Conservative Baptist Network launched amid 'woke' trend in SBC
Amid growing concern that the nation's largest Protestant denomination is increasingly "woke" and drifting from biblical orthodoxy, a new network has formed to emphasize evangelism and the sufficiency of Scripture within the Southern Baptist Convention.
The Conservative Baptist Network, which is being launched Friday, describes itself as a grassroots effort to maintain the proclamation of the Gospel at the center of SBC life, in addition to prioritizing fidelity to Scripture and all of its implications, including presenting a vibrant, biblically-informed witness when engaging culture. The network fully affirms the longstanding beliefs of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
Those involved in the network's formation, many of whom spoke with The Christian Post, say their efforts are needed given the direction and perceived future of the Convention that many devout Southern Baptists find troubling....
This past Sunday at my Baptist Church the sermon was given by Pastor Steve and was titled "Unvarnished Christianity" from Mark 8:34-9:1. The sermon was about what Jesus stated it means to be a follower of Him. If anyone would genuinely follow Jesus he or she will be one who chooses the way of the cross, one who puts eternal matters before what matters now and one who is not ashamed of Jesus.
I am beginning to think that SBC means Soon Be Changing. There must be over a hundred different Baptist denominations in the US. But then, I remember another story about the Methodists dividing recently over the sodomite issue. And Presbyterians have many varieties, too.
I guess it depends on what and who's definition one uses, Joel. Someone might be struck by the Holy Spirit to say that he "woke up" and saw some new insight in the Scriptures that led him to better understand the attributes of the Godhead. No problem there.
But in contemporary culture, esp around college campuses and now apparently the SBC, to say that someone is "woke" is not only poor grammar but an indication of the Marxist defined social ill from which that person is now sorry.
"Woke" means to have come to the awareness that one's whiteness or maleness is a kind of a social sin against those who are not white or male. It's a piece of Marxist dogma that got expanded from economics to gender, color, ethnicity, and sexual preference. There is a notable poster here who is "woke" and demands we all follow along, for instance.
As a Marxist construction, it is entirely unbiblical and downright Satanic. Check out Critical Theory online. It's out there and no doubt you'll see it.
Joel wrote: The Reformers killed the Baptists for their baptisticness. Thereâ€™s different kinds of history books.
You're talking of Anabaptists; I'm not one of those. English Baptists came in Particular (Calvinist) and General (Arminian) flavors, but both were persecuted (not so much murdered) because they were Dissenters, repudiating Tudor/Stuart Anglican "via media" worship. Presbys and Congregationalists were also hassled. Hence, the Mayflower people.
This is more or less standard English history. Too bad it doesn't make Baptists look as singular or heroic as we'd like, but I don't respect sectarian history unless it's backed up with credible scholarship.
Oops, someone just cracked open the can of Waldenses! They are generally misunderstood hated by Catholics and Protesters alike, old and new. â€śReformedâ€ť and â€śBaptistâ€ť were not two words that went well together even during the time of the Reformation. The Reformers killed the Baptists for their baptisticness. Thereâ€™s different kinds of history books.
Dr. Tim wrote: The Waldenses baptized by immersion prior to the Reformation. â€śEquivocationâ€ť is a fine word when used correctly, which in your post, Neil, it was not. The nearest equivalent idiomatic expression would be â€śbeating around the bush.â€ť I have a ton of faults, but beating around the bush generally isnâ€™t one of them.
Equivocation: "The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead." Maybe you don't intend it, but that's the effect.
And Immersion (mode) isn't my point; Credobaptism (subject) is. Even E. Orthodox baptize by immersion. I would like to see documentary evidence of Waldensian Credobaptism from sources not having an ax to grind (namely, Baptists). And even if you're right, it only proves it dates back to the 12th Century at the earliest (i.e. Peter Waldo's lifetime).
Pretty shaky to split a denomination over, which is what Landmarkists did to Southern Baptists back in the 1850s. As if there wasn't enough division already.
The Waldenses baptized by immersion prior to the Reformation. â€śEquivocationâ€ť is a fine word when used correctly, which in your post, Neil, it was not. The nearest equivalent idiomatic expression would be â€śbeating around the bush.â€ť I have a ton of faults, but beating around the bush generally isnâ€™t one of them.
Dr. Tim wrote: ...If Jesus was baptized by a Baptist preacher, ..
Fallacy of Equivocation: The NT does not imply John the B was a "Baptist" in the same sense as during the Reformation, just because he immersed repentant folks. We have no Biblical evidence of his beliefs about NT church order. He was the last OT prophet, not an NT apostle or elder. And weren't some of his followers re-baptized into the church (Acts 19)? That would be strange if he were a Baptist like you and me.
And please show me which sect practiced believer's baptism (which Paedobaptists may do with adults) before the Reformation. I can't find any, though some may be lost to history given the RCC's power.
Kieron: So where did you get your ideas about pre-Reformation Baptists, if not from "Trail of Blood?"
Fun fact: The Westminster Confession also endorses pouring, which is what some Anabaptists do. Presbys rarely mention this.
There were congregations of Christians clinging to Bible doctrine long before the Reformation. They may not have been Baptist, but they were certainly Baptistic. If Jesus was baptized by a Baptist preacher, I donâ€™t know how anyone can â€śfollowâ€ť Him in baptism by being sprinkled by a Presbyterian.
Neil Speak for yourself. Anyone denying common Protestant doctrines is not my brother.
Landmark Successionism is a historical myth borne of wishful thinking; Baptists, General and Particular, clearly emerged from the Reformation. And Anabaptists were a reaction to the Reformation.
Sir you judge me harshly. How do you know I believe in Landmarkism etc? You didn't look before you leaped. Your history is wrong about Baptists. All Christian are Baptist or Baptistic pre Reformation. Protestants came out of Romanian. Baptists never came out of Rome. I am not going to argue with anyone on this, that is not my intent. Sermon Audio has some Baptist History sermons anyone can listen to.