The SBC: S-lowly B-ecoming C-atholic?

"Bible believing church" is a very broad term. However, what about the Bible believing churches in Europe and Asia ... why should the SBC have control over their contributions to the BWA, the EBF or the seminary? Would you approve of any of those organizations having a member with complete control of SBC spending. I think not.

 

If it is money coming from American SBC churches, we have 2 choices, give it without strings and let the liberals have it or not let them have it. If the churches in Europe and Asia want their money going to those organizations, let them. I'm for letting liberals find a way to pay for their own unbelief.

Of course, Bible believing church is a broad term. I would imagine you would describe it in vastly different terms that I would. But that's also why we have a BF&M. It defines those terms. You don't like how they are defined, fine. You can work to get the the BF&M changed. That's your choice as a person. But, just because the SBC has closed off the little word games that liberals and cultics use to hide their unbelief, don't say we're no longer Baptists. We are, they're not.

 

Amen and Amen

 

Don't judge a whole denomination by the few you have had experience with. It is so easy to go to the denomination's website, click on their statement of faith type information, and check for yourself.

There is always a few in each denomination who go overboard on theological issues, and these are usually very vocal about it. In a class in my Baptist church a few years ago, there was a group who were telling a new person that if you went to the movies and drank strong dirink, you could not be a Christian. I tried to straighten them out, but it left the new person confused.

 

Okay, I'll respond. I think you are wrong about it... so be glad! :laugh:

I think we have to be vigilant about wrong practices. But just because I use the words "spiritual disciplines" and a catholic uses it doesn't mean we mean the same thing. Anymore than when a JW or Mormon calls Jesus the son of God, they have the same meaning as when a Bible believer uses it. And as I said before, I won't quit using a word just because a liberal uses it too.

 

Well, the PDF in the OP is from the ABC site, not the SBC. Also, there's no way from the link to know what the context of the PDF is. Is it a file an indivudual posted on the site? Is it a file referring to standard ABC practice and procedure? Is it a file in a list of general nonspecific resources? There's no way to verify any connection between the document's contents, and there being a policy or procedure of the SBC.

So, yes, it looks like you might be misunderstood about the SBC on this.

 

Good point. The early Lutherans saw to it that all stained glass windows were removed from Lutheran churches, because they were considered "too Catholic". As a result, a multitude of priceless stained glass artwork was destroyed. Today, the notion of removing a stained glass window out such a concern seems silly.

It's not necessary to fear certain practices simply because someone else to whom we object uses them.

 

I've already provided an article that said half of the SBC pastors believe in a "private prayer language." Why the survey in the first place, if a trend wasn't noticed?

 

You should go back and read the article you posted:

 

Well there you go. Now why were these spiritual disiciplines "wrong" again? I don't think we ever got that queston answered.

 

"Be still and know that I am God" has nothing to do with meditation! You might be interested to know that "Christian" New Agers have long used this verse to support Eastern/New Age meditation. The "Be Still" is rendered "Cease striving" in the NASB and rendered in other words in other versions. This is actually a rebuke from God.

Part of my article on this:

http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_MeditationPsalm.html

 

Where is fasting commanded? It might be there but I can't think of it. I am not against fasting at all, just wondering where it's commanded.

What is happening is that these "disciplines" are being taught as though we must have them to be close to God or to be spiritual. And I do not see a basis for all these or that we must do them. That's legalistic. And I don't see good biblical support.

As I said, this comes straight out of the Catholic church. In fact, it's even more than that; the disciplined were proscribed for those in monastic orders.

 

More to the point, just because a person is meditating, fasting, etc, doesn't mean they're engaging in someting unchristian. It doesn't mean they're not, but it doesn't mean they are.

 

Right. That's for God to decide.

 

GOOD QUESTION!!!:BangHead::jesus: