Texas State Convention sends out Anti-Calvinism material to church's

Probably true.

Not by any sane definition.

Demonstrably true.

True.

True. The BGCT works with many Baptist groups including the SBC and the CBF.

True. And that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Absolutely and profoundly false. Evidence please!

The BGCT does not act as a doctrinal enforcer beyond the 1963 BF&M, so your condemnation rings false. The BGCT believes in the autonomy of the local church, so it rarely acts against congregations unless they have taken a stand which severely compromises the gospel message of the cooperating BGCT churches. However, the BGCT does take action against churches in regard to the affirmation of homosexual behavior, even though you falsely claim the BGCT supports homosexuality.

That is certainly a judgment call, but you've already demonstrated the validity of your judgment.

Yes. You've made your allegations more specific so now everyone who is not familiar with the BGCT has an opportunity to see the character and tone of your charges.

You are welcome. I only wished you hadn't shamed yourself by telling falsehoods.

 

The libs in the convention are much like the libs in politics as they do not want to be known as liberals. In order to sway opinion in their direction they present themselves as moderates. It is all politcal tactics wether in the convention or otherwise. You are correct the BGCT is extremely liberal. Which is why there is a SBCT to begin with. Failure to believe and support the inerrancy of scripture makes one an extreme liberal.

 

I think a more accurate statement would be that "moderates and conservatives in the convention do not want to be falsely demonized as 'liberals' (the word actually has a specific historical context which spells out doctrines that are contrary to the gospel and do not accurately reflect the views of most of the people falsely labelled) without clarification of the meaning of that charge and documentation supporting that view." It is essentially calling a fellow Christian an "unbeliever" which is a very serious charge (and contrary to board policy).

But the fact is, they just might be conservatives or moderates that "conservative resurgence" folks are falsely condeming in order to sway opinion in their direction.

Two false assertions don't make a truth.

 

I see you are continuing the rhetoric out of the standard and from Charles Wade. Anyway I clarified it and gave a specific definition.

Conservatives hold to inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, the sufficiency of scripture and believe all of Genesis every word is true. Not just some of these or one of these but all of these. Neither do conservatives support those with such a weak and lose view of scripture. And they do not support slaughtering unborn children.

 

Probably true

No, it is absolutely true.

Not by any sane definition.

Please refrain from comments which could be taken to mean that the one to which you are speaking might be insane.

Demonstrably true.

True.

True. The BGCT works with many Baptist groups including the SBC and the CBF.

It should be noted that the BGCT does not support the SBC financially with a line item. They forward designated monies, and some local anonymous churches interact with the SBC, but the BGCT is implicitly and explicitly ANTI-SBC.

True. And that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Absolutely and profoundly false. Evidence please!

By supporting the BWA and the CBF, they are effectively supporting homosexuality. Daniel Vestal made this quite clear in his exchange with both Roger Moran, and I believe (though not directly) with Patterson.

The BGCT does not act as a doctrinal enforcer beyond the 1963 BF&M, so your condemnation rings false. The BGCT believes in the autonomy of the local church, so it rarely acts against congregations unless they have taken a stand which severely compromises the gospel message of the cooperating BGCT churches. However, the BGCT does take action against churches in regard to the affirmation of homosexual behavior, even though you falsely claim the BGCT supports homosexuality.

Supporting unbiblical doctrine is not (in this case) an issue surrounding the BFM issue. That is a separate issue, one which will not affect my ability to cooperate.

That is certainly a judgment call, but you've already demonstrated the validity of your judgment.

No need, sir, to shoot from the hip.

Yes. You've made your allegations more specific so now everyone who is not familiar with the BGCT has an opportunity to see the character and tone of your charges.

No tone. Stating my opinion. As the previous commenter has suggested, the BGCT, MMB, BGCM, and other such organizations tout liberal theology under the guise of mederatism. I consider these "so called moderates" to be liberal. I consider the BGCT to be a heretical convention which does indeed have many biblical church with bright candlesticks.

You are welcome. I only wished you hadn't shamed yourself by telling falsehoods.

I have not lied in these posts, and I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.

:jesus:

 

I think a more accurate statement would be that "moderates and conservatives in the convention do not want to be falsely demonized as 'liberals' (the word actually has a specific historical context which spells out doctrines that are contrary to the gospel and do not accurately reflect the views of most of the people falsely labelled) without clarification of the meaning of that charge and documentation supporting that view." It is essentially calling a fellow Christian an "unbeliever" which is a very serious charge (and contrary to board policy).

WHAT??? I think that THIS is bearing false witness to so construe the good Judge's remarks as to say that he is calling some or all of the folks in the BGCT non-believers. He (as I) called them "liberals." Since when is calling someone a liberal meant to imply they are non-believers? Besides, it is my opinion that at least half of ALL church members are un-believers. Is THAT against board policy? We are called to hold each other accountable. The good Judge and I are holding the BGCT accountable for their degradation of Scripture.


All without naming a single person.
K :BangHead:

 

It is a debate tactic used to do just what they are accusing us of. Which is to demonize those who do not agree with them.

 

Find it interesting that two people NOT living in the state of Texas are such experts on the makeup of the BGCT. For a taste of the "liberal" BGCT, so check out the list of speakers for the BGCT Evangelism Conference

http://www.bgct.org/texasbaptists/Page.aspx?&pid=4420&srcid=615

Yeah, what a bunch of crazy liberals!

