Should the SBC change its name:

It's just that the accusations of "liberal" are ridiculously false.

I'll keep that under advisement. (1) Say nothing that challenges another's opinions. (2) Don't take sides in a discussion board. (3) I am not a moderator.

Got it.

(4) I am a pot with a darkish hue.

 

This might come as a shock to you, but that doesn’t bother me.

So we can’t discuss that here? If the SBC doesn’t want to change it, they won’t. I can live with it.

Sure. That’s what I said in the post you quoted. Why are you lecturing me on my point?

Yes, I agree. You’re lecturing me on another one of my points again...

That’s the most valid point I’ve heard. Yet, I work in marketing and communications for a private firm with multiple offices, and there are ways of doing a roll-out that are fairly economical: especially if you plan the name change a year or two in advance. You can do electronic letterhead on a high-end color printer for a while after you use all of the old letterhead and before you move to the new letterhead. You can also work about volume agreements on signs and do on-demand printing of business cards when the old ones are used up before the name change. If the process is handled in a carefully planned and phased manner, the expense is greatly reduced.

And that is still the issue we are discussing.

 

You have just demonstrated a great lack of understanding about what we believe. We are not now, nor have we ever been, opposed to evangelism. It's the mission boards that we opposed then and still oppose today.

As for "mainstream" Baptists, you will find that today's major Baptist groups have next to nothing in common with their ancestors in Particular Baptist churches.

The SBC may number 16 million people, but you all have to contend with the problems that go along with a group that large all trying to come to agreement as one.

I don't know why you felt the need to try and attack my people and our beliefs, except to deflect from what you believe is wrong with your own. I stated I don't care what you all decide to do, since I am not part of your group. The decision to maintain or change the name lies with you all.

My point about Primitives lacking huge associations is simply in contrast to the SBC having a very large one. You all have issues because of your size and the diversity of the beliefs in your churches which we, for the most part, do not face.

The last part, about people leaving the SBC and coming to us, was obviously a joke.

 

"You have just demonstrated a great lack of understanding about what we believe. We are not now, nor have we ever been, opposed to evangelism. It's the mission boards that we opposed then and still oppose today."

The proof is in the pudding. Regardless of the reason for opposing mission boards, it is poor reasoning. Organization is paramount in virtually every human endeavor that wishes to accomplish anything. The fact that the SBC has over 16 million members, and I believe about half of those are overseas, is proof that our method works.

In 2006 alone, the SBC's International Mission Board documented over 475,000 new overseas baptisms, and over 23,000 new churches planted. The SBC's North American Mission Board documented over 415,000 new baptisms in North America.

Compare that with Primitives, who number probably less than 100,000 TOTAL in the U.S, almost two centuries after their split from mainstream baptist denominations. Primitives are not fulfilling the Great Commission. That is NOT a personal attack, but an honest statement based on observable facts.

If you oppose mission boards, that's your prerogative. But judging by your dwindling numbers, you have yet to come up with a viable alternative.

"As for "mainstream" Baptists, you will find that today's major Baptist groups have next to nothing in common with their ancestors in Particular Baptist churches."

I disagree with the statement "next to nothing", but will certainly agree that changes have occurred. But changes have occurred in virtually every institution known to man in that time period. Not all the changes have been good, not all have been bad.

"The SBC may number 16 million people, but you all have to contend with the problems that go along with a group that large all trying to come to agreement as one."

So what?! You have to contend with problems growing up. You have to contend with problems after getting married. You have to contend with problems after having children. Life is about dealing with problems.

In order to fulfill the Great Commission, the body of Christ must grow. There must be organization in order to grow. With growth comes growing pains, it is inevitable. It is how you DEAL with the growing pains that matters.

SBC critics love to bash us. However, they cannot deny we are a FORCE in fulfilling the Great Commission and providing help to the world's indigent, regardless of our real and alleged failings. We have the verifiable figures to prove it, and the critics have yet to refute them.

"I don't know why you felt the need to try and attack my people and our beliefs, except to deflect from what you believe is wrong with your own. I stated I don't care what you all decide to do, since I am not part of your group. The decision to maintain or change the name lies with you all."

Au contraire, Pierre! You took a few swipes at the SBC FIRST, for what you view to be some of its alleged shortcomings. So I responded only in DEFENSE, listing some Primitive shortcomings. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander! I don't think anybody could seriously consider my post about Primitives to be some sort of scathing attack.

"My point about Primitives lacking huge associations is simply in contrast to the SBC having a very large one. You all have issues because of your size and the diversity of the beliefs in your churches which we, for the most part, do not face."

Whether it be political parties, businesses, church denominations or anything else in life---if you want it to GROW, there will be INEVITABLE conflict. That is the nature of man, and is unchangeable until the Son returns. So you can either deal with it and move forward, or refuse to deal with it and stagnate.

"The last part, about people leaving the SBC and coming to us, was obviously a joke."

