What is a Liberal Baptist Church?

Neo-liberals (were conservative fundies):

1. Only burgandy KJVs owned by your mother get you saved
2. don't smoke, don't chew, don't
go with members of the opposite sex who do
3. watches moves at home
4. goes to mixed sex church meeting
5. Is a member of a non-denominationl chruch
6. meets in a building built for church meetings
7. gets on-line (like on a computer)
8. got corruppted by 9th grade social studies teacher
9. knows the difference between: "their", "they're", and "there"
10. knows the difference betwee: "your" and "you're"

If you have any one of these attributes, then
you are a neo-liberal.

 

You're welcome Tim.

 

You mean "deacon's wife" -- Yes?

 

Actually, I think a liberal is any of the following. If you don't know what the word means, ask or look it up, but don't ignore it.

1. Egalitarian (perverts God-given roles)
2. KJVO (prostitutes inspiration)
3. Deny virgin birth (denies need for a savior)
4. Deny Inerrancy
5. Deny deity of Christ
6. Open Theism
7. Deny bodily return of Christ
8. Deny bodily resurrection/ascension
9. Pro rock music in any form

 

YOu forgot one thing:

10. Makes one word posts.

 

It is a Baptist Church located in Liberal, MO. Liberal was founded as a truly liberal town until their liberalism came to haunt them. It is an interesting story of the town that wanted nothing to do with religion of any kind.

 

I pastored a church that had a practice of over 20 years of supporting the local Mormon bishop and allowed him to preach and teach at Christian activities. This continued until I came and presses it ot stop with the help of other local pastors in the community. It was SBC and nobody did anything to put it to a stop. A case of preach the right stuff and never do anything to take a stand. The local association did nothing either. They now have a former state SBC worker and they like him.

 

I don't understand Ed's comments here,

The cooperative baptist fellowshi (CBF)
is not affiliated with the SBC.
However it might be called the
progressive wing of the SBC.
Many members of the CBF contribute to
it and the SBC. They contribute to the SBC
to maintain their money giving membership
but they support the CBF to cater to people who
are more interestd in theology than money.

First of all, the CBF is not a wing of the SBC it is an offshoot. They broke off when the SBC got serious about taking a stand on women pastors and the inerrancy of the Bible. Second, they are not progressive. Rather they are regressive. They harken back to men like Henry Fosdick and can only look forward to having leaders like Bishop John Shelby Spong, both of which are heretics. Third (and I am not sure I am taking his comments the right way, so correct me if I am wrong), the CBF caters to no one who cares about theology. The have none. In fact, you can join the CBF and pretty much hold to any belief that you want. You can baptize infants, you can ordain homosexuals. Crap, you can even probably even worship other gods in your service. But one thing you can't do is be conservative and believe the Bible is inerrant. They'll string you up for that. Finally, I reject anything that paints the SBC as caring about money. That is far from the truth. The SBC is different and it is changing by the day. I am encouraged by the men and women I see graduating each year out of the seminaries and beginning to lead our churches. In 20 years I believe the SBC will be the most conservative and the most impactful denomination in the country. And hopefully the CBF will be dead, along with its heresy.

D.R.

 

Here is what i said that others wanted to
talk about:

Yes, i was speaking of the FBC Norman, Oklahoma.
When my first wife died they comforted me
every Thursday night for two years. They
did this even though i wasn't a member.
Yes it is called COOPERATIVE Baptist
Fellowship. Yes, it is as described by
DR369. No, i really didn't want to talk
about it.

Here is what i said that I want talk about:

This is actually the part of my old post that is
actually on subject (what a novel
concept, on subject on the second page )

I understand the second dimension should
not be: fundamental, evangelical, and
High Church. But the fundametnal, evangelical
are right. What goes in place of "high church"?
One has said that anybody high church
isn't really Christian anyway. Still, I
think there are some Christians that
don't keep the Fundamentals that don't
go around recuiting new members but yet
still are believing in Jesus to save them.
What is their generic sorting moniker?
I want to know cause i'm going to stick
the KJVO folk in that basket (yes, they
are a basket case; no, this isn't the
place to discuss it.)

{non-charismatic worship of Jesus,
only one hand is waving, not two}

 

20 years ago my church wasn't even
speaking much to the local Mormon bishop.
The Mormon bishop grabbed a baptist
member's baby to give it to a mormon
mother-in-law. Sometimes you have to
"work with" the mormon bishop, of course,
not to the extent you mentioned.

 

Nope, I like my churches with a little more coommon sense, and little moderation. That to you, is probably liberal. To a liberal, it's conserrvative. My church (SBC) is hardly liberal, by any stretch of the word. I think it's sad that you use the word "liberal" like it's a dirty word.

I don't make biblical determinations based on what's liberal or conservative. I make them based on what's biblical. Extreme conservatives often think they have a monopoly on theological interpretation, and they're dead wrong, just as wrong as the liberals who think the same thing.

 

Nope, I like my churches with a little more coommon sense, and little moderation</font>[/QUOTE]It's not coommon sense when it goes against Biblical teaching, it's just wrong. I am sorry to label you liberal since you prefer moderate, but let's be honest liberal and moderate both mean about the same thing.
Murph

 

Not remotely.

