# SBC Alliance with RCC



## jsup

It now it appears that the Southern Baptist Convention is embracing and standing alongside the Roman Catholic Church as fellow Christians. This idea is outrageous. The RCC is a cult and to be associated with them as Protestants infuriates me . I surely hope these articles are misunderstood, but here is what I have come across:

http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/05/rick_warren_joi.html


----------



## sotzo

jsup said:


> It now it appears that the Southern Baptist Convention is embracing and standing alongside the Roman Catholic Church as fellow Christians. This idea is outrageous. The RCC is a cult and to be associated with them as Protestants infuriates me . I surely hope these articles are misunderstood, but here is what I have come across:
> 
> http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/05/rick_warren_joi.html
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece



What is your definition of a cult?


----------



## toddpedlar

jsup said:


> It now it appears that the Southern Baptist Convention is embracing and standing alongside the Roman Catholic Church as fellow Christians. This idea is outrageous. The RCC is a cult and to be associated with them as Protestants infuriates me . I surely hope these articles are misunderstood, but here is what I have come across:
> 
> http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/05/rick_warren_joi.html
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece



Let me first state that I believe the RCC to teach falsehood in the guise
of truth - so I'm on your side.

Now, the SBC is hardly joining the RCC here - please be fair and speak truth,
not conjecture. Before you slam Page too hard, you probably should take note of the fact that all he did was sign a document that condemned some pretty abusive and insulting work by some in the press against Catholics (disagreements with their false beliefs notwithstanding). You shouldn't
associate Page with the opinions stated by Tonkowich; that's somewhat 
irresponsible.


----------



## jsup

I haven't been able to run across my links, but some writers described it in a mathematical way:

+ (Any group that adds to the Bible with new gospels or books).

- (Any group that subtracts from who Jesus is by crediting someone else or lessening the importance of Christ)

x (Any group that multiplies what you have to do in order to go to heaven. Such as works instead of grace).

/ (Any group that divides itself as the true church and the only ones that have the truth).

The RCC added to the Bible, place more importance on Mary and the saints, they emphasize good works in order to enter heaven from purgatory, and of course they burned Protestants as heretics. The RCC fulfills all these qualifications and these weren't in-depth.

Sorry Toddpedlar for the evident contradiction. I didn't mean to say that the SBC was uniting under the Pope. I put that article in to show some of the other Protestant activity with the RCC. You are very right, those two don't belong together. Let me remove that link so there won't be a misunderstanding. That's a whole different subject. My point is that Page is calling them Christians.


----------



## ServantOfKing

jsup said:


> My point is that Page is calling them Christians.



The RCC is different from other Cultish groups like the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses though because there still might be true Christians in their churches. A lot of Catholic churches teach the basics and don't delve into their true theology, thus leaving a lot of people on the surface and staying in the church. I guess I try to be a little more charitable to Catholics than I used to be.


----------



## weinhold

jsup said:


> It now it appears that the Southern Baptist Convention is embracing and standing alongside the Roman Catholic Church as fellow Christians. This idea is outrageous. The RCC is a cult and to be associated with them as Protestants infuriates me . I surely hope these articles are misunderstood, but here is what I have come across:
> 
> http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/05/rick_warren_joi.html



Brother, let me encourage you to pause and consider the possibility that you might be associated with quite a few RCC folks for all eternity; certainly you would not allow their presence to spoil paradise for you? Let me also encourage you to seek a more charitable definition of the word "Christian" and a more refined definition of the word "cult". 

PW

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## CDM

jsup said:


> I haven't been able to run across my links, but some writers described it in a mathematical way:
> 
> + (Any group that adds to the Bible with new gospels or books).
> 
> - (Any group that subtracts from who Jesus is by crediting someone else or lessening the importance of Christ)
> 
> x (Any group that multiplies what you have to do in order to go to heaven. Such as works instead of grace).
> 
> / (Any group that divides itself as the true church and the only ones that have the truth).
> 
> The RCC added to the Bible, place more importance on Mary and the saints, they emphasize good works in order to enter heaven from purgatory, and of course they burned Protestants as heretics. The RCC fulfills all these qualifications and these weren't in-depth.
> 
> Sorry Toddpedlar for the evident contradiction. I didn't mean to say that the SBC was uniting under the Pope. I put that article in to show some of the other Protestant activity with the RCC. You are very right, those two don't belong together. Let me remove that link so there won't be a misunderstanding. That's a whole different subject. My point is that Page is calling them Christians.



Doesn't the majority of Baptists (inc. SB's) affirm Roman Catholics are Christians? It seems to me that Paige, as President, is representing Baptists and the Convention well.

Right?


----------



## toddpedlar

jsup said:


> My point is that Page is calling them Christians.



Can you point me to where, specifically, Page himself is calling all Roman Catholics Christians? I hope you'll agree that there are some within the RCC that are in fact Bible-believers (though they are mistakenly affiliated with a church whose doctrine in the whole they cannot, being Bible-believers, countenance). Again - where is Page (since you have clearly declared that he does call the RCC - as a whole, which would be the only proper complaint you might lodge - a Christian church)???

Todd


----------



## jsup

Wow! Where do I begin? Um, ServantOfKing, yes Mormons and JWs are obvious cults to professing Christians, but to me Catholics are on the obvious side too.

Weinhold, Scripture isn't lenient or sugar-coated. I find it difficult to make the term "Christian" more loose and charitable outside of Scripture. As for refining the term "cult", I suppose you would want me to stick with the obvious ones like Mormons and JWs. No, a Catholic's presence in Heaven wouldn't spoil my eternal stay considering I will be spending it with Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale, Huss, and the list goes on. These men were originally Catholics but they knew they couldn't remain good Catholics.

Magnum, SBC members have always been known to be the hardest Protestants on Catholics. Such would explain my anger. Also, since Paige is representing this convention, that is also why I am upset. He may represent us, but he doesn't speak for us. He definitely does not speak for the whole. Not all SBC members feel the way he does.

And toddpedlar, as for Paige calling them Christians, well actually he endorsed them as part of the entire "Church". That could be interchangeable with Christian since only Christians make up the Church. Yes, I do agree that some Catholics could be saved. But like the reformers, they will either try to change it or get out!