Really, you guys need to become better informed "better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

 

Why don't all the state assn.'s leave it to the local Churches? What ever happenend to the local Church autonomy?

 

Wow. Is there time to breathe in between slanderings?

 

I don't get my "rhetoric" from the Baptist Standard or Charles Wade. I've been falsely labeled a "liberal" and "unbeliever" by more people than I can count because I've personally stood up to the power brokers of the so-called "conservative resurgence." I know what I know through personal experience.

Let's see...

Inerrancy (no error) --> I don't use the term inerrancy because it is politically-loaded and speaks only of what scripture is not, but I believe that the scripture is fully reliable in its current form (not just the original autographs). While there may be variation in extant texts, the central message, meaning and truth of scripture is completely intact.

The virgin birth --> I fully affirm the virgin birth, but go farther than that to affirm the full Divine paternity of Jesus. The real issue is not whether Mary was a virgin (she was), but that God is the father of Jesus.

The sufficiency of scripture --> I fully affirm the sufficiency of scripture. Moreover, I believe scripture is to be obeyed... including the commands not to bear false witness.

Believe all of Genesis [that] every word is true --> I fully affirm the book of Genesis [and the rest of scripture], every word, although I think the text makes it clear that not every word is to be interpreted literally. Sometimes the authors of scripture are using metaphor and imagery to make their points. I believe that God is the Creator and I'm not convinced of macro-evolution at all.

Gotcha. I embrace all of them.

I don't support people who deny the divinity of Jesus or the sufficiency of scripture. I also don't support people who disobey scripture by promoting falsehoods.

I don't either.

So I guess I (and just about every other BGCT Baptist I know is a conservative.

 

I'm guessing you are referring to Judge Pressler? I have not mentioned Pressler at all, you're the one introducting him to this discussion.

If he has called us "liberals" (I think he has, just as you have said), he is profoundly wrong. There have certainly been some liberals in Texas Baptist life (like all state conventions), but they are a relatively small group with little real influence.

Because when someone (in SBC life) calls someone a "liberal", they usually say in the next breath that that person or group "doesn't believe the Bible." In my opinion, all those who are born of God innately recognize the authority of scripture, even though they may disagree on interpretation.

You might be surprised, but I agree with you.

Yet you are making the charge that the BGCT is degrading scripture.

Yep. Anonymous and non-specific accusations are hard to refute.

 

The Conference is on evangelism. This is not the issue on which the Convention is called out. I do not know these men on the slate. But two of them are from BGCT churches and one was called because his church had the highest "number" of Baptists in Oklahoma. I do not kow the theologies of these men. But their doctrinal positions do not negate the present and previous actions and idoelogies of the BGCT. BGCT is a mixed bag. Too mixed, imho.

k

 

So you want the BGCT to crack down on churches that might deviate from a very rigid set of doctrinal parameters that go well beyond the Baptist Faith and Message statement?

Well that's a fair complaint if you think that way. Fortunately for me, I'm delighted that the BGCT doesn't restrict every doctrinal interpretation to the most popular version since the majority viewpoint is often wrong -- especially when it is corrupted in the heat of political rhetoric.

 

I'm guessing you are referring to Judge Pressler? I have not mentioned Pressler at all, you're the one introducting him to this discussion.

I am sorry, I thought that 2 Timothy was Judge Pressler, but that was a quote in the sig, not the signing of the post. Interestingly enough, judge Pressler hold to the same views as 2Tim and myself.

Because when someone (in SBC life) calls someone a "liberal", they usually say in the next breath that that person or group "doesn't believe the Bible."

This is a generalization. But I do believe that liberal theology is false doctrine. But believers can be swayed too.

You might be surprised, but I agree with you.

Cool, but the BGCT is at 60% and here in the Missouri Baptist Convention, we are at 40% :laugh:


Yet you are making the charge that the BGCT is degrading scripture.

Well, when you sleep with the devil...

Yep. Anonymous and non-specific accusations are hard to refute.

So is the truth. :thumbs:


:1_grouphug: :1_grouphug:


k

 

I cannot comment on what the BGCT should or should not do. I can give my opinion of what they do do.

As for the MBC, yes, I very much expect us to hold our churches to more than is in the BFM2000. The BFM200 is a minimum set of standards. Despite the Garner motion. (Which will one day be overturned)

K

:type:

 

Really, you don't know them but you are sure they are too much of a mixed bag, how is that even possible? Wouldn't it be easier for everyone involved (especially you) to just to admit you were parroting some rhetoric you picked up and you don't really have a clue what you are talking about?

 

Let's not forget why the SBCT was created.

 

I didn't think they allowed non-Baptists to post in this section. By your statements you seem to detest local church autonomy, a hallmark of Baptist history.

 

And yet it is in lock step with both.

And libs typically do not. And they make excuses that have no value.

And yet there is the SBCT for what reason? Charles Wade is no friend of conservatives.

Here is a good explanation for the differences between the conferences:

http://members.aol.com/baptistsoftexas/wade03.htm

http://sbcpastor.blogspot.com/2006/11/texas-two-step-bgct-and-sbtc.html