It's rather hypocritical how some of the same people who say we should be "American" instead of "Mexican American", "German American" etc, are often the first to insist that we be "conservative Christian" instead of just "Christian".

The word "conservative" is by no means a synonym for "Biblical". Not by a long shot.

It's also rather sad that this board is decaying to the level of "conservatives only" club. The name should changed to "conservative baptist board", since the current name is misleading.

 

No, of course not.

Liberals deny that parts (if not all) of the Bible are God inspired scriptures and therefore don't accept their authority or at least deny they should be taken literally. They frequently apply the materialistic explanations of higher criticism.

Moderates claim to believe in the inerrant, inspired Word of God but then explain the parts away that they don't like or conflict with their materialistic world view.

On the other hand, maybe you are right.

 

I define liberal as anyone who doesn't believe the Bible in its entirety is God's word. From this doctrones such as the vigin birth, bodily ressurection, etc are denied. I DO NOT define liberal someone who intrepets the Bible differently then me and in a way that goes agaist recent tradition of intpretation. If they wish to defend their views with the Bible I will listen.

I generally use the academic distiction between liberal and moderate in that a moderate believes the Bible is true in all its theoloical implications but not nessisarily historically accurate at every point. The liberal simply doesn't believe it is true one way or another.

As for the first question, churches that are labeled liberal usually accept homosexuality, ordain woman, ironically are often high church, usually believe in salvation outside of Christ, sometimes deny the ressurection, virgin birth, miracles, are sometimes evolutionists, generally are more interested in social causes then inward transformation, etc.

 

John, conservative and biblical and truthful are all talking about the same thing. They are one and the same.

Just because you wallow in the mud of relativism, doesn't mean we have to.

How hilarious that you say we can't be dogmatic, but you don't even know for sure.

Liberals and moderates are wrong on everything and need to repent and come to Christ for salvation before it is too late.

 

The cooperative baptist fellowshi (CBF)
is not affiliated with the SBC.
However it might be called the
progressive wing of the SBC.
Many members of the CBF contribute to
it and the SBC. They contribute to the SBC
to maintain their money giving membership
but they support the CBF to cater to people who
are more interestd in theology than money.

First of all, the CBF is not a wing of the SBC it is an offshoot. They broke off when the SBC got serious about taking a stand on women pastors and the inerrancy of the Bible. Second, they are not progressive. Rather they are regressive. They harken back to men like Henry Fosdick and can only look forward to having leaders like Bishop John Shelby Spong, both of which are heretics. Third (and I am not sure I am taking his comments the right way, so correct me if I am wrong), the CBF caters to no one who cares about theology. The have none. In fact, you can join the CBF and pretty much hold to any belief that you want. You can baptize infants, you can ordain homosexuals. Crap, you can even probably even worship other gods in your service. But one thing you can't do is be conservative and believe the Bible is inerrant. They'll string you up for that. Finally, I reject anything that paints the SBC as caring about money. That is far from the truth. The SBC is different and it is changing by the day. I am encouraged by the men and women I see graduating each year out of the seminaries and beginning to lead our churches. In 20 years I believe the SBC will be the most conservative and the most impactful denomination in the country. And hopefully the CBF will be dead, along with its heresy.

D.R. </font>[/QUOTE]Four years ago the deacons in an SBC asked me to resign becasue I took a stance against not allowing the Mormon bishop to preach. The local SBC church supported this practice for at elast 20 years. The local SBC association knew about it and did nothing. They also told me they could do nothing because each church is autonomous. I got the same sort of thing from a former SBC president when I wrote him.

Who are you kidding! You call that taking a conservative stance. That kind of conservatism is a lie. The SBC talks a great game and does little. They like the churches money too well. When do they ever discipline a church? That kind of conservatism is heresy. Three people in that congregation worked as volunteers for the state SBC and now that same church has hired a former SBC state worker. They like him. He just rolls over and plays dead for them.

 

gb,

Your argument is logically fallacious in that you are over generalizing the SBC. First of all the actions of those men do not represent all of the views of the SBC. Secondly, the SBC is a loose grouping of churches. Recently, however, the SBC has begun to draw lines in the sand. But you have to understand how the SBC works to see how your situation turned out bad.

First, membership in the SBC is purely volunteer. You can be a member of the SBC by giving money to the Cooperative Fund. This is true, but membership is further divided into national, state, and association levels. The SBC has given the power of membership to the associational and state levels. Because of the vastness of the SBC, they allow the state and local agencies to do the disciplining. The SBC cannot control all of its churches and do not seek to. They do not want to set up a makeshift Vatican. Baptists have always held to church autonomy, why should the SBC be different.

I am sorry that you ran into denominational leaders who were opposed to right doctrine and practice, but I am not Southern Bapt. because I think like every other SBCer. I am in the SBC because I think the Cooperative Program is wonderful and because I trust those in the International Mission Board, the Executive Committee, and the North American Mission Board, not because I trust every association and local body.

So gb, let's not bash in whole what you have experienced in a particular setting. I can guarantee men like Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, Danny Akin, and Chuck Kelly would have supported your stance against the Mormon bishop's preaching.

D.R.