I knew before I started this thread that there will be differing opinions on the RCC. All I really want to know is if anyone knows more about this and if it's indeed true?


----------



## toddpedlar

jsup said:


> And toddpedlar, as for Paige calling them Christians, well actually he endorsed them as part of the entire "Church". That could be interchangeable with Christian since only Christians make up the Church. Yes, I do agree that some Catholics could be saved. But like the reformers, they will either try to change it or get out!



So where again does Page endorse the RCC as part of the entire "Church"? I see nowhere in the statement that he signed an acknowledgment of the RCC as part of the "Church". Yes, in Tonkowich's statement (the italics) such is stated, but that is not part of what Page signed.



> I knew before I started this thread that there will be differing opinions on the RCC. All I really want to know is if anyone knows more about this and if it's indeed true?



So what is it that you're looking for? Is WHAT true?

Frankly, this "Apprising Ministries" seems to have an appallingly bad inability to be fair in what they claim. The big headline is completely false. The piece quoted is part of Tonkowich's statement - which is not (I repeat, NOT) part of the "Statement of Protestant Leaders against Anti-Catholic Bigotry". In Tonkowich's statement are all kinds of allusions to the RCC being genuinely Christian - but nowhere does such language appear in the statement that Warren, Page and Colson, et al, signed. The Apprising Ministries article completely obscures this fact and makes it sound as
though Page and others are ready to march to Rome. It's simply not the case. This is really quite a bad misrepresentation - and my whole purpose in entering this fray was not to agree with Tonkowich or anyone else regarding their view of the RCC - but to point out that nowhere (on the document actually signed by him) can you claim that Page says the RCC is a true Christian church. To do so is simply passing on a falsehood.


----------



## Peter

I suppose this illustrates the difference between the Reformed and the Anabaptist. By calling yourself Reformed you acknowledge there is something in existence to be reformed. But, true to their name, Anabaptists reject the Church and see themselves re-inventing her. I'm glad to see the SBC is embracing its _Reformation _heritage and leaving behind its other Radical Anabaptist past.


----------



## jsup

Toddpedlar, you are right Tonkowich called them part of the church. The actual document only calls them "brothers and sisters". Considering how I feel about their unscriptural doctrines, I cannot call them a brother or sister. Why? Because if they are saved, they will try to change it or get out. 

Honestly, I am surprised. We are reformed Protestants. The Protestants split from them knowing that they were false. They haven't changed from the days that Luther nailed up the 95 thesis. Since then they have dropped the Indulgences and Inquisition. Other than that, they are still the same religion with the same false doctrines. By defending them, you are defending their beliefs: Purgatory, Pelagianism, the Papacy, prayers to the saints and Mary, confession to the priests, relics, the Immaculate Conception, the co-redemptrix Mary, and etc. I may seem harsh, but I call out their beliefs as they are in light of Scripture. I don't mean to stir a bee-hive, but defending them seems out of place considering what we Protestants believe.

Peter, I don't represent the entire SBC. I just represent me and my house.


----------



## Jie-Huli

toddpedlar said:


> Can you point me to where, specifically, Page himself is calling all Roman Catholics Christians?
> 
> Todd



Well, the Statement includes this sentence:

"Our Catholic brothers and sisters will not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them."

To call Catholics "brothers and sisters" is surely the same as stating that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the true universal Christian Church. And it cannot really be denied that the entire Statement carries this tenor, affirming a solidarity between "Protestant Christians" and Catholics. I believe it is quite indefensible for any Protestant to sign such a thing.

Yes, it is true that the "bigotry" from the secular world at issue should be condemned, as what is at issue is actually people scorning and fighting against God's laws (in relation to abortion and such), rather than anything actually specific to Catholicism. But this is no reason to sign onto the sort of ecuminical ideas that this Statement is promoting.

The Reformed separated from the Catholic Church, knowing it to be a false church without the true Gospel, deluding millions of souls. To participate in a movement basically affirming the spiritual status of a system the Reformed have always called "Antichrist" is hardly embracing the Reformation heritage.

With kind regards,

Jie-Huli

*Footnote: I know nothing of "Apprising Ministries", and my statements above are not an endorsement of its website which I have not looked at other than in linking to the document at issue.


----------



## Jie-Huli

jsup said:


> Toddpedlar, you are right Tonkowich called them part of the church. The actual document only calls them "brothers and sisters". Considering how I feel about their unscriptural doctrines, I cannot call them a brother or sister. Why? Because if they are saved, they will try to change it or get out.
> 
> Honestly, I am surprised. We are reformed Protestants. The Protestants split from them knowing that they were false. They haven't changed from the days that Luther nailed up the 95 thesis. Since then they have dropped the Indulgences and Inquisition. Other than that, they are still the same religion with the same false doctrines. By defending them, you are defending their beliefs: Purgatory, Pelagianism, the Papacy, prayers to the saints and Mary, confession to the priests, relics, the Immaculate Conception, the co-redemptrix Mary, and etc. I may seem harsh, but I call out their beliefs how they are in light of Scripture. My foundation is sola scriptura. I don't mean to stir a bee-hive, but defending them seems out of place considering what we Protestants believe.
> 
> Peter, I don't represent the entire SBC. I just represent me and my house.



I had not seen your post before I posted mine, so I was a bit repetitive. Needless to say, I agree with most of what you have said here.

Kind regards,

Jie-huli


----------



## jsup

We were probably posting at the same time.


----------



## toddpedlar

jsup said:


> I don't mean to stir a bee-hive, but defending them seems out of place considering what we Protestants believe.



Suppose Hindus in your town were being systematically exterminated by the KKK, and you had the power to defend them.

Would you? 

If you did, would you thereby be accepting what they believe? 

In saying this, I'm not saying that the RCC is a true Christian church, nor am I accepting anything that appears in their confessional documents. I am merely saying that they deserve not to be pilloried in the press as some have been, simply because they are Catholics.


