SBC meeting - 2009, Historical significance

GB, I don't think Saturn/Neptune is the one shoveling manure. Are you equating yourself with Jesus in your relentless attacks? His anger was justified and righteous. Your anger, however, is driven by a personal agenda of anger and resentfulness.

 

Wondering what contemplative prayer was, I read the article at http://apprising.org/2008/08/learn-...-carolina-and-spiritual-director-jan-johnson/, LEARN CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY/MYSTICISM (CSM) THE SBC WAY WITH BAPTIST STATE CONVENTION OF NORTH CAROLINA AND SPIRITUAL DIRECTOR JAN JOHNSON" Does the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina support that?

 

Have you read what Spurgeon said to do when someone criticizes you?

Are you saying that Proverbs 25:11 does not apply.

My Bible says be angry and do not sin and you say anger is not justified? I do have an agenda of godliness and godly practices. I just happen to believe that everything must be accurately documented and above board so that all are informed. When problems arise admit the problems and move on instead of attempting to cover them up.

 

Here we go!

You’ve pulled that out of context and making the worst assumption regarding what he believes, but as I recall, you’ve never answered my question regarding that point... Do you believe that infants who die go to hell because they don’t have a rational understand of Christ? If yes, then you are being consistent with your assertion. If you believe that God has mercy on those infants who do not have an opportunity to rationally understand the message of Christ, then you are right where I believe Dallas Willard falls.

No spinning here. I’ve been trying to be as straight-forward as possible. I don’t have a reputation to protect.

I believe that very few people are actually pro-abortion (although I know some), but there are many who are pro-choice (in concept as well as action).

Well in dictatorships and destructive relationships, it does happen sometimes, but for the most part your point holds.

The position is different. But pro-choice people open the door for legal abortion.

Well you’ve nicely ripped that out of context!

I supported Bush, but I did not support his “faith-based initiatives” program. Does that mean I am for “faith-based initiatives”? Absolutely not. However, when I added up all of the other factors in making a decision regarding who to vote for for President, the weight of my opinion fell for Bush.

The decision was similar, and even more difficult, when I voted for McCain.

In the same way, those who voted for Obama may or may not condone abortion, but there were likely many other factors in play for those who voted for Obama where the weight of their opinion fell for Obama.

I have yet to find a presidential candidate who believed everything I believed or with whom I didn’t have some substantial disagreements with. I realize that you and others are trying to exact vengeance against Christians who voted for Obama, insinuating that they must approve of abortion since they voted for him, but that’s just shabby, dishonest thinking.

Actually, I don’t. I support the spiritual disciplines as depicted in scripture and have been developed over the years within Christendom. I realize that lots of people are trying to paint Dallas Willard as a non-Christian New Age mystic, but everyone who has spent quite of bit of time working through his books and teaching (instead of misinterpreting a few passages from online articles) knows that the accusation is false.

Really? Deeply troubling?

How else can they be faithful to the scriptures except according to their understanding? If they misunderstand the scriptures, then they are liking to be faithful to error.

Perhaps they should get their shoes off the word of God, open it up and try to understand it. Seriously, you’re desperately trying to find scandal where there is none.

Well I’m not a liberal, but the caveat I leave open is that two believers may have legitimate disagreements about what a certain scripture might mean. Both Christians need to be faithful to the scripture as they understand it and yet work together for clearer understanding. If that’s liberalism, then the New Testament church was full of liberals, BaptistBoard is full of liberals, and most of the Southern Baptist Convention is full of liberals.

My posts go back to 2002. They are archived.

That’s funny. The ones you mentioned are hardly extreme or far left. In fact, most of them are complete misunderstandings of fact. And one (the Obama/abortion one) is a failure of rational thinking.

Right back at ya!

I would add that in my research I found two things worth adding:

Perhaps. I freely admit I am faulty as well. But have you also noted that I’ve given Patterson credit for a few things too?

