Southern Baptist Convention Throws Out Saddleback Church

[Integrity]

There is no doubt one can talk to God. It's called prayer.

No problem with this.

There is no way God talks to him or anyone else today.

Disagree.

That's written down. It's called the Bible.

I am concerned with the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.

 

[Thebrownblob]

I believe this teaching that you reference by Paul doesn’t meet the teaching of Jesus. I believe it falls way short of the 2nd of the 2 greatest commandments. Therefore I have to believe that it just represents a flaw in Paul’s character that he still struggled with.

I get it. Paul was not perfect, no judgement here.

I think Paul’s words in Gal 3:28 is more in line with the heart of God and Jesus’s teaching about love.

My recommendation would be for you to go to a different thread.

I didn’t reference it SBC did. Get a clue. Send them an email if you’re not happy.

My recommendation for you to shut the thread down because it’s played out. And you’re becoming an annoyance

 

[Integrity]

I didn’t know he was supposed to. You’ve been given all you need to understand the basis for their decision, you’re incapable of understanding that your problem. It’s a problem you have quite often.

@vantexan made this claim not me.

Whatever.

 

[vantexan]

You have not proven that 1 Corinthians 14:35 was the basis of their decision.

You said that they were kicked out of the SBC because they have a female pastor. If they removed that congregation based on their religious beliefs then that verse as well as the verses Brownflush cited would be the basis for doing so. The Baptists have very defined views based on scripture. If women were pastors, priests, deacons, elders in the New Testament then they would be the same in the Baptist Church today. You said it was suppression and oppression and you brought up male chauvinism. So apparently you think that was the basis for removing that congregation. In other words you are assigning them negative values while holding up your values as pure and righteous. Of course you'll say otherwise but it comes across reading your posts. By the way I disagree with a number of Baptist doctrines and am not defending them as being totally correct on everything. But I do know why they don't have female ministers as well as why the Catholic Church doesn't have female priests. Quite a few denominations feel the same way.

 

[Integrity]

I didn’t reference it SBC did. Get a clue. Send them an email if you’re not happy.

My recommendation for you to shut the thread down because it’s played out. And you’re becoming an annoyance

You did.

I am very happy.

No thank, you as long as there is traffic to this thread I’ll keep it up.

You can play a part, you are welcome to continue or you can just go elsewhere.

You might be happier in a different discussion.

 

[Thebrownblob]

You did.

I am very happy.

No thank, you as long as there is traffic to this thread I’ll keep it up.

You can play a part, you are welcome to continue or you can just go elsewhere.

You might be happier in a different discussion.

Or I might just stay here to blow holes in your nonsense Read SBCs letter you’ll see it in there. Now here’s your sign.

 

[Integrity]

You said that they were kicked out of the SBC because they have a female pastor.

No. I posted a link to a current event and registered my dissent of the decision mad. Nothing more.

If they removed that congregation based on their religious beliefs then that verse as well as the verses Brownflush cited would be the basis for doing so.

You have not proven that the verse you cited factored in the decision as you claimed it did.

The Baptists have very defined views based on scripture. If women were pastors, priests, deacons, elders in the New Testament then they would be the same in the Baptist Church today.

Nothing new here.

You said it was suppression and oppression and you brought up male chauvinism. So apparently you think that was the basis for removing that congregation.

I did not render that opinion about the SBC decision.

In other words you are assigning them negative values while holding up your values as pure and righteous.

Please prove this.

Of course you'll say otherwise but it comes across reading your posts.

Selective reading. Have at it.

By the way I disagree with a number of Baptist doctrines and am not defending them as being totally correct on everything.

In my experience most Baptist doctrines have Bible references to attempt to support them as other institutional churches use the Bible to support their doctrines.

But I do know why they don't have female ministers as well as why the Catholic Church doesn't have female priests.

No news here.

Quite a few denominations feel the same way.

Many however are coming to a more reasonable, loving approach to woman and the possibilities of them serving the institutional church in leadership, teaching, and preaching capacities.

 

[UnionStrong]

No. I posted a link to a current event and registered my dissent of the decision mad. Nothing more.

You have not proven that the verse you cited factored in the decision as you claimed it did.

Nothing new here.

I did not render that opinion about the SBC decision.

Please prove this.

Selective reading. Have at it.