----------



## jsup

toddpedlar said:


> Suppose Hindus in your town were being systematically exterminated by the KKK, and you had the power to defend them.
> 
> Would you?
> 
> If you did, would you thereby be accepting what they believe?
> 
> In saying this, I'm not saying that the RCC is a true Christian church, nor am I accepting anything that appears in their confessional documents. I am merely saying that they deserve not to be pilloried in the press as some have been, simply because they are Catholics.




That question is irrelevant since this thread was containing verbal defense. The discussion here was not related to any physical, life-threatening defense. That's a bit off topic.

Also, can you find where I said that anyone here was "accepting" what they believe? I simply stated they were defending them.


----------



## Peter

Jie-Huli said:


> Well, the Statement includes this sentence:
> 
> "Our Catholic brothers and sisters will not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them."
> 
> To call Catholics "brothers and sisters" is surely the same as stating that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the true universal Christian Church. And it cannot really be denied that the entire Statement carries this tenor, affirming a solidarity between "Protestant Christians" and Catholics. I believe it is quite indefensible for any Protestant to sign such a thing.
> 
> Yes, it is true that the "bigotry" from the secular world at issue should be condemned, as what is at issue is actually people scorning and fighting against God's laws (in relation to abortion and such), rather than anything actually specific to Catholicism. But this is no reason to sign onto the sort of ecuminical ideas that this Statement is promoting.
> 
> The Reformed separated from the Catholic Church, knowing it to be a false church without the true Gospel, deluding millions of souls. To participate in a movement basically affirming the spiritual status of a system the Reformed have always called "Antichrist" is hardly embracing the Reformation heritage.
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Jie-Huli
> 
> *Footnote: I know nothing of "Apprising Ministries", and my statements above are not an endorsement of its website which I have not looked at other than in linking to the document at issue.



The Romish church is part of the true universal church. Christianity wasn't invented in 1517, neither is there any sort of secret bloodline of baptists. All of the Reformed recognized the church of Rome as materially a true church of Christ until the 19th century. Indeed, in order for the Pope to be Antichrist he has to be in the Church! the man of sin must sit in the temple of God.

Contemporary Protestant ignorance and caricatures of Reformation history and the doctrines of Roman Church are most certainly the reason for Protestant conversions to Rome. When Protestants are taught that Rome is a "cult", not Christian, then find out Rome doesn't really teach pelagianism and salvation by works but that the differences are actually much more nuanced the popish position gains sympathy. _The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth._


----------



## toddpedlar

jsup said:


> That question is irrelevant since this thread was containing verbal defense. The discussion here was not related to any physical, life-threatening defense. That's a bit off topic.
> 
> Also, can you find where I said that anyone here was "accepting" what they believe? I simply stated they were defending them.



That's true - you didn't say "accepting" what they believe. You said "defending what they believe." 

So rephrase my question. If you were defending Hindus against some undue persecution, would you be defending their beliefs? You have stated that by defending Catholics against undue persecution (which is what this whole story is about!) we are defending their beliefs. That's patently absurd.


----------



## jsup

Until now this is the first time the word "persecution" has come up. That question is still not pertinent to this thread. I don’t call any of this discussion “undue” as you may.

You yourself said that “the RCC teach falsehood in the guise of truth - so I'm on your side.” Now you are implying that this discussion against their falsehood is “undue persecution”. I am confused as to where you stand. It seems that you and Paige are on the same page.


----------



## Coram Deo

Mr. Gray,

I have to disagree with you... I will say that the Romish church was at ONE time a true church of Christ but have so degenerated as to become no church at all..... And for all intent and purposes "Smells" like a cult......

It is correct that the church was not invented in 1517, but for one the Church of Rome was not always apostate, and there have been other churches through out the centuries that have kepted pure before 1517....

I quote from the 1689 Confession of Faith under heading "Of the Church":

"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error, and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name."

Now, I said the Catholic Church Smells like a cult, because it has all the ingredients of a cult.. One man every one bows down to who he believes he is God on earth. Extra-Biblical writing which include the Apocrypha and Tradition Law. The adornation of Mary and the Saints. Even forms of mysticism. All of these fit the definition of a cult....

You then said.... "The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth."

See this is on of the greatest dangers in my mind about the "A-Mill" Position. I believe this is the one of the largest issues that caused the Roman Church to go astray.... If one believes that we are in the Millennium now like the Roman Church has believed for almost 1800 years and you look at such passages like Rev. 20 that says that Christ will reign during those 1000 years, you have to do something about that... I believe the Catholics said, we are in the 1000 years now and show Christ on Earth in that period, now add that to the Keys given to Peter Passage and Whammo you have the Pope, The Vicar of Christ on Earth. One who speaks for God and acts like Christ by decreeing Canon Laws and intreprating the Bible how he sees fit... I believe this was the start of Rome's Falling but not the sole cause mind you..... Thats my 

Now before someone gets medieval on me.... 
I am not A Dispensational.... I am Convenantal "Historic" Premill........ 



Peter said:


> The Romish church is part of the true universal church. Christianity wasn't invented in 1517, neither is there any sort of secret bloodline of baptists. All of the Reformed recognized the church of Rome as materially a true church of Christ until the 19th century. Indeed, in order for the Pope to be Antichrist he has to be in the Church! the man of sin must sit in the temple of God.
> 
> Contemporary Protestant ignorance and caricatures of Reformation history and the doctrines of Roman Church are most certainly the reason for Protestant conversions to Rome. When Protestants are taught that Rome is a "cult", not Christian, then find out Rome doesn't really teach pelagianism and salvation by works but that the differences are actually much more nuanced the popish position gains sympathy. _The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth._


----------



## KMK

Peter said:


> I suppose this illustrates the difference between the Reformed and the Anabaptist. By calling yourself Reformed you acknowledge there is something in existence to be reformed. But, true to their name, Anabaptists reject the Church and see themselves re-inventing her. I'm glad to see the SBC is embracing its _Reformation _heritage and leaving behind its other Radical Anabaptist past.



To what extent are the anabaptists part of SBC heritage? (Besides having the word 'baptist' in there name?) Are there histories that can be cited that show a link between the SBC and the heterodox anabaptists? There seemed to be different sorts of anabaptists. Not all were insurrectionists, no?


