Paynter Retiring from CBF

[Dave Roberts]

Still, I'd bet he has lines. Heck I'd bet you have. We all do. But I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy over all the tolerance shown here.

Some of us just don't blame an organization for some of the statements made at their meetings or by their presidents like the one who told us "God doesn't hear the prayers of Jews." Funny that he didn't remember that Jesus was a Jew.

[Tim Bonney]

Still, I'd bet he has lines. Heck I'd bet you have. We all do. But I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy over all the tolerance shown here.

Sure there are "lines." It is just that denominations that aren't as far right wing as the SBC don't generally expect people in other denominations or faith groups to agree with their theology in order to hear from them at a meeting. I mean, was anyone afraid a Presbyterian was going to convert all the Baptists to his theology simply by stating his controversial views? Are people's faith that generally weak? Did he ever claim to speak for the CBF?

[William Thornton]

Still, I'd bet he has lines. Heck I'd bet you have. We all do. But I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy over all the tolerance shown here.

Sure there are "lines." It is just that denominations that aren't as far right wing as the SBC don't generally expect people in other denominations or faith groups to agree with their theology in order to hear from them at a meeting. I mean, was anyone afraid a Presbyterian was going to convert all the Baptists to his theology simply by stating his controversial views? Are people's faith that generally weak? Did he ever claim to speak for the CBF?

Yet, Vestal felt the necessity of an apology.

[KeithE]

Still, I'd bet he has lines. Heck I'd bet you have. We all do. But I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy over all the tolerance shown here.

Sure there are "lines." It is just that denominations that aren't as far right wing as the SBC don't generally expect people in other denominations or faith groups to agree with their theology in order to hear from them at a meeting. I mean, was anyone afraid a Presbyterian was going to convert all the Baptists to his theology simply by stating his controversial views? Are people's faith that generally weak? Did he ever claim to speak for the CBF?

Good points Timothy.

Religious gatekeepers support their gatekeeping on the grounds that they are keeping the people safe from deviant theologies (as if theological views divide the sheep and the goats). Are the rank and file CBFers not able to make up their own mind? Whatever happened to the Baptist mantra of non-coercion that led to the belief in adult baptism?

Been thinking about what my “lines” may be. As far as defining who is a Christian and not, I’d say anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus’s teaching would be in my fence (whether or not they are sheep {approved by God} or goats {not approved by God} is up to God). But I would still allow say a Buddha follower speak at a Christian convention if their message was about living a good life - we do not have a corner on life enhancing thoughts - and I would not declare them goats.

[JE Pettibone]

Still, I'd bet he has lines. Heck I'd bet you have. We all do. But I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy over all the tolerance shown here.

Sure there are "lines." It is just that denominations that aren't as far right wing as the SBC don't generally expect people in other denominations or faith groups to agree with their theology in order to hear from them at a meeting. I mean, was anyone afraid a Presbyterian was going to convert all the Baptists to his theology simply by stating his controversial views? Are people's faith that generally weak? Did he ever claim to speak for the CBF?

Good points Timothy.

Religious gatekeepers support their gatekeeping on the grounds that they are keeping the people safe from deviant theologies (as if theological views divide the sheep and the goats). Are the rank and file CBFers not able to make up their own mind? Whatever happened to the Baptist mantra of non-coercion that led to the belief in adult baptism?

Been thinking about what my “lines” may be. As far as defining who is a Christian and not, I’d say anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus’s teaching would be in my fence (whether or not they are sheep {approved by God} or goats {not approved by God} is up to God). But I would still allow say a Buddha follower speak at a Christian convention if their message was about living a good life - we do not have a corner on life enhancing thoughts - and I would not declare them goats.

Ed: Keith says "As far as defining who is a Christian and not, I’d say anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus’s teaching would be in my fence (whether or not they are sheep {approved by God} or goats {not approved by God} is up to God.

Ed: Jesus; God in Human flesh said "Matthew 7:21-23 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'LORD, LORD,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

We (Trudy and I) are not opposed to the study of other religions, we have in fact established a scholarship for non traditional students in The University of South Florida's. Religious Studies Program where the motto is "To study but one Religion is to study none". How ever we do not attend CBF Assemblies to study religion. Note; CBF does not call our annual meeting a convention for what I believe should be an obvious reason. We attend the Assembles to have face to face interaction with others who have a vested interest in the organization, learning what is being done and what is proposed and to have some small voice in each.

[KeithE]

Religious gatekeepers support their gatekeeping on the grounds that they are keeping the people safe from deviant theologies (as if theological views divide the sheep and the goats). Are the rank and file CBFers not able to make up their own mind? Whatever happened to the Baptist mantra of non-coercion that led to the belief in adult baptism?

Been thinking about what my “lines” may be. As far as defining who is a Christian and not, I’d say anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus’s teaching would be in my fence (whether or not they are sheep {approved by God} or goats {not approved by God} is up to God). But I would still allow say a Buddha follower speak at a Christian convention if their message was about living a good life - we do not have a corner on life enhancing thoughts - and I would not declare them goats.

