Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Dwayne, Aug 21, 2005.
I'd like to get some feed back & opinions on this article. http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whyi.htm
Anyone can knock any church or any denomination since no person, church, or denomination is perfect.
Since we no longer have apostles who are inspired by God to write and speak, we ought to be Christians and show it in our walk realizing that we are not perfect. We can all criticize each other continously instead of reaching the lost with the gospel of Christ Jesus. I think that is a waste of time.
As has been said before, sometimes it appears that the favorite pastime of Christians is to line up in a circle, aim, and fire.
I read the article and i didn't liked because NOT all churchs in SBC are the same and have same practices. He is bashing a "name" without considering that there are Saved and Godlyl people there.
That article is not even worthy of a response
If people believe that stuff they have never been an active part of a SBC church.
agreed. It is not even worthy of a response.
"Thou shalt not bear false wittness" didn't apply to "Way of Life Ministries."
Actually, I'm glad they're not Southern Baptist too.
Isn't it too bad christians spend so much time bashing one of Jesus' chruches, in effect turning people away from christianity by the evil they spout instead of spening their time ministring and spreading the gospel. I can not see how this makes Jesus happy.
I'm gonna wait and see what he writes about the IFB---I'm sure that we'll find that group to be the "perfect" place to place his theology, tithes, and time---I'm afraid he's gonna find disappointment lingering and growing like a fungus in that institution also!!
Folks who gripe about the SBC make for bad IFBers!! IOW---if you gripe about the SBC---you'll gripe about the IFB---if you gripe about the IFB you'll gripe about the SBC---so forth and so on!!
This is ludicrous. The guy wrote this has no clue.
I'm a recovering Southern Baptist, but for none of the stupid reasons listed.
Thanks to everyone who has replied. Here is the follow up to the article. http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/replyto-sb-preacher.html
A problem I have with Southern Baptist Churches (perhaps all are not like this)is they are involved in the ecumenical movement, such as Promise Keepers.
I generally don't care much for the extreme views of David Cloud. If it gives him enjoyment to continuously bash other Christians, then he has the freedom to do so. But he shouldn't expect most folks to take him seriously.
Ken I agree!
Well, I happen to agree with what the guy wrote, but I'm a Primitive Baptist, so I view practically all you all as modernists.
Seriously, the same can be said of any association that becomes as large as the SBC.
I simply believe the SBC has become so large that it no longer can keep track of the goings-on in its member churches.
When you have such a large group, it is easy for worldly things to sneak in at different points and, eventually, that small worldly thing is embraced by a large segment of the membership.
If there is to be an association at all, which I'm not convinced that churches should even be involved in them, then I feel they need to consist of only a handful of churches.
I do not believe every church in the SBC is guilty of the things this man has described, but it has become so large that it is impossible to keep every church in the truth.
In a smaller association, the other member churches would spot trouble more quickly and be able to labor with a sister church to prevent doctrinal errors from permeating the association.
By the time such errors are noticed in a large association like the SBC, it has already spread to many, many churches.
The same would be true if there was a PBC (Primitive Baptist Convention), and, in fact, there is a group calling themselves by that name that has steered completely off course from what their forefathers in the PB church believed.
My view, smaller is better just for this reason.
What you said applies to every church though. Whether you are Primitive, Indepedent, Southern or "Biblical" - a church is only as good as the individuals, and there is no way to control the actions or activities of every church that takes on the name of your particular brand of Baptist.
In order for the SBC to control churches, it would have to dictate to them. It is not set up that way. It is a group of people who asked to join the convention to work toward common goals who claim to uphold the beliefs shown in the SBC Statement of Faith. If they lied, the convention cannot be held responsible.
that is my point.
I agree with what the man said, but his statement can apply to anyone and everyone.
The problem with the SBC is that it is too large.
In a small association the churches form together with a common doctrine, lets use the PBs as an example.
4 churches band together as an association. They agree upon Articles of Faith (or SoF in your case). In several years, one of the churches begins to advocate gospel regeneration, a heretical doctrine to almost all Primitive Baptists. When the other 3 churches learn of this, they go together and speak with their sister church that is spreading this doctrine. If that church then rejects what the other churches have said, the 3 churches then have authority to vote the other church out of the association and declare her in disorder. While that is not binding on the erring church in its own business, it does exclude that church from fellowship with the other 3 in the association.
If you have a large association, like the SBC, with thousands of churches as members (I assume, I don't know the actual number) then if one begins to advocate false doctrine, it is less likely to see any action taken by the association to distance themselves from that church than a smaller association would. At least, it probably would not happen in as timely a manner, and that might lead to other churches adopting the same errors that the first church did.
I hope you see my point.
I am not condemning the SBC, but rather stating that I believe large groups have less control than small groups.
Houston is more likely to fill in all of the potholes within the city, and faster, than the U.S.A. would and could within the country. Houston, as a smaller entity, can also monitor when a new pothole emerges and fix it, whereas the U.S.A. wouldn't notice the one pothole before there were 100 more in other areas.
I don't mean to cast down any of you SBC folks, but I do understand what the man is saying in his article, applied to churches/associations of all kinds.
Pastor SBC 1303
Ditto, on Ken's response.
I think I saw that picture at the post office
That statement is not unlike this one:
"A problem I have with IFB Churches (perhaps all are not like this) is that they practice an unbiblical and extreme view of seperation."
Of course, I don't believe that all IFB churches practice an ubiblical view of seperation, even if many seem to. My point is that we should be careful of drawing conclusions about an entire group because of certain group members' actions. Especially when a there is a real divergence of opinion on said action (be it "ecumenicism" or "unbiblical extreme seperation").