Bob Coy resigns, but followers still want access to his sermons

[ItinerantPreacher]

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

 

[T-Bone]

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!

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

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.

 

[Izdaari]

1984. Becoming an unperson.

 

[BALAAM]

1984. Becoming an unperson.

Don't know what you mean by 1984. Is that the year you were born?  I have been an unperson for a long time and I love it!

 

[T-Bone]

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.

Keep convincing yourself that there is a real difference in practice or association...that way you can justify inaction.  There is nothing you or Cloud with his agenda can tell me about the SBC...there is no ruling council or board and the convention only exists for business two weeks a year.  I voluntarily cooperate with thousands of churches to do the work of the Kingdom... Not perfect but hardly liberal.  You want to talk about our imperfections that is your choice...but I would advise you and Cloud to clean up your own backyards.  You are affiliated by the moniker IFB whether you like it or acknowledge it or not..and what other IFB churches do reflect on you.

Your inane parsing of terms and labeling is inaccurate and tiresome .

 

[Izdaari]

1984. Becoming an unperson.

Don't know what you mean by 1984. Is that the year you were born?  I have been an unperson for a long time and I love it!

No, I was born 30 years before that. I'm old.

The reference is to 1984, the classic dystopian novel by George Orwell.

In that story, the totalitarian government makes inconvenient people "unpersons" by making it as though they had never existed, erasing all record of them, destroying everything they had ever written, etc. It seems like that's what Bob Coy's former ministry is doing to him. If so, that seems rather North Korean of them.

Now, I'm not very familiar with Bob Coy's work. But it seems to me, if it had no more value than that, they should never have published it in the first place.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Is this throwing out the baby with the bath water?

I've seen plenty of IFB churches.....

And yet Coy is not........... never mind.  Don't let the facts get in the way your bias.

It's rsc2a"s contention that he is an IFB for all practical purposes...something I don't see at all.

Pretty much. In fact you stated they are "poles apart in doctrine, practice, philosophy and methods", a point at which I listed about fifteen similarities off the top of my head without even bothering to consider it for more than two minutes. Instead of pointing to any substantive differences, you boiled it down to (paraphrase) "Well, they don't have a problem with pants on women."

Or maybe you thought of another difference?

What I said was that they are not legalists in any sense of the word.
I also said I had forgotten who I was addressing...oh obtuse one!

No....you have just shown that you know nothing about CCs. Sit in one for four or five years, then come back to me. Until then, I'll remain convinced that my personal experience trumps something you made up out of thin air.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]They are not hyper separationists....we are the only church(s) that have pure doctrine.

And then you ignore the fact that I was asked to leave by a pastor because I didn't toe the doctrinal line. In fact I was told, "The unity of the church is a big thing to you and it's impossible to have unity when people disagree, so maybe you should find a church that agrees with you," showing that a) the pastor had no idea what unity actually means and b) that they are hyper-separationists.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]They are NOT IFB...not even IFB lite.
They are "poles apart in doctrine, practice, philosophy and methods"...which are things that make IFB, IFB![/quote]

Let me post the list again:

CC is an "independent" association of churches set up where one man completely runs the church with the a group of hand-picked individuals serving in a "advisement" capacity, an association where a small handful of people have an extreme amount of influence.

They completely disregard the difference in the word of God (Ps 1:1) and the Word of God (Jn 1:1), frequently equating the two in both word and practice. They are very vocal on the importance of the tithe and hold a pre-trib, pre-mil eschatological view, considering it a fundamental of the faith. They are openly hostile to anything even smelling like something that might be mistaken as Reformed theology.

They are YEC and strongly dispensational with a huge "rah!rah! Israel" leaning and, all and all, extremely conservative politically and socially, including many who strongly advocate for home schooling.

So, yet again, how again are they "poles apart in doctrine, practice, philosophy and methods"?
[/quote]


On the old FFF, a regular poster was Marji....a pastors wife in Oregon, I believe.
She and her husband were IFBs and moved to CC because of what they saw and couldn't condone in IFB-Dom. Now, she seemed to be under the distinct impression that there were vast differences...and she experienced both groups from the inside, if you will.

Perhaps your reality is really a ride in Fantasyland.

 

[rsc2a]

In short,  you can think of no substanative differences and have resorted to 'because' as your reasoning. Or did you intend to actually engage the lengthy list of similarities I provided?

 

[brainisengaged]

Yes, it was very reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 here at FBC shortly after Schaap fell. Suddenly the wall of photos with him and newly-married couples was just...gone. They scrubbed him from any and every where they could. He did indeed become an unperson. During the interim, I often felt I was living an Orwellian nightmare. Who are the FBC Thought Police? Will they get me for my thoughtcrimes? How will they try to revise history now? How will we be indoctrinated to love and adore our new Big Brother? (Pastor)....It was so incredibly surreal to live out that book I had read so many years ago...

 

[Excelsior]

Well, we only have record of anything that many modern preachers preach because of the ease of storage afforded by technology. Otherwise, we would choose to preserve only the best teachers/preachers.

Honestly, there are probably ton's of copies of his work out there, it's not like it's been removed from the face of the earth just because it's removed from the interwebz.

Whatever they choose to do is neither here nor there to me. God's word shall stand and it doesn't need this preacher or any other to fulfill that promise. One man may fall or fail, but there are many more who are still standing.