Ed: Keith says "As far as defining who is a Christian and not, I’d say anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus’s teaching would be in my fence (whether or not they are sheep {approved by God} or goats {not approved by God} is up to God.

Ed: Jesus; God in Human flesh said "Matthew 7:21-23 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'LORD, LORD,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

We (Trudy and I) are not opposed to the study of other religions, we have in fact established a scholarship for non traditional students in The University of South Florida's. Religious Studies Program where the motto is "To study but one Religion is to study none". How ever we do not attend CBF Assemblies to study religion. Note; CBF does not call our annual meeting a convention for what I believe should be an obvious reason. We attend the Assembles to have face to face interaction with others who have a vested interest in the organization, learning what is being done and what is proposed and to have some small voice in each.

I’ll amend what I said in green above to: (addition in red)
I’d say anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus’s teaching and actually does so regularly would be in my fence (whether or not they are sheep {approved by God} or goats {not approved by God} is up to God.

Ed has a good point in his second paragraph - lipservice does not hack it.

And I have no idea how the extra "http...174810” got into my post so I deleted that.

[Haruo]

And those who do not claim to be followers of Jesus, yet regularly and intentionally do what he said to?

[KeithE]

And those who do not claim to be followers of Jesus, yet regularly and intentionally do what he said to?

My guess is God is happy with them. I see the Creator as being interested in how his crested beings are treating each other and God is not in need of our verbal approval.

[JE Pettibone]

And those who do not claim to be followers of Jesus, yet regularly and intentionally do what he said to?

My guess is God is happy with them. I see the Creator as being interested in how his crested beings are treating each other and God is not in need of our verbal approval.

Ed: So Keith are you saying that works are more important than Faith? And Hauro how would someone who denies the existence of God "intentionally" do what he said to?

[Dave Roberts]

I sometimes think that we want salvation to be too transactional based on having prayed a certain prayer at a certain time and place and not filled with any mystery of dealing with the divine. While I have my convictions, God always seems to act with us in broader realms than our narrow desire for definitions allows, IMHO.

[KeithE]

And those who do not claim to be followers of Jesus, yet regularly and intentionally do what he said to?

My guess is God is happy with them. I see the Creator as being interested in how his crested beings are treating each other and God is not in need of our verbal approval.

Ed: So Keith are you saying that works are more important than Faith? And Hauro how would someone who denies the existence of God "intentionally" do what he said to?

True faith includes works. Not slavish obedience to the Jewish laws (extended or otherwise) - that Paul railed against, but to the law written on our hearts (i.e. our consciences).

As such the works that help the needy, and advocates for peace locally and in the world are a clear evidences of faith. Lying, adultery, theft, anger, name calling, and putting others down are clear evidences of a lack of faith to what Jesus and the Holy Spirit advocate.

Faith is sometimes confused as ascent to a set of propositions/theological points. Not so! If that is the sort of Faith, you are talking about, yeah, I'd say works are far more important than Faith.

[JE Pettibone]

So Keith are you saying that works are more important than Faith? And Hauro how would someone who denies the existence of God "intentionally" do what he said to?

Keith: True faith includes works. Not slavish obedience to the Jewish laws (extended or otherwise) - that Paul railed against, but to the law written on our hearts (i.e. our consciences).

As such the works that help the needy, and advocates for peace locally and in the world are a clear evidences of faith. Lying, adultery, theft, anger, name calling, and putting others down are clear evidences of a lack of faith to what Jesus and the Holy Spirit advocate.

Faith is sometimes confused as ascent to a set of propositions/theological points. Not so! If that is the sort of Faith, you are talking about, yeah, I'd say works are far more important than Faith.[/quote]

Ed: Note I said nothing about "slavish obedience" obedience to Jewish laws of any type. I am more inclined to say faith demands and leads to good works. Nor do I confuse ascent to a set of propositions or theological points nor amateur speculations with faith.

[Haruo]

I'm guessing "ascent" here is meant to mean "assent". There's a difference in the orthopraxy involved.

[KeithE]

I'm guessing "ascent" here is meant to mean "assent". There's a difference in the orthopraxy involved.

Yep. Thanks. You're being the quite the editor here lately.

What was wrong with the sentence above?

[Tim Bonney]

Been thinking about what my “lines” may be. As far as defining who is a Christian and not, I’d say anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus’s teaching would be in my fence (whether or not they are sheep {approved by God} or goats {not approved by God} is up to God). But I would still allow say a Buddha follower speak at a Christian convention if their message was about living a good life - we do not have a corner on life enhancing thoughts - and I would not declare them goats.

I try to be well aware that my lines and God's lines are likely different. The older I get the more I believe that I don't fully understand God and can't. I do believe that God is more generous than I am, more forgiving than I am, and more gracious than all of us. We've made a very weird shift in Christianity over the centuries where WHAT we believe has become almost more important the WHO we believe in. And what we BELIEVE has become more important than what we DO. I'm in the boat of many Christians who believe that the saving work of Christ is much larger than the beliefs I can comprehend or identify with.

