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

I have an adequately informed opinion as to the direction the BGCT of Texas is heading and am aware of the groups with which they associate. I am also aware that the issue of church autonomy is NOT the issue here. All Baptist churches have complete autonomy. But, in order to associate/cooperate with other churches for the purpose of x, y, z... Each church must "contend for the [same] faith."

Btw, Missouri is in no different boat. The conservatives were just able to hold onto the mothership. Now, I think we have more choices in Missouri than any other state. MBC, MMB, BGCM, CBFofM. Is that a record?

I have no problem "narrowing the tent." Quite frankly, there are plenty of Good Christian brother and sisters, and churches, associations, conventions who believe as I do.

Why would I lower the biblical standards to cooperate with someone who does not believe the Bible in the same manner as I do?


That is really the question. You see, I do not desire power, or authority, or big programs, or large numbers of Baptisms. I will do as the Lord directs. I gather those sheep which He has put in my path. And I will leave the tares alone. But when an opinion is germain to the topic of a message board, I shall give it.

Occationally, however, I have been known to use a 2x4.....or a dull spoon. :laugh:

raying:

 

With the hundreds upon hundreds of Calvin free will threads since April 2006 that have been started, just wondering why you would drag one up 19 months old?

 

It was on the front pageabout 10 or so threads down. I just responded. I guess the hundreds of "Calvin Free" threads are burried deeper than this one. But I have neither the time nor the desire to go hunting for one. :type:

 

Saying your well informed and actually being well informed, well that is a whole different kettle of fish, as your comments clearly indicate. You don't know about the BGCT and you don't understand FULL autonomy, nice try however.

It is the SBTC, Southern Baptists of Texas Convention not the SBCT. And it was created by people who continually lost elections in the state of Texas wishing to implement a fundamentalist point of view concerning theology and blind allegiance to the SBC. Folks time and time again said no, so they started their own convention.

The two don't even compare in size, ministry or influence. Doubt they ever will considering how fast the SBC is shrinking the tent so to speak. This is to be expected considering the SBTC is less then 20 years old while the BGCT is going to work on it's second century. You must adhere to the BF&M 2000 to be apart and give to the CP.

 

One should be careful to understand what the subject is before speaking. Church autonomy is never effected by the convention iether on the state level or national. The church can always choose to do what it wants to unlike the Presbyterians or Methodists.

What does get effected is fellowship which is not the same as autonomy.

As far as the BGCT goes the length of time it has been in existence is irrelevent to the discussion. And thank God for those fundementalists who took a stand for the inerrant word of God.

The BGCT can continue to felllowhip with every fleeting doctrine which distorts a correct view of God.

 

<b>Saying your well informed and actually being well informed, well that is a whole different kettle of fish, as your comments clearly indicate. You don't know about the BGCT and you don't understand FULL autonomy, nice try however.</b>

Umm...I never said I believe in full autonomy. Everyone and everything MUST be accountable to something or someone. Else remaining sin will fester, and reigning sin (in the unregenerate members) will reign.

<b>It is the SBTC, Southern Baptists of Texas Convention not the SBCT. </b>

I am very much aware of the name, if I mistyped I am sorry. I do that often.

<b>And it was created by people who continually lost elections in the state of Texas wishing to implement a fundamentalist point of view concerning theology and blind allegiance to the SBC. Folks time and time again said no, so they started their own convention.</b>

You throw around the "F" word like I throw around the "L" word, so i cannot really comment on that, but to say there is a big difference. Liberal is anything left of the RIGHT. Fundamentalism is the FAR FAR right. Semanitics I know, but you should seek to get it right. As do the fine folks of the SBTC. And legalism is as bad as lliberalism. But desiring true doctrine and holding folks accountable is NOT legalism.

<b>The two don't even compare in size, ministry or influence. Doubt they ever will...</b>

Hasn't anyone ever told you that "size doesn't matter?"


So you continue your "comparing"

k