----------



## jsup

I'm not very familiar with the Anabaptists, but I remember there being some strong doctrinal differences between them and the SBC. I'm pretty sure we adopted the "dunking" baptism from them.


----------



## toddpedlar

jsup said:


> Until now this is the first time the word "persecution" has come up. That question is still not pertinent to this thread. I don’t call any of this discussion “undue” as you may.
> 
> You yourself said that “the RCC teach falsehood in the guise of truth - so I'm on your side.” Now you are implying that this discussion against their falsehood is “undue persecution”. I am confused as to where you stand. It seems that you and Paige are on the same page.



How can you possibly misconstrue my words so badly? I believe the RCC in its official teachings is apostate. That, however, has nothing to do with the undue treatment that RC's are facing. Do you know what the original statement is speaking out against? It was a VERY SPECIFIC statement of condemnation. I am assuming you have in fact read the piece, so I don't understand the way you have lept from the statement itself to your contention that somehow the SBC is coming into league with the RC and defending false teachings that the RC promotes. 

Do you not agree that writing articles in the press mocking RC politicians for the fact that they are RC, as a way of speaking out against their positions on abortion is undue? Do you believe such treatment is ethically sound? If so, I'm afraid we simply have nothing left to speak about.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

Roman Catholicsm has rightly been criticised - see http://www.romancatholicismonline.blogspot.com/ - (passim)
For a historical setting we need to be reminded yet again of Martin Luther. I have compiled some audio materials on http://www.martinlutheronline.blogspot.com/


----------



## Jie-Huli

Peter said:


> The Romish church is part of the true universal church. Christianity wasn't invented in 1517, neither is there any sort of secret bloodline of baptists. All of the Reformed recognized the church of Rome as materially a true church of Christ until the 19th century. Indeed, in order for the Pope to be Antichrist he has to be in the Church! the man of sin must sit in the temple of God.
> 
> Contemporary Protestant ignorance and caricatures of Reformation history and the doctrines of Roman Church are most certainly the reason for Protestant conversions to Rome. When Protestants are taught that Rome is a "cult", not Christian, then find out Rome doesn't really teach pelagianism and salvation by works but that the differences are actually much more nuanced the popish position gains sympathy. _The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth._



I honestly cannot see how there can be any disagreement here, so I assume there has been some misunderstanding and/or mistyping.

I am well aware of the history of the Catholic Church, that its apostasy from the true Gospel took place gradually over time, and that there were certainly many true Christians associated with the Roman Catholic Church (which at that time, though flawed, was indeed a part of the true universal Church) through history before that complete apostasy was consummated. But what was at issue in this thread is a contemporary document which essentially supports the idea that the Catholic Church today is a part of the true universal Church (calling Catholics generally our "brothers and sisters"), and this is what I said was indefensible. What the Catholic Church may have been 1000 years ago is quite another question, but one which has little bearing on the question at hand here.

Mr. Gray, even you seem in one sentence to indicate a recognition that Reformed Christianity did come to end viewing the Catholic Church as "materially a true church of Christ". (Though I would at any rate disagree that this took place in the 19th Century . . . the Council of Trent in the 16th Century was decisive, and by the time of the Westminster Confession in the 17th Century the Reformed certainly did not regard the RCC as a true church.) And yet in the first sentence you use the present tense to say "The Romish church is part of the true universal church." I am rather flabbergasted as to how you can say that. It is certainly not the Reformed understanding.

This also is certainly not an issue of Baptist v. Presbyterian. The Westminster Confession includes the exact same statement that Mr. Thunaer quoted on the Church: "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error, and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will." 

I do not think there is any question that the "synagogues of Satan" which are "no Churches of Christ" refer quite pointedly to the Roman Catholic Church among others. I have no idea from whence the idea that the Reformed still regard the Roman Catholic Church as part of the true universal church comes, but this is surely both mistaken and incredibly dangerous.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2

Frank Page was elected President of the SBC as a result of a perception of a group of "good ole boys" running the convention. So now we have a President that believes "the Emerging Church adds value to the Convention" and takes part in meetings like this. His agenda is not representative of the convention as a whole. And he does not have the support of those who retain clear biblicla precepts.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

KMK said:


> To what extent are the anabaptists part of SBC heritage? (Besides having the word 'baptist' in there name?) Are there histories that can be cited that show a link between the SBC and the heterodox anabaptists? There seemed to be different sorts of anabaptists. Not all were insurrectionists, no?




Actuallly The SBC had a great pioneer in Boyce who received much of his Seminary training from the likes of the Hodge's and Princeton if I am not mistaken. He was well trained by the Presbyterian's. You ought to read his Abstracts in Theology. It is a must read for any Baptist or Christian. Just take the Recommendation from Ernest Reisinger.
http://www.founders.org/fpress/boyce.html

Anabaptist's were not a part of the Particular Baptist movement which the 1689 came from.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

jsup said:


> I'm not very familiar with the Anabaptists, but I remember there being some strong doctrinal differences between them and the SBC. I'm pretty sure we adopted the "dunking" baptism from them.



No we got our doctrine of Baptism from Covenantal Baptists known as Particluar Baptists who authored the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith.


----------



## Calvibaptist

puritancovenanter said:


> Actuallly The SBC had a great pioneer in Boyce who received much of his Seminary training from the likes of the Hodge's and Princeton if I am not mistaken. He was well trained by the Presbyterian's. You ought to read his Abstracts in Theology. It is a must read for any Baptist or Christian. Just take the Recommendation from Ernest Reisinger.
> http://www.founders.org/fpress/boyce.html
> 
> Anabaptist's were not a part of the Particular Baptist movement which the 1689 came from.



The founders of the SBC were primarily Particular Baptists, with a few churches that had some more General Baptist leanings. I have begun reading Boyce's Abstract and it, so far, is excellent.


----------



## Calvibaptist

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> Frank Page was elected President of the SBC as a result of a perception of a group of "good ole boys" running the convention. So now we have a President that believes "the Emerging Church adds value to the Convention" and takes part in meetings like this. His agenda is not representative of the convention as a whole. And he does not have the support of those who retain clear biblicla precepts.