My best reading of the new testament is that Jesus was more concerned with our relationship with God in and what we do because of it. I accept that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. But, I can't any more explain that, than I can explain high level quantum physics. However the incarnation happened/happens it is the life changing grace that God offers through Christ that has become my focus.

[Tim Bonney]

And those who do not claim to be followers of Jesus, yet regularly and intentionally do what he said to?

They may be like the brother who said he wasn't going to go into the field but did and was found doing the master's work.

[Haruo]

I'm guessing "ascent" here is meant to mean "assent". There's a difference in the orthopraxy involved.

Yep. Thanks. You're being the quite the editor here lately.

What was wrong with the sentence above?

Nothing, now that I fixed it. ::WINK::

[Sandy]

Been thinking about what my “lines” may be. As far as defining who is a Christian and not, I’d say anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus’s teaching would be in my fence (whether or not they are sheep {approved by God} or goats {not approved by God} is up to God). But I would still allow say a Buddha follower speak at a Christian convention if their message was about living a good life - we do not have a corner on life enhancing thoughts - and I would not declare them goats.

I try to be well aware that my lines and God's lines are likely different. The older I get the more I believe that I don't fully understand God and can't. I do believe that God is more generous than I am, more forgiving than I am, and more gracious than all of us. We've made a very weird shift in Christianity over the centuries where WHAT we believe has become almost more important the WHO we believe in. And what we BELIEVE has become more important than what we DO. I'm in the boat of many Christians who believe that the saving work of Christ is much larger than the beliefs I can comprehend or identify with.

My best reading of the new testament is that Jesus was more concerned with our relationship with God in and what we do because of it. I accept that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. But, I can't any more explain that, than I can explain high level quantum physics. However the incarnation happened/happens it is the life changing grace that God offers through Christ that has become my focus.

I agree that there are many things of God beyond our understanding, and our understanding of them is very limited, including the incarnation. But there is written revelation that has been given, and while I agree that what we do is important, what we do is motivated by what we believe, and that is generated by the written revelation of scripture. At some point, you have to believe there's divine inspiration in those Biblical writings, and those individuals were gifted with the ability to write to put essential knowledge about God's revelation into context. Otherwise, why do anything? For what purpose? Our educated and progressive society is having a problem distinguishing trends from truth, and what has become trendy is to appear to be completely accepting of anything without qualification in order to appear non-judgmental.

That's intellectually dishonest.

[Tim Bonney]

I agree that there are many things of God beyond our understanding, and our understanding of them is very limited, including the incarnation. But there is written revelation that has been given, and while I agree that what we do is important, what we do is motivated by what we believe, and that is generated by the written revelation of scripture. At some point, you have to believe there's divine inspiration in those Biblical writings, and those individuals were gifted with the ability to write to put essential knowledge about God's revelation into context. Otherwise, why do anything? For what purpose? Our educated and progressive society is having a problem distinguishing trends from truth, and what has become trendy is to appear to be completely accepting of anything without qualification in order to appear non-judgmental.

That's intellectually dishonest.

Sandy, I certainly believe in the inspiration of scripture. What I've never been able to believe is that any human being can interpret the Bible perfectly, or can interpret the Bible without our own human biases (liberal, conservative, whatever) not creeping in. We can't escape our sitz em leben. There just isn't any such thing an unbiased reading of the Bible. This is largely why, even if you could convince me the Bible is inerrant (unlikely) you'll never convince me that anyone's interpretation of the Bible is inerrant.

[Dave Roberts]

I have been listening to a course from the Teaching Company on "Christianity from Jesus to Constantine. While there are many things that I don't agree with in the writings of Bart Ehrman, this is his field of expertise. It is fascinating how Christian doctrine grew out of varieties of Christian expression into what he tags as "proto orthodoxy" and finally into the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. The journey, however, had much more variety than we often want to acknowledge. Ehrman's study includes a lot of the materials that have been discovered from the second and third centuries or quotes in later authors from those sources. More than anything, I think historical awareness makes me both appreciate doctrine with a sense of divine providence about how it developed as well as with a sense of humility since all our statements about God are at best by analogy.

[Tim Bonney]

I have been listening to a course from the Teaching Company on "Christianity from Jesus to Constantine. While there are many things that I don't agree with in the writings of Bart Ehrman, this is his field of expertise. It is fascinating how Christian doctrine grew out of varieties of Christian expression into what he tags as "proto orthodoxy" and finally into the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. The journey, however, had much more variety than we often want to acknowledge. Ehrman's study includes a lot of the materials that have been discovered from the second and third centuries or quotes in later authors from those sources. More than anything, I think historical awareness makes me both appreciate doctrine with a sense of divine providence about how it developed as well as with a sense of humility since all our statements about God are at best by analogy.

It sounds interesting Dave! Now that I'm in a denomination that uses some of the creeds (though the creeds aren't our official faith statements either) I've been made more aware of the parallel development of the creeds and the canon.