In my experience most Baptist doctrines have Bible references to attempt to support them as other institutional churches use the Bible to support their doctrines.

No news here.

Many however are coming to a more reasonable, loving approach to woman and the possibilities of them serving the institutional church in leadership, teaching, and preaching capacities.

 

[Integrity]

Or I might just stay here to blow holes in your nonsense

No problem.

Read SBCs letter you’ll see it in there. Now here’s your sign.

Not news to me. I understand their position and I disagree with it. That is my opinion. I could be wrong, maybe not.

Do you agree or disagree with the SBC decision that was made in the current event posted in the original post to this thread?

I don’t recall getting your opinion on this decision.

 

[Thebrownblob]

No problem.

Not news to me. I understand their position and I disagree with it. That is my opinion. I could be wrong, maybe not.

Do you agree or disagree with the SBC decision that was made in the current event posted in the original post to this thread?

I don’t recall getting your opinion on this decision.

I think they have the right to do whatever they choose. I don’t attend there church.

 

[Integrity]

I think they have the right to do whatever they choose. I don’t attend there church.

Do you agree with what the SBC chose to do within their rights to choose to do it?

Do you attend worship services at an institutional church?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Do you agree with what the SBC chose to do within their rights to choose to do it?

Do you attend worship services at an institutional church?

 

[vantexan]

Many however are coming to a more reasonable, loving approach to woman and the possibilities of them serving the institutional church in leadership, teaching, and preaching capacities.

Not going to keep going in circles with you. You know good and well why you posted what you did in the OP and the above paragraph sums it up. "More reasonable, loving" is essentially saying the SBC is unreasonable and unloving. Deny it all you want but you started this thread to point the above out. And you flat out denied the authority of scripture concerning this. If you don't think the SBC based their decision on their scriptural beliefs then why did they? I'm betting you think it's male chauvinism. Otherwise why would you have brought it up?

That's it, I'm out. Not going to get up to a 1000 posts with you denying your intent while you throw in little tidbits like "more reasonable, loving." If it wasn't your intent to troll at the start it certainly looks like it now. It's not an honest conversation.

 

[UnionStrong]

Not going to keep going in circles with you. You know good and well why you posted what you did in the OP and the above paragraph sums it up. "More reasonable, loving" is essentially saying the SBC is unreasonable and unloving. Deny it all you want but you started this thread to point the above out. And you flat out denied the authority of scripture concerning this. If you don't think the SBC based their decision on their scriptural beliefs then why did they? I'm betting you think it's male chauvinism. Otherwise why would you have brought it up?

That's it, I'm out. Not going to get up to a 1000 posts with you denying your intent while you throw in little tidbits like "more reasonable, loving." If it wasn't your intent to troll at the start it certainly looks like it now. It's not an honest conversation.

Told ya

 

[BrownFlush]

I am concerned with the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.

The spirit of the law does not violate the letter of written law. The Spirit wrote the Law.
The written law (that the Spirit wrote) says God does not talk to you personally or directly.
Is God a liar? Or you? If your concerned about something, maybe answering that would be a good start.

 

[BrownFlush]

His treads all look the same from beginning to end.

 

[Integrity]

Thanks.

I wasn’t sure you’d answer.

How long have you been attending this church?

Is Vineyard, USA viewed as an actual denomination?

 

[Integrity]

Not going to keep going in circles with you. You know good and well why you posted what you did in the OP and the above paragraph sums it up. "More reasonable, loving" is essentially saying the SBC is unreasonable and unloving. Deny it all you want but you started this thread to point the above out. And you flat out denied the authority of scripture concerning this. If you don't think the SBC based their decision on their scriptural beliefs then why did they? I'm betting you think it's male chauvinism. Otherwise why would you have brought it up?

That's it, I'm out. Not going to get up to a 1000 posts with you denying your intent while you throw in little tidbits like "more reasonable, loving." If it wasn't your intent to troll at the start it certainly looks like it now. It's not an honest conversation.

Gal 3:28

 

[Integrity]

The spirit of the law does not violate the letter of written law. The Spirit wrote the Law.
The written law (that the Spirit wrote) says God does not talk to you personally or directly.
Is God a liar? Or you? If your concerned about something, maybe answering that would be a good start.

Rom 7:6,

John 14:16-17

 

[vantexan]

Gal 3:28

The same writer said the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church...Ephesians 5:23