Agreed. I think we need to get back to Original Sin (or total depravity if you're a fan of Monsieur Cauvin)
Yours in Christ
Matt
News: Birmingham Baptists reject Baptist Faith statement
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by UTEOTW, Apr 28, 2003.
Page 2 of 2
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
pesky Calvinists.
-
Matt, Is there any subject under the Sun that you do not feel duty bound to speak to? :eek: -
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
And if your going to have that attitude, take it down to the Denominational Forum. Y'all got to remember that for many of us the sun does not rise nor set on Nashville. Further, the BF&M of any vintage is only a matter curiosity. To us, SBC politics and infighting is of as much interest as Estonian politics (okay, German politics).
-
Sorry, But the first topic in this thread was about Southern Baptists in Birmingham and the BF&M so I must have mistakenly assumed that it would be OK to discuss the SBC's BF&M.
-
If anyone posting on this thread is unwilling to admit that the Mainstream group was started with a purpose and driven by an agenda which rejects the inerrancy of the Scripture then you are correct... intelligent conversation is impossible here. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Mainstream Baptist network grew out of the Texas Baptist Committed group who were resisting the political takeover of the state convention by sympathizers to the SBC's political direction. (If you haven't realized it yet, many BGCT people are inerrantists who recognize the falseness of the "conservative resurgence"(sic).)
Many of us who are involved in Texas Baptist Committed/Mainstream are not "inerrantists" because we believe that the term is not quite honest and also diminishes the authority of the scriptures -- we believe that the Bible was completely reliable when it was written and remains reliable today, while the "inerrantist" position (by definition) believes the original manuscripts were without error and the copies we have have been slightly corrupted - but we've figured out most of the textual problems.
The non-inerrantist position I speak of focuses on the message and teaching of the Bible while the inerrantist position I mentioned focuses on textual issues (error/lack of error).
The most ironic thing about this aspect of the controversy is that the acceptance of the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts is a fairly settled issue with the Texas Baptist Committed/Mainstream crowd while the SBC "inerrantists" are still trying to lynch people whom they think may not completely agree with their lesser view of the texts. :rolleyes:
But I guess we can't have an intelligent conversation... -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
-
-
The oversimplification of the differences between the '63 BFM and the BFM 2K is really funny. Wasn't the improved wording of the statement on Scripture what got the left so up in arms? Of course it was. They conveniently point to women as pastors and "submit" because it's an appeal to emotion, not reasonable thinking. It should also be pointed out that the BFM 2K has received overwhelming support by state conventions, local associations, and local churches. The fringe that has recoiled from it is small indeed.
-
3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 6:30 p.m. ET by one of the Moderators. Get your last "comments" in now.
SheEagle9/11
Moderator -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
To use an extreme example of this problem, I ask of you:
Who won the popularity contest between Jesus and Barabbas?
(edited for typo)
[ May 04, 2003, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ] -
Page three let's close down by first thing in the am may 5th.
Murph -
As per Murph, it is now closing time.
SheEagle9/11
Moderator
Page 2 of 2