Thanks, I already gathered that. I would also like to state that I have absolutely nothing against you or Primitives in general.
:tonofbricks:

 

CC: The proof is in the pudding. Regardless of the reason for opposing mission boards, it is poor reasoning. Organization is paramount in virtually every human endeavor that wishes to accomplish anything. The fact that the SBC has over 16 million members, and I believe about half of those are overseas, is proof that our method works.

BJR: Well, it's kind of strange to me that the gospel was being spread pretty well for 1800 years before the BBFM was organized. If you truly believe organization is paramount, then why don't you push to do away with autonomy of local churches? Wouldn't they function better, or at least more cooperatively, if they were forced to abide by the SBC's official statements. The RCC is very organized, wouldn't you say? They are also many times larger than the SBC, as are other religious groups throughout the world. The size of an organization has nothing whatever to do with its accuracy in teaching the gospel, or the way it goes about doing so.

CC: In 2006 alone, the SBC's International Mission Board documented over 475,000 new overseas baptisms, and over 23,000 new churches planted. The SBC's North American Mission Board documented over 415,000 new baptisms in North America.

BJR: How many left the denomination during the same period? I wonder how many people were "baptized" in the RCC, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian Churches, and how many people converted to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, etc. Again, size does not indicate accuracy. Lakewood Church here in Houston is overflowing with new converts every Sunday, yet Joel Osteen is little more than a motivational speaker.

CC: Compare that with Primitives, who number probably less than 100,000 TOTAL in the U.S, almost two centuries after their split from mainstream baptist denominations. Primitives are not fulfilling the Great Commission. That is NOT a personal attack, but an honest statement based on observable facts.

BJR: It would be hard for me to speculate on numbers since we don't have a national headquarters which keeps track of such things. I can tell you that Primitives have never been a very large group within the Baptist family. We are probably close to the same number, or maybe slightly over, what we were when the split occurred. It has nothing to do with the great commission, but everything to do with the gospel that we preach. It's not popular with people who have only heard a certain version their entire lives.

Besides, do you really want to continue to discuss numbers? You are starting to sound like a broken record. Would you forsake the truth for the sake of numbers? I'm just asking because you seem to believe that this is the most important thing about the SBC.

CC: If you oppose mission boards, that's your prerogative. But judging by your dwindling numbers, you have yet to come up with a viable alternative.

BJR: Our numbers are not dwindling. As I said, we have never been a very large group, comparatively speaking. If maintaining the method of evangelization which we believe the Bible teaches means that our churches don't grow very large, then so be it. I'll take the Bible over numbers anyday.

CC: I disagree with the statement "next to nothing", but will certainly agree that changes have occurred. But changes have occurred in virtually every institution known to man in that time period. Not all the changes have been good, not all have been bad.

BJR: The problem is, man needs to stop fiddling around with Christ's church and stick with it as he gave it to us. The Bible tells us everything we need to know about how to worship God and how to preach to people and we should not deviate from that. You show me one place in the scripture where even one person was sent out by an organization separate from the church, and I'll change my stance on this issue of mission boards.

CC: So what?! You have to contend with problems growing up. You have to contend with problems after getting married. You have to contend with problems after having children. Life is about dealing with problems.

BJR: But, it doesn't have to be. What is the purpose of holding the SBC together with churches whose beliefs are all over the board? Would you personally hold fellowship with every church that is in the SBC? Why then would you fellowship with them through the SBC?

CC: In order to fulfill the Great Commission, the body of Christ must grow. There must be organization in order to grow. With growth comes growing pains, it is inevitable. It is how you DEAL with the growing pains that matters.

BJR: So, if in any given year in the SBC the rate of departure from death, exclusions, desertions, etc ever eclipses the number of new members in that year, then the SBC will be failing the great commission? Again, I'd really like to see those numbers.

BTW, how many "on the books" members of your church are present on Sunday mornings regularly? Would you see it as maybe a tad hypocritical to ask God to grow the church numerically with new members when so many of the members you have already are being neglected by the church? When a person no longer comes to church, either that person has failed or the church has failed.

CC: SBC critics love to bash us. However, they cannot deny we are a FORCE in fulfilling the Great Commission and providing help to the world's indigent, regardless of our real and alleged failings. We have the verifiable figures to prove it, and the critics have yet to refute them.

BJR: I'm not trying to bash you or the SBC. My first comments were strictly stating my personal opinion that we Primitives are fortunate that we do not have such problems. Would you disagree? I don't know why you would to turn it into a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument. If the SBC wants to maintain a size so large, then great. But, even as you said, you have big problems to deal with because of it. Wouldn't it be better to separate into smaller groups with similar beliefs and still maintain the same work that you all are doing now? You wouldn't have near the problems because the groups, as individuals, would be more alike. Frankly, I don't see the big deal in understanding this, unless you're just offended that I wouldn't be sad to see the "largest Protestant denomination in North America" break up into smaller associations without the large "cooperative" convention to contend with.

CC: Au contraire, Pierre! You took a few swipes at the SBC FIRST, for what you view to be some of its alleged shortcomings. So I responded only in DEFENSE, listing some Primitive shortcomings. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander! I don't think anybody could seriously consider my post about Primitives to be some sort of scathing attack.

