|
Post by enoch on May 7, 2002 0:08:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 7, 2002 12:01:38 GMT -5
Actually, if I remember my history correctly the early church did have folks go through a year of training and they may have had to affirm or sign some sort of doctrinal agreement.
|
|
|
Post by enoch on May 7, 2002 22:05:58 GMT -5
Na Na Na, The early church did not require disciples to go through any pre-membership training. Rather all discples willingly set themselves to the task of disciplining themselves to learn all that they could about their new Messiah. The only act of obedience or confession that the new disciples undertook was the Baptism. At this particular day and age when any acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ was sufficient for execution, what need had they of any further statement. It is all too easy for us to take the name of Christian today, without any risk. In deed it is politically correct to say that you are a Christian. You could not get elected in this nation if you were to say that you were an Agnostic or Atheist.
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 15, 2002 12:20:52 GMT -5
I guess I needed to define early. It was not the 1st Century Church. It may have been a couple of hundred years after that, but I do remember something about classes, waiting periods or whatever. It was post-1st Century, but Pre-Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 15, 2002 12:23:47 GMT -5
Besides if the redeemed of the Lord are supposed to say so then their is no reason why Baptists can say they are and in order to give an answer to every man that asks have a synopsis of what they believe and iffen yer Baptist sign the dern thang and say so. Iffen ya ain't go jine the Presbys or Episcos or sumbody. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by enoch on May 15, 2002 14:14:54 GMT -5
I say, isn't this but a part of the reason that the Anabaptists left Europe to come to America. So they could maintain their individuality and independence and autonomy?
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 15, 2002 15:33:31 GMT -5
Yes, from a state church, but if you are to be in fellowship with folks then you best believe the same and willing to says or sign so.
|
|
|
Post by odiero on May 18, 2002 15:48:15 GMT -5
Well, I am new to this forum, but I will add a comment on this one. The BFM 2000 clarifies some theological and practical issues, while acknowledging the autonomy of individual churches. I have had more experience than I need with other denominations who have failed to make clarifying statements from time to time. The results are disastrous. Moral relativism and theological relativism grow in such an environment. The presence of some clear boundaries is usually healthy. Again, in the absence of doctrinal clarity, the greatest victim is truth, and once a piece of ground is yielded, it is not likely to be regained. I must applaud the SBC leadership for taking an unpopular stand in a day of compromise. Could it have gone farther? Probably, but the issues in question were addresssed as the primary focus. It is possible that addressing other issues would have detracted from the overall impact of the statement.
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 20, 2002 14:23:10 GMT -5
Rock On O!!!
|
|
|
Post by enoch on May 22, 2002 12:22:27 GMT -5
I agree wholeheartedly that there must be a statement of faith to clarify exactly where we stand as a people. My distinction is that to require people to sign off on it. If we are precise in our wording as to where we stand, I cannot understand why someone would wish to pastor in our Churches who did not prescribe to that stand.
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 22, 2002 22:22:45 GMT -5
Infilitration, Brother! If you don't have to sign your name to anything you do not have to let everyone know where you stand and you can use double talk to please folks and decieve others while you teach something different. If you asked the average congregation if they were Liberal or Conservative I would imagine most of them would say Conservative even ones with Liberal pastors and hooked up with Liberal associations. I have seen it happen. Shoot, one of my professors shared a building with the Methodists and now and then filed in for their pastor. he said that he had them shouting over eternal security. He just did not use those words.
Why do you think the gays infiltrated the priesthood? To eventually control and tone down the "sin" talk. That is why Liberals and gays try to infilitrate our seminaries to water them down and prepare them for takeover. They are patient and persistent and we are not vigilant. The BGCT t'weren't always Liberal and someone on another board said he was a member of the CBF and called them conservative! Yeah, right!
You don't like what peopel say about your lifestyle or platform? Infilitrate them. Know why homosexuality is not longer listed by the APA as a abnormal illness? Too many gay shrinks in control. Take control and call the shots. John said that many false prophets would come out of us. they have to get in us to come out of us.
|
|
|
Post by enoch on May 22, 2002 22:40:33 GMT -5
If they have no compunctions about saying what we want to hear, what prevents them from signing what we want them to sign. A liar will say or sign whatever he/she thinks we want to hear/see in order to accomplish their own ends. The proof of their convictions will be in their deeds and lives. Unfortunately it takes time to see and sometimes the damage is done by the time we discover the truth of their stands. I wonder how many liberals believe themselves to be conservative side of the issues. I have a good friend, a Pastor in Texas who I believe is a very well meaning person, but he is slipping fast into the liberal BGCT camp. But he doesn't see it. He still believes himself to be very conservative, and the SBT to be ultra fanatical in its paranoia about the liberals taking over the convention.
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 28, 2002 13:11:21 GMT -5
At least if they sign and we can catch them in their duplicity we have a far better chance of getting rid of them. As it stands now it is tough to get people like your friend to see that they are on the wrong path. Heck, the SBT is not even close to radical or far right. They are the moderates of 50 years ago, but far fromt he Conservatives of the same period. To get that you have to go Independent.
|
|
|
Post by ABC_Ron on May 30, 2002 2:41:38 GMT -5
Hi Folks, I usually don't post on this page, as I usually leave SBC issues to you good SBC folks. But I gotta say that Charles Spurgeon is burning in his grave. Don't ya think?
God Bless, Ron
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 30, 2002 11:13:56 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean, but I hope you meant turning and not burning. Old Charles probably started turning long ago and might be doing the spin at the speed of light by this point. Then again, I don't believe our departed brethren even know or care what is happening down here. They are too busy running around the throng shouting Glory.
|
|