Also, keep in mind that it absolutely does not matter a bit what Frank Page says, even if he is the president of the SBC. His statements have no effect on how an individual church in cooperation with the SBC functions. He has no ecclesiastical authority.

This is where I think the SBC starts to mess up a little. Some times the organization thinks itself more important than the local church.


----------



## KMK

puritancovenanter said:


> No we got our doctrine of Baptism from Covenantal Baptists known as Particluar Baptists who authored the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith.



That is what I have always understood as well. I don't think 'Baptist' history has very much to do with the 'anabaptists'.


----------



## PastorFaulk

There are three prominent views to our heritage....

1. The Land mark view.... We descend from John the B himself. 
This view was held for a while, but there is no historical proof, because it is a prideful view not worth even messing with. 

2. Anabaptist View... We share much of the same ideals dealing with baptism, but lacks historical proof. 

3. Finishing what the puritans could not. Baptists believe that they are the final step of the reformation purifying the church to become New Testament once again. They believe that many of the puritan ideals needed reforming, since they did not take on issues held over from the COE or the RCC. The center of those issues being paedo baptism. (yes yes there is a whole thread to this, please just take history for what it is and argue pagan paedo views on another thread ) Baptist see Presbyterians and Puritans as reformers who still need reforming.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pastor Faulk,

While I am a staunch Credo Baptist I do not believe the paedo view in Presbyterian Covenant Theology has any pagan origin at all. I see the smiley face so I am going to accept it as a friendly jab. But I have been amongst Presbyterian's to long to know the origin of their view of Baptism is not pagan.


----------



## Ivan

jsup said:


> It now it appears that the Southern Baptist Convention is embracing and standing alongside the Roman Catholic Church as fellow Christians. This idea is outrageous. The RCC is a cult and to be associated with them as Protestants infuriates me . I surely hope these articles are misunderstood, but here is what I have come across:
> 
> http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/05/rick_warren_joi.html



I read the list of signatures. Interesting. But, just interesting. It means absolutely nothing to the SBC. When our president signed the document he did it on his own. He may be in agreement, but that doesn't mean Southern Baptists are. It has no binding effect on Southern Baptists at all.

If anything, it probably means we should have voted in a new president who wouldn't do such silly things. You will never see me sign a document like that.


----------



## kvanlaan

Um, how does this fit with all Protestant denominations being placed 'outside the fold', as it were by Benedict just recently?

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24660

Suzie (a girl of ill repute) just told Jimmy that she doesn't like him and never will and Jimmy begins writing her love letters. Does anyone else in the SBC leadership see this as odd?


----------



## Ivan

I believe the document was produced before the edict was issued. And I highly doubt that most Southern Baptist knows what the Catholic church said about us or cares.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

wow, I see this topic has created much thought as well as emotion. I read the statement in question and have several concerns with it that have already been stated here. It has been said that an endorsement of the statement cannot be equated with and agreement to Jim Tonkowich's statement. I disagree. Mr. Tonkowich sets the tone, spirit, and intent of the statement with his introduction. To sign your name to the statement is to give endorsement to its ecumenical spriit.

As stated by others, the statement itself refers to Roman Catholics as our brothers and sisters, i.e. brethren. The RCC would like nothing more than have us agree that we are brethren, albeit separated as they call it. For this reason, and knowing the cunning and deceitfulness of the RCC and their Jesuits, we are not ignorant of such sly comments and their meaning. 

True Christians, if needed, may oppose injustice where they find it. Whether it be against Roman Catholic, atheist, or otherwise. We may oppose injustices in the world without the need of an ecumenical alliance with apostasy! Why dear brethren must we sully the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and our own Christian name by laying it alongside such apostosy and heresy as comes out of the Anti-Christian system as the Roman Catholic church or the likes of a Rick Warren??? No my brethren, please do not look too harshly on those who are appaled at this statement and who signed it. 

I have been around Reformed circles long enough to understand to a SMALL degree the varying beliefs on the history of the Church. May I remind you, my Protestent and Reformed brethren, that your statement of faith particulary names the RCC as that Man of Sin foretold in Scripture, Antichrist. So does the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. I am not bringing this to your attention so as to fetter your conscience to its statements. But to remind you that the men you so often revere and display in your Avatars held this belief firmly. I happen to be one alive today who still agrees with them. 

As for the Anabaptist comments or the comments reflecting Baptists embracing their Reformed heritage, I submit to all admirers of the eminant C.H. Spurgeon his words: 




> "We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; *we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it,* but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and *our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents*. *Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants *of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man..."—Charles H. Spurgeon



As repugnant as that statement may seem to some, I believe it true and hold its sentiments as my own. 

I also agree with the brethren's statements that much study must go into the background of the aforementioned statement before judgment is too quicly layed. I personally have researched the ecumenical movement and the Church Growth Movement (Rick Warren) and found both worthy of rejection and separation. I see this statement and its purpose as nothing more than a furtherance of the ultimate purpose of the ecumencial movement and another "roman road" leading back to Rome. 

Your brother in Christ, 
Geoff


----------



## kvanlaan

> I believe the document was produced before the edict was issued. *And I highly doubt that most Southern Baptist knows what the Catholic church said about us or cares.*



Agreed, 100%. But my point is that surely those propogating and signing the document DO care, and would they not have changed their tune a little after reading such a declaration from their new 'buddies'? I just don't get it.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Reformed Baptist said:


> wow, I see this topic has created much thought as well as emotion. I read the statement in question and have several concerns with it that have already been stated here. It has been said that an endorsement of the statement cannot be equated with and agreement to Jim Tonkowich's statement. I disagree. Mr. Tonkowich sets the tone, spirit, and intent of the statement with his introduction. To sign your name to the statement is to give endorsement to its ecumenical spriit.



Geoff, I don't disagree that Page should not have signed a statement like this (and I haven't read the statement yet!) I think we should stay away from ecumenical statements like this in general unless we know exactly what we are signing.