[FONT=&quot]I try to be fair, even though I fail miserably sometimes. However, I appreciate the fact that you notice I try to stand up for people when I think they are being unfairly maligned, even if they are not usually on “my side” of things.

And in case you are wondering:

[/FONT] (1) Do I hold to the tenets of, or have appreciation for, the precepts of higher criticism?
I reject higher criticism. I think higher critics sometimes point out interesting things about scripture, but the methodology is very flawed.

(2) Do I have a bias for or against supernaturalism?
For.

(3) What is my perspective on spiritual gifts? Do I think sign gifts (tongues, miracles, word of knowledge, etc.) are active today?
I believe some (if not all) are active in the world today, although not necessarily all in North America.

(4) Do I believe in macro-evolution or some form of creationism?
Creationism, but not necessarily the way it is usually presented.

(5) Do I believe that Moses substantially wrote (either personally or through assistants) the Genesis--> Deuteronomy?
I believe that Moses was heavily involved in the creation of these books, but I imagine he had scribes working with him as well as a number of source manuscripts he assembled.

(6) Do I believe the Bible is "full of errors" or very reliable?
Extremely reliable.

(7) How many authors do I think wrote what we now know as the book of Isaiah?
I see no reason to assume more than one author.

 

That Web site makes lots of accusations and assumptions, but they are completely off-base.

 

That is what it living for Christ is all about.

 

You got it.:thumbs:

 

Ok Ed. It's no use trying to talk to the SBC haters anyway. They are looking for anything to be critical of. Had the convention been held in heaven with Jesus Himself bringing the keynote address they would find some reason to be critical.

 

I think that was a great idea to have the convention in the same location as the first SBC seminary. When I think of men like Broadus, and Robertson I think of men who are great examples of both scholarship and godliness. We need to be reminded of men like them who studied hard and who worked hard in ministry.

I have some of their books and find them pointing to Christ and they motivate me to keep focused and do better.

I particularly like Chapter ten of
The Best of A.T. Robertson
Compiled by Davis S. Dockery
Edited by Timothy and Denise George Foreward by Herschel H. Hobbs

The following is a short excerpt from Chapter 10

A True Education Is Never Finished
But woe unto you, if you are so wild as to think that these results will come ready-made and drop at your touch. There is a long road of toil and sweat if you wish to accomplish much. A true education is never finished, and a finished education is of little use. John Richard Green said, "I die learning." For an education is more the ability to grapple with the present than mere know- ledge of the past. The dry preachers are those that learned it all long ago and have relied on that little ever since. There is plenty of fresh truth in the Bible to water your soul, if you will find it. And the oldest will be the freshest, if you get below the surface of superficial meaning that your ears may have become used to. For there will be life and power in the words then. Gladstone says, "I have been a learner all my life, and am a learner still." Whether you keep up your Greek and Hebrew or not, as you ought if possible, you must be continually extending your sphere of knowledge in one or more directions, and so gaining new power. He alone has fresh power who does fresh work. A man can have a scholarly method of work and not be scholastic. What is wanted is the mill to grind the corn, whether it be by steam or water or hand. The corn must be ground. God's truth must be kneaded well in the mind and heart of the preacher, if it is to be adapted to the wants of his audience. He must not make the truth bleed by rough handling, and so destroy the right proportion that one truth sustains to another. This is the function of scholarship in preaching. It is mechanical, perhaps, and yet in this age of mechanism we see the importance of having the right kind of machinery. But there is no virtue in a dead machine. It needs the fire to give motion and power. The wire is of no service, save when charged with electricity. It is the electricity that is wanted. Away with a scholarship in the preacher that refused to be the vehicle for the Spirit and Word of God, but is laden rather with the crotchets of men. This is over education, or too much of the wrong sort. A few men go to school too long. You can rub all the edge off of some blades, but they are thin blades. If you are a thin blade, do not whet all your edge away.