BJR: I didn't swipe at anything. You all are the ones naming short comings in the SBC. I was naming good things in the Primitives and expressing my gladness that we don't have to deal with those issues you all are facing. For some reason, you introduced numbers and the great commission into the argument and accused Primitives of being against evangelism, which had nothing to do with what my comments were about.

CC: Whether it be political parties, businesses, church denominations or anything else in life---if you want it to GROW, there will be INEVITABLE conflict. That is the nature of man, and is unchangeable until the Son returns. So you can either deal with it and move forward, or refuse to deal with it and stagnate.

BJR: It's sad to me that you evidently believe there must, out of necessity, be problems within the church and/or association and/or convention. Even organizations can be too big for their britches. In my life, when I would outgrow a pair of pants (which happens quite regularly, unfortunately) or when they would get tattered due to extended use and abuse, I would not spend all my time and money trying to mend them year after year. I would get a new pair that fit well and were comfortable to be in. New pants are almst always good feeling pants. Why do you believe that any organization has to continually grow in numbers and continue to garner strife against itself in order to be successful? If what you have presented to me is a true representation of life in the SBC, then I am glad, on another count, to be a Primitive. It sounds like, from your statements, all you do is fight with yourselves and tally your numbers.

I'm glad I know so many other SBCers on this board, or else you would give me a very misconstrued impression of the SBC and its members.

CC: Thanks, I already gathered that. I would also like to state that I have absolutely nothing against you or Primitives in general.

BJR: And I feel the same, so please don't take my comments as an attack on the SBC. They are directed to you just to show you that your logic seems to be faulty. I just think that you have some strange ideas about what constitutes a good gospel church or denomination. If numbers mattered all that much, and were the determining factor for orthodoxy, then, by your estimation, the SBC should be the largest religious body of any sort in the world. By your own logic, it is therefore not following the great commission.

After reading all of the posts on this thread, I see that you have upset many people for various reasons, whether purposefully or not, so I will take my leave from this discussion before the moderators, and they undoubtedly will, close it down.

God bless.

James

 

James Reed:

I don't have the time or inclination to get in a long argument with you. I will try to be very succint here, and show you there is nothing wrong with MY logic.

The prime directive of Christianity is FULFILLING THE GREAT COMMISSION:

Mark 16:15-16 (King James Version)
15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I'm NOT claiming that the SBC is somehow more righteous and holy than Primitives, or that bigger is better. Nor is it relevant whether or not we squabble amongst ourselves more than Primitives.

The big question is---Who is doing more to fulfill the Great Commission? The Great Commission is a MANDATE, not a suggestion.

In 2006 alone, the SBC's International Mission Board documented over 475,000 new overseas baptisms, and over 23,000 new churches planted. The SBC's North American Mission Board documented over 415,000 new baptisms in North America.

Of course, those numbers don't reflect how many people will be brought to Christ in the future by those over 23,000 new churches. One thing is for sure, the number will be substantial.

Only the most intellectually dishonest critics of the SBC can deny they have done an excellent job of working to fulfill the Great Commission. Are we perfect? NO! But God doesn't expect perfection.

If Primitives allegedly lead more righteous personal lives and quibble less amongst themselves, that's fine. But you cannot convince me that the Primitives have been or are effective in fulfilling the Great Commission.

My statements should NOT be construed as a personal attack on you or Primitives in general.

 

The church is not the SBC. The SBC is a very small part of the church worldwide. It is Christians sold out for Christ doing the work or ministry not numbers or pew sitters counted on a roll.

You forgot to mention the name of the largest mission organization. How many new SBC church plants fold within two years?

If bigger is better, then Chevrolet would be making the best car in the world.

If bigger were better then Jesus did a lousy job because he only had 12 disciples and one was a failure. God has not called us to sell Christianity but to make disciples who follow Jesus Christ.

If Henry Ford were living today would he rather have one good running Ford car or 1,000 in the junk yard?

 

I changed my mind. They should change it to Southern Baptiste Convention.

 

Please see the post below yours.

gb93433 has written an excellent post.

As far as your last comment goes about quibbling, we do have disagreements. But our disagreements usually do not gain nationwide attention amongst the churches. This is partially because we are in smaller groupings of churches, if in any at all. I am not trying to demean your church or the SBC. I'm simply pointing out that a lot of the problems you are facing is because it is such a large organization, consisting of several thousand distinct churches, all of which hold to different fundamental beliefs. In the SBC, you have churches that run the gammut, from ultra conservative (theologically speaking), to ultra liberal, from ultra Arminian, to ultra Calvinist. You will not find such extreme differences among the bulk of Primitives. We have a few factions holding to differing views on some fundamentals, but we only fellowship with those that we have the fundamentals in common with.

You say I can not convince you we are following the great commission. What must a church or an individual do in order to fulfill it, in your mind? We certainly preach the gospel, and we certainly baptize, and we certainly constitute churches. Is there some unwritten number we have to reach before we are doing it right? From what I can tell from the plain scripture, preaching the gospel where ever the Lord sends us and baptizing people are the only requirements to fulfilling the commission. Is there some scripture I missed that says otherwise?