That being said, I think the point most Baptists have argued against is that because Page signed this it necessarily means the SBC as a denomination is not linked with the RCC. First of all, the SBC is NOT a denomination in the strict sense of the word. It is a very loose affiliation of independent churches. Secondly, no one can claim to speak on behalf of the independent SBC church down the street from me except for that church.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Calvibaptist said:


> Geoff, I don't disagree that Page should not have signed a statement like this (and I haven't read the statement yet!) I think we should stay away from ecumenical statements like this in general unless we know exactly what we are signing.
> 
> That being said, I think the point most Baptists have argued against is that because Page signed this it necessarily means the SBC as a denomination is not linked with the RCC. First of all, the SBC is NOT a denomination in the strict sense of the word. It is a very loose affiliation of independent churches. Secondly, no one can claim to speak on behalf of the independent SBC church down the street from me except for that church.



I agree. I think its concerning that that president of the SBC would sign this, but does not mean the SBC is headed to Rome, God forbid. If they did I think you would see a lot of SBC congregations separate from the SBC.


----------



## Ivan

Reformed Baptist said:


> I agree. I think its concerning that that president of the SBC would sign this, but does not mean the SBC is headed to Rome, God forbid. If they did I think you would see a lot of SBC congregations separate from the SBC.



The vast majority would flee the SBC with the Founders Movement churches leading the way!


----------



## Calvibaptist

Ivan said:


> The vast majority would flee the SBC with the Founders Movement churches leading the way!



Yeah, then they would have to drop their membership numbers from 6 million to about 150,000.

But, then again, if the Founder's churches were leading the way, churches like mine might consider joining.


----------



## Ivan

Calvibaptist said:


> Yeah, then they would have to drop their membership numbers from 6 million to about 150,000.
> 
> But, then again, if the Founder's churches were leading the way, churches like mine might consider joining.



First of all, it's around 16 million or better. Second, there would be far more leave the SBC if there were a compromise with Rome, although the majority of them would not be part of the Founders movement. Then again, numbers mean nothing.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Ivan said:


> First of all, it's around 16 million or better.



Sorry, typo. It was early here.



> Second, there would be far more leave the SBC if there were a compromise with Rome, although the majority of them would not be part of the Founders movement. Then again, numbers mean nothing.



Agree.

On another note, I had a guy email me from the Baptist church that started us. He is the new children's minister there and is taking a class (by extension) at Liberty University. He had to ask a seasoned minister 4 questions.

After I got up off the floor from laughing that he suggested I might be "seasoned," I read the questions. One was "How do you measure success in ministry."

I told him to forget numbers. They mean nothing. If you listened to the church-growth experts, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were failures. You measure success by if you were faithful or not.

Maybe some SBC leaders (and the rest of us) need to learn this truth.


----------



## Philip A

Peter said:


> Contemporary Protestant ignorance and *caricatures of Reformation history* and the doctrines of Roman Church are most certainly the reason for Protestant conversions to Rome. When Protestants are taught that Rome is a "cult", not Christian, then find out Rome doesn't really teach pelagianism and salvation by works but that the differences are actually much more nuanced the popish position gains sympathy. _The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth._



 Sorry to muck up this discussion with primary sources, but Peter is right on here.

Martin Luther, _Concerning Rebaptism_, 1528, One paragraph after calling the papal church Antichrist:


> We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there ahd has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed... *I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints.*



Francis Turretin, _Institutes_, 18:14:III (post Trent):


> The church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view; either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of Gospel truth which it retains; or Papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the Word of God. We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny it can be called Christian and Apostolic, but Antichristian and Apostate. In this sense, we confess that it can still improperly and relatively be called a Christian church in a threefold respect. First, with respect to the people of God or the elect still remaining in it, who are ordered to come out of her, even at the time of the destruction of Babylon. (2) With respect to external form or certain ruins of a scattered church, in which its traces are seen to this day, both with respect to the word of God and the preaching of it (which, although corrupted, still remains in her); and with respect to the adminstration of the sacraments and especially of baptism, which is still preserved entire in her as to substance. (3) With respect to Christian and evangelical truths concerning the one and the triune God, Christ the God-man Mediator, his incarnation, death and resurrection and other heads of doctrine *by which she is distinguished from assemblies of pagans and infidels*. But we deny that she can simply and properly be called a true church, much less the one and only catholic church, as they contend.



Oh noes, Luther and Turretin were secretly in league with Rome!!!


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Philip A said:


> Sorry to muck up this discussion with primary sources, but Peter is right on here.
> 
> Martin Luther, _Concerning Rebaptism_, 1528, One paragraph after calling the papal church Antichrist:
> 
> 
> Francis Turretin, _Institutes_, 18:14:III (post Trent):
> 
> 
> Oh noes, Luther and Turretin were secretly in league with Rome!!!



I disgree with both Luther and Turretin on many points. Especially Luther.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Peter said:


> I suppose this illustrates the difference between the Reformed and the Anabaptist. By calling yourself Reformed you acknowledge there is something in existence to be reformed. But, true to their name, Anabaptists reject the Church and see themselves re-inventing her. I'm glad to see the SBC is embracing its _Reformation _heritage and leaving behind its other Radical Anabaptist past.



First off everyone should read this article on Baptist and History so they can see the differences between the Anabaptists, Separatists, Particular Baptists, the Secessionist Baptist theory and other stuff.

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm

There is way to much confusion over this issue. Tom Nettles has done some Marvelous works on this also I am told. 



Peter said:


> Contemporary Protestant ignorance and caricatures of Reformation history and the doctrines of Roman Church are most certainly the reason for Protestant conversions to Rome. When Protestants are taught that Rome is a "cult", not Christian, then find out Rome doesn't really teach pelagianism and salvation by works but that the differences are actually much more nuanced the popish position gains sympathy. _The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth._



And I disagree with the above statement. Works righteousness and indulgences were part of the problem with the RCC. It has Many other problems with idolatry and its lure to most who convert to her is her historical significance and the lust for idolatry. Men want to worship what they can touch, feel, and see. The lure to Rome is salvation depends upon the hoops that a person can perform to gain favor with God. It is a religion that places the salvation of ones soul in an individuals power to act out certain virtues so they can obtain favor with God. It is polluted. 

