Revealing SBC and NC Baptist Convention's apostasies

[Harley]

Harley,
When you first joined the old board way back when, I found your conversation / debate style abrasive.
I was often offended that you would question peoples opinion on what seemed to me to be logical thought.
I have come to realize you enjoy conversation and debate not just to prove your opinion.
I enjoy your posts... Not that I always agree.

Mikos Pas,
Thank you for you thoughts - I don't expect anyone to always agree, nor would I want them too - thought provoking is more my goal (though some have accused me of being just plain 'ol provoking. To the best of my knowledge, any question I have asked has always been to probe an issue (if I needed more information) or provoke thought (if I thought something had been left out).

It has never been my intension to be abrasive, though I may have been... written communication always lacks the nuances of verbal communication.

As for the OP - according to Whiplash it's a cut & paste from a website. Sing4Him added a ":tsk" at a certain point. This was the only commentary on the page that I saw from her. I simply wondered what it was about that particular paragraph that prompted the :tsk.

Harley

[Harley]

...I have not see you SHOW us how Emergent doctrine is Scripturally Solid with the message of sinners saved by Jesus shed blood on the cross for us.

...I have not yet found posted proof that any of the Emergents adhere to the Bible's truth of salvation....

These are two significantly different requests.

The former assumes that there is a Emergent doctrine that can be discussed. This is not the case anymore than we could say there is a Protestant doctrine hat can be discussed. "Emergent" is a description that entails a lot of divergent beliefs, so it is impossible to discuss them as a whole. This gets even more divergent when speaking of those who would call themselves "emerging" but not "Emergent."

The latter, proof that any one particular "Emergent" adheres to biblical truth addresses each on their own turf.

All that aside - I'm not sure what these questions have to do with your OP or my question.

[Sing4Him]

"Emergent" is a description that entails a lot of divergent beliefs

Please post the variant Emergent "doctrines" and also show where there Biblically sound stance is on salvation in every variant "Emergent". Please provide scripture.

The latter, proof that any one particular "Emergent" adheres to biblical truth addresses each on their own turf

This appears to be redundant of your above comment.

BTW-- the smilie of disdain was expressed for the comment Far too often we tend to settle for life eternal

That is a very bold, broad, comment, which is non-factual and also that Biblical fact that NO ONE can "settle" for life eternal. That choice is not mans' AND the concluding phrase:

when our Lord is ready and willing to provide not only that, but the abundant life as well. This abundant and joyous life is only found in a deep and abiding relationship with God.

The Lord provides life eternal ONLY one way. That is through the blood of Jesus Christ who died on the cross for sinners. That point again, is not stated. The concluding comment Infers that abundant life is found in God NEGLECTING HOW this is found. Man can not find a relationship with God. God seeks sinners.
Man is SEPARATED from God because of sin, therefore there is NO relationship with God, man attained without coming to Jesus for forgiveness and accepting Him as LOrd and Savior.


now address my former requests.

[Sing4Him]

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. Is. 59:2

For since by man (ADAM) came death, by man (JESUS, SON OF GOD) came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. 15:21


For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rms. 6:23


Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:16

God is NON-Attainable except by Jesus who died for sinners, us.

[Sing4Him]

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=6770

[Harley]

Sing4Him,

Thank you for answering my question. I understand that your complaint was primarily with what was not said, as opposed to with what was said. Could it be that those making the statements were directing them to believers, therefore what was omitted was assumed? You are right that references to the shed blood were omitted, but I assumed the audience to be Christians.

For example, I could stand in front of my church and say "The abundant and joyous life is only found in a deep and abiding relationship with God" and be absolutely correct since my topic is life in Christ, not an introduction to him. The issue being addressed is not the "acquisition" of eternal life, but life after that issue has been settled.

Harley

[Harley]

Please post the variant Emergent "doctrines" and also show where there Biblically sound stance is on salvation in every variant "Emergent". Please provide scripture.

This would:
1) Be too much work. Like listing all the variations in denominational beliefs... I suppose it could be done, but it's too great an undertaking for me at this time.
2) It would derail the thread.
3) As specific guys and churches are discussed we've already done some of this and I'm sure we'll do more

So, at this time I'll just stick to my original question and our discussion that follows from that.

Harley

[Sing4Him]

For example, I could stand in front of my church and say "The abundant and joyous life is only found in a deep and abiding relationship with God" and be absolutely correct since my topic is life in Christ, not an introduction to him. The issue being addressed is not the "acquisition" of eternal life, but life after that issue has been settled.

which leads NO one to salvation in Jesus..
:twister

This would:
1) Be too much work. Like listing all the variations in denominational beliefs... I suppose it could be done, but it's too great an undertaking for me at this time.
2) It would derail the thread.
3) As specific guys and churches are discussed we've already done some of this and I'm sure we'll do more

So, at this time I'll just stick to my original question and our discussion that follows from that.


Ah.. I can see you can't do this. Emergent/Emerging doctrine all based on the same thing- and I am a revolving door standing for Jesus which is a.o.k with me!

You are unable to show me their stance on Jesus shedding His blood for our sins.

Apostasy. Period.

Do I need to state this over and over and over again?

I have presented the Scripturually based side and you have shown us here nothing. Absolutely nothing.. nothing that shows Jesus as sole means for salvation

The work of the devil.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Romans 16:17

[Harley]

which leads NO one to salvation in Jesus...

But the audience would already have salvation in Jesus... that was my point in that example.

[Harley]

...Ah.. I can see you can't do this. Emergent/Emerging doctrine all based on the same thing- and I am a revolving door standing for Jesus which is a.o.k with me!

You are unable to show me their stance on Jesus shedding His blood for our sins....

In one sense you are right - I cannot address the soteriology of the Emergent/Emerging doctrine. Not because it cannot be defended, but because there is no singular soteriology to be defended. Pick one and we can discuss it.

"Emergent/Emerging doctrine all based on the same thing-" - this is the fundamental error of your position. I agree that many are exactly as you say, but others are not. It will be impossible to discuss the issue until you see the differences between them... unfortunately as long as you read watch bloggers who also refuse to acknowledge the differences that probably won't change.

The thing that amazes me is how/why the watch bloggers won't bother with what individual people/churches really believe. All one has to do is actually read these guys and you'll see that there are vast differences