When will 'Modern' Baptists return to being Baptist

Can you show just one example where they voted on doctrinal issues and biblical practices in scripture? I cannot think of one time. I see no place in the Bible where Christianity was about being a democracy. The prophets did not wait for a vote but rather a call from God.

 

I guess there goes the issue of church business meetngs which is sometimes what I would like. But Acts 6 shows that they re-organized how the local church did ministry when the widows were facing an ineuitable sharing situation.

In Acts 15, the leaders of the various churches got together concerning the Gentiles getting saved and the various judaizers were trying to bring them back into judaism.

But you're right when it comes to the proclamation of the Gospel no votes ought to be taken. But that wasn't what we were discussing. We were discussing how an denomination is and/or should be working.

My smart aleck answer is we started to have to make votes when liberals started using code words for their unbelief. We had to be very specific about what we meant about the inerrancy of the Bible when words like the "authority of Scripture" was code for "we think there are mistakes in it, but don't want to say that openly"

 

From what I see in the Bible is that godly men are to be leaders and that if there is an accusation it ought to only be entertained when three or more testify of the same thing. Godly leaders are recogniozed for their proven leadership among the people. Proven leadership is proven in the disciples they make, not just doctrinal statements they claim to believe, their financial statement, or anything that the world could duplicate. We have let too much worldlines slip through the cracks and eventually the church thought of the once worldliness as being okay and unable to recognize the difference. If a man does not make disciples then what does that say about his proven leadership ability and God's hand on him? I believe that for many years the church in America has bought into the idea that a leader is one who has leadership qualities but I believe scripture teaches that leaders must have leadership qualities that must be proven first in the disciples they make first. Making disciples takes time and transparency. If there are flaws in one who tries to make discipels it will be noted in the disciples he makes and by those who see the flaws. When leaders are selected from among the people who have proven their leadership others recognize the leaders they see as walking with God. Discipleship is a method of detailed mentoring aimed at developing strong leaders who are able to lead others and teach and train others like Jesus did.

I just happen to believe that we have churches with a lot of immaturity and people who examine a man on the basis of oratory and too often not proven leadership in the disciples he makes. Think of how often we hear people talk about how someone is a good preacher rather than a good leader and disciplemaker.

A pastor should be the kind of leader who is recognized as being a leader among leaders in a church.

 

I would like to know how you became the chief evaluator of churches and the SBC. Who appointed you to this position? Your posts are full of bragging as to your supposed success. You criticize anyone and any organization who doesn't do church like you do. Your arrogance speaks volumes as to your character. I feel sorry for anyone you are reproducing. God help us if we run into these Christians with GB's chip on their shoulder.

 

Tom, I've lifted this from your post with which I basically agree, in order to make a different point. Conservatives have allowed liberals to define terms, and set the tone of the debate. For instance, all creeds are bad. So, we spend time trying to say the BF&M is not a creed but a confession, or statement of faith. By implication, we agree that creeds are bad. But all a creed is, is saying what we believe. Creed, confession, SOF, they're the same.

Then the liberal defines the Conservative Resurgence as a power grab, and we run as hard as we can from that defiinition. But in my view, that's exactly what it was, and exactly what was needed. The conservatives devised a way to take power from the liberals and return the SBC to its roots. Make no mistake, it was a fight over power for a number of good reasons. It wasn't pretty, but doctrinal wars rarely are.

In the process, not one person was required to change his beliefs. Not one church was ordered to change its statement of faith. Nor one church was required to leave the SBC.

So the next time someone accuses the SBC of a power grab, or a battle over power, the answer is, "you bet."

 

Well said...........

 

That is not always true. There are times when it acts like one. There have been several times when a church decides it no longer wants to be SBC and is unable to do so even though it has the votes and owns the building and property.

A few years ago I knew a pastor that had run off most everyone in the church with just a few peope left. The church changed its constitution so that the few who were lect owned the property. Eventually the chruch was put up for sale. The SBC stepped in and prevented the sale of that church and it was never sold. If that were truly an autonomous chruch thern how was the SBC able to sterp in and prevent the sale legally.

 

GB, not only do you like to brag and criticize, you also like to preach. Personally, I don't want to hear any sermon you have to preach. Bragging and arrogance are not traits that I admire in a preacher.

 

I am not convinced they are so conservative as people think. I see it as very little doctrinal change on paper and little to no difference in terms of practice and action. I became thoroughly disgusted whern I pastored a chruch that had a regular practice of inviting the Mormon bishop to teach as well as one of the men teaching Sunday School spent time learning from a false teacher through tapes in Houston. Shortly after I arrived I heard aboiut the practice from people in town who did not attend the church. Yet I also found out that a number of SBC folks at the local and state level knew about it for quite a long time. They had the right doctrine on paper but they were a mile off in practice. Their boldness was close to zero. I had never seen such wall flower in my life. When it came time to step up to the plate and take a stand you should have heard the rebellion and opposition by some of the deacons.

Emplyers require more than that. Yet the SBC is dealing with spiritual matters. Isn't that much like saying you do not have to agree with us but you can be a member and be a part of us? What good is having a creed if it is not use to determined which churches and people fellowship and which do not? A church can have correct doctrine on paper and be out to lunch in practice and outsiders know it while nothing is done. Isn't that just like words without any action? Doesn't James deal with an issue of faith without works and the value of it? Isn't that like having a creed much like the Jews had and yet live like God does not exist. When there are just words and little or no discipline what does that tell its members? It discourages boldness because the members just hear words and see no action. All that does is make good grumbling material.