Now I am not advocating that all RC persons are going to Hell but anyone who places their hope in the idolatrous intercessions of Mary, the Saints, and the RCC will find their hope empty when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ who gave himself alone for this hope. The RCC has tried to rob Christ of His Glory.

For Christ's Crown and Glory.....


----------



## Philip A

Reformed Baptist said:


> I disgree with both Luther and Turretin on many points. Especially Luther.



Strange, since you just recently posted this as a "reminder" to us:



Reformed Baptist said:


> I am not bringing this to your attention so as to fetter your conscience to its statements. But to remind you that the men you so often revere and display in your Avatars held this belief firmly. I happen to be one alive today who still agrees with them.



So now you are saying you don't agree with them on the issue in question. That's the whole point then isn't it? Everybody likes to claim the Reformers for their own side, until they're faced with what the Reformers actually wrote.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Philip A said:


> So now you are saying you don't agree with them on the issue in question. That's the whole point then isn't it? Everybody likes to claim the Reformers for their own side, until they're faced with what the Reformers actually wrote.



Just as Calvin would claim Augustine for his soteriology, but and Rome would claim Augustine for their ecclesiology.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Philip A said:


> Strange, since you just recently posted this as a "reminder" to us:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are saying you don't agree with them on the issue in question. That's the whole point then isn't it? Everybody likes to claim the Reformers for their own side, until they're faced with what the Reformers actually wrote.



So in order to "claim a reformer for themselves" they have to agree with everything they wrote? I don't think anyone believes that. I think I have respect and reverence for the reformers as much as anyone. Their volumes line my bookshelves and I enjoy them very much. There just are things written that when I read it, I have to respectfully disagree. They may indeed be right, and I am wrong. But my conscience must be clean. The only way I have learned to maintain a clean conscience is to be convinced from Scripture in my conscience. Men may write something that provokes or points to truth. In other words, Spurgeon was a great help in leading me to right understand of election. But it was the Word of God that convinced me. Isn't this what we mean by Sola Scriptura? 

God bless my brother


----------



## Ivan

Calvibaptist said:


> On another note, I had a guy email me from the Baptist church that started us. He is the new children's minister there and is taking a class (by extension) at Liberty University. He had to ask a seasoned minister 4 questions.
> 
> After I got up off the floor from laughing that he suggested I might be "seasoned," I read the questions. One was "How do you measure success in ministry."
> 
> I told him to forget numbers. They mean nothing. If you listened to the church-growth experts, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were failures. You measure success by if you were faithful or not.
> 
> Maybe some SBC leaders (and the rest of us) need to learn this truth.



Amen!


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2

Calvibaptist said:


> 2 Tim 4:2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank Page was elected President of the SBC as a result of a perception of a group of "good ole boys" running the convention. So now we have a President that believes "the Emerging Church adds value to the Convention" and takes part in meetings like this. His agenda is not representative of the convention as a whole. And he does not have the support of those who retain clear biblicla precepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, keep in mind that it absolutely does not matter a bit what Frank Page says, even if he is the president of the SBC. His statements have no effect on how an individual church in cooperation with the SBC functions. He has no ecclesiastical authority.
> 
> This is where I think the SBC starts to mess up a little. Some times the organization thinks itself more important than the local church.
Click to expand...



The problems such as these stem out of the constant battle between the libs and those who hold to clear bibclical precepts. I am not sure that there is a view as being more important than the church as there is this desire for control over the convention as a whole on both sides. In the midst of that battle the local church can get lost. But if we gave in to guyd like Page we would eventually return to Seminaries that teach a doubtful Bible.


----------



## Ivan

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> But if we gave in to guyd like Page we would eventually return to Seminaries that teach a doubtful Bible.



That's an interesting statement. Let me preface this question by saying that I'm not far or against Page. 

Why do you believe Page would return our seminaries to teach a doubtful Bible?

I'm not in the SBC loop so I don't really know anything about him.


----------



## Bandguy

Calvibaptist said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority would flee the SBC with the Founders Movement churches leading the way!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, then they would have to drop their membership numbers from 6 million to about 150,000.
Click to expand...


No silly. They would never do that. They would simply list these people as members who need to be brought back into the fold, or some such nonsense. 



> The chairman of the Resolutions Committee, Gerald Harris, responded to my appeal by saying that the committee thought it inappropriate to bring my resolution before the body because they feared it would infringe on the auntomy of local churches. We should not try to tell churches what to do, he said. Well, anyone who read my resolution and the resolutions that were passed this year and other years will recognize that this argument holds no water. However, it is a tremendous advance over last year's response from the chairman that, if churches took my resolution seriously *we would lose our most promising prospects for evangelism!*



Link

They couldn't ever bear to admit that their numbers have been way inflated for years.


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2

Ivan said:


> 2 Tim 4:2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if we gave in to guyd like Page we would eventually return to Seminaries that teach a doubtful Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting statement. Let me preface this question by saying that I'm not far or against Page.
> 
> Why do you believe Page would return our seminaries to teach a doubtful Bible?
> 
> I'm not in the SBC loop so I don't really know anything about him.
Click to expand...



Let us be careful to keep my statement in context. I did not make Page soley responsible however I most certainly included him. I see now that I miss typed my post and the "d" should be an "s" at the end of "guy" to form the word "guys".

Frank Page has presented himslef as on a mission to unite the convention. In doing so he includes the Emerging Church movement as "bringing value to the convention". I tried to find the original statement but it was made some time last year and I was unable to locate it to link to it. I do however stand by my assertion that he has mde such a statement. It was made to a Pastor in Arkansa. I did find this article on the matter: Apprising Ministries: OPEN LETTER TO DR. FRANK PAGE AND KENT SHIRLEY

The Emerging Church Movement is in grave error and has a low view of scripture. This very issue is what created the conservative resurgence which began approximately in 1979. It depends heavily on philosphy in place of scripture. It is ecumenical in nature and has no value to the Kingdom of God in any of its forms.


----------



## Larry Hughes

I don’t think the danger or issue lay in that real and true Christians actually being within the RCC. That goes without saying and is one issue. One needs to separate this out because that is not the issue.

