T-Bone said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
T-Bone said:
Your sites prove nothing, you did not deal with the cooperative baptist that I told you they are as much SBC as they are IFB. Don't know anything about Furick and some spontaneous baptism service, nor do I have any input in the matters of a local autonomous church any more than you do over Bob Gray, Dave Hyles, or Peter Ruckman. There was something done about the evangelical/catholic thing, but even that means nothing to you...as you have an agenda and are a slanderer like you father! When are you going to clean up the individual IFB filled with apostate and child abusive preachers?
By your own inane definition, you & all IFB churches would be liberal. You really need to be more cautious of slandering God' s children, you will answer to Him!
Around the same time as you clean up the individual SBC Churches that are filled with apostate and child abusive preachers
http://stopbaptistpredators.org/collusion_individuals.html
Are you really as stupid as you show yourself? You clearly don't understand the irony of you condemning a whole group for the actions of a few! I did not condemn the IFB, you have condemned by your slander the SBC. You've moved the goal post with every post... You don't want any truth so I leave you in your ignorance and slander with your father!
OK, T-Bone, your asserting that the actions of a few should not condemn the group as a whole. And, to be consistent, there have been some IFB bad apples, and I would agree that their bad testimony should not taint the group as a whole. As a matter of fact, I have argued that point. And I agree with you that the actions of a few SBC pastors and or SBC churches do not necessarily reflect their actions. To me, here is the big difference between the issue for an IFB church or pastor and an SBC church or pastor.
IFB is a term, not an association/convention. I did not "join" the IFB, nor do I "maintain membership" within the IFB. There is no "IFB". No board, no body, no president, no board of governors/directors of any kind. This level of autonomy means that the only recourse I have with a "sister church" ie JS and FBCH or TM and TBC is personal protest, and stopping any level of association or fellowship that may or may not have been occurring. I could write them a letter, phone them and protest etc, but I have no one to go to and say "look, these guys no longer uphold our criteria". That option is not available to me. For me the only thing I can leave is being a Baptist. In other words, give up my doctrinal convictions because of the actions of another.
The SBC is more than "a term". It is an association. Your choice is belong or not belong. You belong. I do not. Those are, generally speaking, choices available to us. If you or I or anyone else belongs, we first of all must agree to follow the criteria set out by the Convention, in this case the SBC. The added complication that this brings is that if a sister church does something that violates that criteria, AND nothing is done about it, it affects the TESTIMONY not the doctrine of all the churches that belong to the association/convention. It appears that what that sister church/pastor did is acceptable. Certainly, the level of autonomy that an SBS church holds would mean that nothing could be done at a local level, in other words, you can't stop them, BUT you can admonish then as a Convention. There must be a minimum level of acceptable practice to remain a member of the SBC. Surely a church and or pastor that openly has a woman pastor for instance cannot remain an SBC church or pastor, unless they rectify the situation. But if they do not, and refuse to change the situation, their membership within the Convention and it's associated programs and benifits could be/should be at stake. This is the heart of the issue.
Within any group there are figures that are more prominent and public. No one knows me. Many know Paul Chappell. Many more knew Jack Hyles. By the same token, few may know you (simply making a point, not being derogatory), but many know Rick Warren. You mentioned earlier that the catholic evangelical issue was dealt with internally. Now, I will likely get myself in trouble, but I assume that "dealt with internally" means "we're not gonna do that" in some way. Yet, Rick Warren is on EWTN, the Global Catholic Television Network. Heres the link.
World Over - 2014-04-10 - Rick Warren Part II with Raymond Arroyo
If I was an SBC member, either church or pastor, I would have a problem with this. I would realize that I cannot control him, or force him to stop, but I would also realize that if my convention did nothing about it, they must be ok with it. When I say the SBC is liberal, it is because things like this are never dealt with. The Steve Furtick issue has been making enough headlines that the Convention must be aware of it. You can look it up if you want. I await their response.