Isn't that much like saying, "Our doctrinal statement says what we believe but we really do not believe it?"

Where is there any responsibility in that kind of action?

 

Tom Butler - I agree also. Yours is a thoughtful response.

As to the SBC stepping in to halt the sale of a church. I don't know the situation GB is speaking about, but it was more than likely a state Convention or a local ss'n. The isssue is a reverter clause. It says that because Cooperative Program money went into bldg the buildings, a SBC church cannot just sell the property to anyone and cease to be a church. They can sell the property to another church, go elsewhere and continu being a SBC church in that location. These reverter clauses were popular when IBF pastors would take SBC churches and try to make them leave the convention.

As I said, I don't know the particular situation, but almost all states have a staff guy who has that responsibility to watch out for that happening.

There are also legal implications about the sale of the property and who gets the proceeds. Because a church is a non-profit organization, the proceeds of the sale must go to a non-profit organization not any individuals. That is the law and that might have stopped the sale also. I get this from GB's statement that the few who were left owned the property. No one can own a non-profit organization.

 

Over the years I have heard the same things about confident men who stood for something too. They were in good company because the Pharisees did not like Jesus. Do not confuse confidence in God and arrogance. My Bible says the righteous are bold as a lion. What am I to assume about you when you fail to show where I might have missed the mark from scripture? You failed to answer any of the questions I asked you in post #85. People that know their Bible can give answers from scripture. They do not have to resort to personal attacks in an attempt to win an argument.

 

Preaching again are we gb?

 

It was a sad case because the pastor and myself used to share our faith and do things in the church together when we were in seminary. He got to the point where I nor anyone else could tell him anything. He started out pastoring doing a great job and then something happened. I am not sure what, but he got to the point where he did not trust the people he had been taught by. He had never been exposed to opposing points of view on soem doctrines. I really think he is like so many who only hear one point of view and why the teacher/preacher believes what he does. His entire life was surrounded by people who believed the same things and thought the same way. Later he developed an attitude of US vs THEM. That is the reason why I believe it is so important to expose people to differing points of view and discussing them and giving reason why we believe what we do. I have some friends who are not afraid to discuss theological issues with me and it has provided some great discussions as well as some great times of learning for both of us.

 

Are you unable to provide answers from from the Bible to the questions I asked you in post #85 from the Bible?

 

I'm afraid I did not make myself clear. The SBC cannot require a local church to do anything. It may cease fellowship for various reasons, but cannot force change in a church. Many churches did leave the SBC in the aftermath of the Resurgence. Some helped form the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Some probably affiliated with the American Baptists. Some actually remained as SBC churches while also supporting the CBF. Many CBF-supporting churches left the SBC for good after their members and pastors were bypassed for election to agencies and seminaries.

The SBC does have power over its agencies and seminaries, and elected trustees and board members who reflected the Resurgence philosophies. The boards, in turn, hired presidents of the same stripe, who hired faculty and/or staff.

The SBC has voted specifically that it will not elect some one who is not an inerrantist, a member of a CBF church, or a member of a church which contributes to the CBF, or a member of a church which does not support the Cooperative Program. The SBC has mandated that the Committee on Nominations shall not nominate anyone who fits those categories.

I can't think of a single such church which would respond by actually revising its doctirnal stance just for a piece of the action. And I can't imagine anyone in power in the SBC thinking for a moment that trying to force an autonomous congregation to do so would work.

 

My point is that if you have a doctrinal statement without any backing then what good is it? It seems to me to be nothing more than just words on a page. Isn't that some of which James dealt with? I see no evidence in scripture where Paul let churches involved in poor doctrine or unbiblical practices continue their practice. A good doctrinal statement with good backing provides accountability and helps to ensure doctrinal soundness. It also provides a guide for people who are not sure about what to believe. If a body of believers call themselves Christians and name themselves as believing the Bible should they not also act as a body of believers in union both in action and doctrine? Isn't a genuine faith accompanied by genuine biblical action? When we take a look at liberal denominations and their practices isn't that where they began to break down? Some I am aware of have the same doctrinal statement as they have for years, but their practices and internal beliefs among the people have changed a lot. On paper they look sound but in practice they are far from it.

I think most of us know about what happened regarding Broadway Baptist Church at the SBC convention. It does seem to have a bad appearance. I have not read anything where the church leadership was confronted according to Mt. 18.

I have been in one church where a member was teaching false doctrine outside of the church and the person did not respond. I knew the church leadership to be very godly men. When it was brought to the attention of the congregation the pastor told exactly what was done to confront the person. They did it according to Mt. 18. We never saw the person again anywhere. I know he eventually moved away. That provided an opportunity to expose a false teacher and for the congregation to know the leadership was there to protect them from that sort of thing.

 

Do a google search about what the SBC did. This was about an 18 month process. Read up about it.

 

It seems to me from what I read the church does not affirm a gay lifestyle but does not say anything when they see gay couples together. It is about time the SBC did something instead of ignoring problems all in the name of autonomous churches as they with me just a few years ago. That was my big beef with the SBC when I encountered a church inviting the local Mormon bishop to come and teach. I am glad to see the SBC starting to have some boldness and start acting like Christians and stand for righteousness.