However, there is a sneaky bit of danger in fuzzing over and attaching “ecumenicalism” with “bigotry” in an official capacity from a group with another group, be they denominational or a loose federation of churches. This can be a kind of “slow cooking of the frog” approach. The danger lay in the confusing of the two.

The one thing that unites Baptist, Reformed and Lutherans alike is the Gospel and by Gospel we mean THE Gospel, justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This Rome anathemized and we ought to be ever vigilant as to the official stance of the institutional whore of Babylon. Now that does not mean that no Christians are in the RCC. But the Baptist are right to be alarmed at this because we’ve seen other RCC ecumenical movements, e.g. one of the Lutheran branches before, that comes in the form of “do we REALLY disagree about grace”. The answer is emphatically yes, but if you fuzz it over enough the answer becomes no.

The REAL danger is, again, in confounding ecumenicalism with bigotry and is similar to what happened throughout the 80s and 90s as homosexuality was slowly equated with racism and, thus, behavior becomes equal to ethnicity. How long will it be before “bigotry” against Rome = justification by faith alone as far as speaking against Rome is concerned? We’ve already seen tastes of that in the Muslim community and the generic idolatry of “peoples of faith”. When you say, “Jesus alone” that is imputed sin/righteousness, oopps, there goes your ecumenicalism and pretty soon that’s suddenly bigotry. Secular society has already equated these two things Christ alone = a form of bigotry. This is just one more step in that direction.

This particular signed on by these many folks is NOT a good thing by any measure. There is no up side to it. And this issue ought not be confused with “are real Christians in the RCC?” The Reformers had NO problem separating these two issues and neither should we.

L


----------



## Ivan

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Tim 4:2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if we gave in to guyd like Page we would eventually return to Seminaries that teach a doubtful Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting statement. Let me preface this question by saying that I'm not far or against Page.
> 
> Why do you believe Page would return our seminaries to teach a doubtful Bible?
> 
> I'm not in the SBC loop so I don't really know anything about him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let us be careful to keep my statement in context. I did not make Page soley responsible however I most certainly included him. I see now that I miss typed my post and the "d" should be an "s" at the end of "guy" to form the word "guys".
> 
> Frank Page has presented himslef as on a mission to unite the convention. In doing so he includes the Emerging Church movement as "bringing value to the convention". I tried to find the original statement but it was made some time last year and I was unable to locate it to link to it. I do however stand by my assertion that he has mde such a statement. It was made to a Pastor in Arkansa. I did find this article on the matter: Apprising Ministries: OPEN LETTER TO DR. FRANK PAGE AND KENT SHIRLEY
> 
> The Emerging Church Movement is in grave error and has a low view of scripture. This very issue is what created the conservative resurgence which began approximately in 1979. It depends heavily on philosphy in place of scripture. It is ecumenical in nature and has no value to the Kingdom of God in any of its forms.
Click to expand...


Point well made and taken. I think you're right about Page making that statement about the Emerging Church. I think it's an attempt to help the "young people" feel like they are part in the Convention. 

Yes, if this is the road that is taken the SBC will be back to square one, but people like Dr. Mohler at Southern will do their best to keep us on track.


----------



## lwadkins

To come out against persecution is fine, but when you sign a document such as this, you open yourself to misunderstanding and to the misuse of the document but the RCC. (Which has happened before.)


----------



## Robert Truelove

It is important that we distinguish and understand our terms...

cult = a false 'church' that was never a part of the true church. Examples: Jehovah's Witness, Mormonism

apostate church = a church that was once a true church, but has subsequently fallen away from the true faith. It is no longer a true church (the candlestick having been removed).

While there may be a fine line between these two designations, they are yet very important. 

The Roman Catholic church is not a 'cult' because it once was a true church. Since the Council of Trent in the mid 16th Century, it has lost all claim to being a 'true church'. However, it is still a 'church'...but a church that has fallen away (an 'apostate church'). 

The Jehovah's Witnesses are not even a 'church'. They are a cult.

I am not saying that a Roman Catholic who believes in their church's doctrine is any less lost than a Jehovah's Witness. An apostate church is every bit as lost as a cult, but the proper use of these terms is important because such considerations effect other considerations down the road.


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2

Ivan said:


> 2 Tim 4:2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting statement. Let me preface this question by saying that I'm not far or against Page.
> 
> Why do you believe Page would return our seminaries to teach a doubtful Bible?
> 
> I'm not in the SBC loop so I don't really know anything about him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us be careful to keep my statement in context. I did not make Page soley responsible however I most certainly included him. I see now that I miss typed my post and the "d" should be an "s" at the end of "guy" to form the word "guys".
> 
> Frank Page has presented himslef as on a mission to unite the convention. In doing so he includes the Emerging Church movement as "bringing value to the convention". I tried to find the original statement but it was made some time last year and I was unable to locate it to link to it. I do however stand by my assertion that he has mde such a statement. It was made to a Pastor in Arkansa. I did find this article on the matter: Apprising Ministries: OPEN LETTER TO DR. FRANK PAGE AND KENT SHIRLEY
> 
> The Emerging Church Movement is in grave error and has a low view of scripture. This very issue is what created the conservative resurgence which began approximately in 1979. It depends heavily on philosphy in place of scripture. It is ecumenical in nature and has no value to the Kingdom of God in any of its forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point well made and taken. I think you're right about Page making that statement about the Emerging Church. I think it's an attempt to help the "young people" feel like they are part in the Convention.
> 
> Yes, if this is the road that is taken the SBC will be back to square one, but people like Dr. Mohler at Southern will do their best to keep us on track.
Click to expand...



The emrging Church heresy is very spread out and should be a serious concern to the conservative resurgence. I have just recently began a new work that is doing well. I have had to apply for "church-at-large" status because of the agenda of this association with regards to the emerging misiology.


----------



## Ivan

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> I have just recently began a new work that is doing well. I have had to apply for "church-at-large" status because of the agenda of this association with regards to the emerging misiology.



Really?! Hmmm...time to take this more seriously and start reading some material on this movement.


----------

