment and should be shunned? Someone who is a "Bible thumper" or just needs to "lighten up?" Such are more often dismissed in favor of one who will tickle the ears, or has a more pleasing bed side manner.

The harshest condemnation toward some of us on the BB hasn't been over doctrine, but criticism that we would not embrace the world and things of this world.

Those of the BB who can proclaim every nuance of some doctrinal position they hold are often the very ones who condemn those of us who would actually consider something a sin, and express the sinfulness of sin.

Look upon history and see those who are supposedly the spiritual leaders embracing the world and worldly is not a prerequisite that God has pronounced judgment upon the preachers and teachers of the land.

 

This is nothing but wrong. I have no idea where you get your info from but it is serious error to malign all SBC schools based on Baylor. I suggest you research that better before you speak again. Baylor does not show what all SBC schools are doing.

 

I DO know what I am posting.

"Before you (post) again" on the subject, review the historical battle over the schools that was a part of the last 50 years of the SBC power plays.

The push back against the "conservative resurgence" and the extremely well documented aggressive and for the most part successful attempts to distance the schools from SBC control.

 

You're have to be the most extreme of fundamentals to think the SBC is liberal. Oh, wait ...

Sorry. Forgot who I was talking to.

 

Would the typical SBC membership be the examples of Lee Roberson, W. A Criswell, John R. Rice, J. Harold Smith, ...


Is the typical SBC pastor and leadership of the SBC affiliated schools of the last 70 years (including those who removed themselves from SBC) be in agreement with, and patterned after, the examples of these now passed preachers?

Why was there even a need for a "conservative resurgence" (lead by W. A Criswell) if the SBC was so "conservative?"

These men were grieved that the SBC had lost its moorings and was adrift in the sea of modernism and hypocrisy and that SBC schools were a hotbed of heretical thinking and teaching.

One withdrew from the convention over the modernism. Two established their own institutions of higher learning that some might actually get proper Biblical training rather than the slop of the SBC schools.

Sad that so very many would rather laugh at the warnings, and scorn any indicators of the plight.

What a mess sin has made that folks have so very little desire for the life lived holy and wholly for the Lord.

 

How can you write so many words and so completely miss the point?

You're previous post assumes the SBC to continue to be liberal. It isn't. Write that down for future reference. Thank you.

 

You are just simply wrong. You characterization of the schools is currently false. Baylor is not an example of all schools in the SBC.

 

So, you are contending that there was no need for W. A. Criswell to lead a conservative movement in the SBC?

 

Can you say Derailed?

 

Please go back and reread my post. Your false characterization wrongly painted schools as fitting your description today. That is my contention. Not what was in the past.

And Criswell did not lead it. He in fact was brought into it reluctantly because he was unaware of the level of the problem at first.

 

I've not heard of this character, yet he is in no deeper water than those who believe they did something and were rewarded with salvation for their doing.

Today we see a gospel that depends upon what man can do rather than being solely dependent upon God. Yet these same preach 'total' dependence upon God, or, salvation being all of God all the while preaching mans ability to repent and believe. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

Depends on how broad one brushes the Gospel message, as I consider many Evangelical Arminians as brothers and sistors in the Lord, its just that they have an incomplete view of what salvation actually consists of, or perhaps better to say an incomplete understanding of the process by which God saves us by!

the preach and teach the same message and same jesus, but have vested a different nuance into what is meant by saved by grace alone thru faith alone, but they still are NOT those paul describes preaching another gospel, as I do not see calvinism as being THE gospel, but the BEST way to explain it as being!

 

I believe the same things. We're saved by Grace not by theological acumen.

For the most part yes, but arminian and anti-cal error have led to many false teachings and sects due to the glorification of mans ability, the teaching that faith is an inherent power source, the diminishing of the Sovereignty of God (god a bellhop and powerless to save unless we allow Him/He must grant us our desires when we exercise our faith) and more.

I agree with this but only on a case by case examination. Some in fact do preach a false gospel. Keep in mind our resident SDA supports arminian error. That is telltale.