← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 20574 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2005-10-08
2005-10-08 18:21 | User Profile
[I]I read a lot in the Internet about how deeply religious Jimmy Carter is, so perhaps a small reality check is in order...
As people like Gresham Machen havepointed out, liberalism is not merely a deviation from Christian orthodoxy, it is a form of apostasy, a competing religion. The social policies of members of "Christian Left" like Carter are enough proof for this.[/I]
[url]http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/jimmycarter.htm[/url]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=5] JIMMY CARTER LEAVES THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION -- AGAIN[/SIZE][B]
Updated February 15, 2004 (first published October 24, 2000)
David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service [/B]
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter recently mailed a letter to 75,000 pastors stating, ââ¬ÅI can no longer be associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.ââ¬Â He said he felt ââ¬Åexcluded by the adoption of policies and an increasingly rigid SBC creed.ââ¬Â
[B]Carter is a heretic who believes Mormons are Christians and loves modernistic theologians such as Barth and Brunner who deny the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture and many other cardinal doctrines. After his election to the highest political office in America, Carter appointed a pro-abortion activist, Sarah Weddington, to the position of assistant to the president. Weddington was lead attorney in the 1973 abortion case, Roe v. Wade, which resulted in legalization of abortion in America and the murder of millions of unborn babies. In 1992, Carter agreed to serve as the honorary co-chair of the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group. In January 2004, after Georgia public school superintendent Kathy Cox ordered the word ââ¬Åevolutionââ¬Â to be removed from its science textbooks, Carter entered the fray and won the day for evolution (ââ¬ÅAnother Attempt to Deny Evolution,ââ¬Â San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 12).[/B]
One wonders how many times Jimmy Carter is going to announce his departure from the Southern Baptist Convention. He made almost exactly the same proclamation back in 1993, saying: ââ¬ÅIn the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, my wife and I have found a home [and will] cast our lot with this fellowship for the rest of our lives.ââ¬Â The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) is a group formed by Southern Baptist liberals who believe Christians are at liberty to deny the Bibleââ¬â¢s infallible inspiration and to question other key doctrines of the faith. Though the CBF itself is a separate organization from the Southern Baptist Convention, many of the churches that support the CBF also participate with various programs within the Southern Baptist Convention. There are many churches within the various state conventions which are aligned with the SBC that support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in addition to or instead of supporting the national SBC. In practice, the CBF was created not as an alternative Bapt
In a practical sense, Jimmy Carter has not left the Southern Baptist Convention. He remains a deacon and Sunday School teacher in the Maranatha Baptist Church of Plains, Georgia, a church aligned with the SBC. His Sunday School class is attended by busloads of visitors, a large percentage of which are Southern Baptists.
All of this is mere religious politics on his part in an attempt to sway events within the convention. He doesnââ¬â¢t really want to leave the convention; he wants to influence it after his own liberal image. The Dallas Morning News (Oct. 20) reported that a key Texas Baptist leader, David Currie, counseled Carter to send out the letter. Currie told the newspaper that Carter initiated a meeting with him in September. Currie stated that Carter shared his feelings about the conservatives in the Convention and said, ââ¬ÅWhat can I do to help?ââ¬Â Currie replied: ââ¬ÅWell, Mr. President, Baptists across the nation need to know how you feel. All Baptists know who you are, and they need to know how you feel.ââ¬Â Carter replied, ââ¬ÅI kind of have a letter in my head [that] Iââ¬â¢d like to share with Baptists.ââ¬Â [B] Carter is from the state of Georgia, and the Baptist Convention in that state is extremely liberal.[/B] R. Kirby Godsey, president of Mercer University (which has received millions of dollars from the Georgia Baptist Convention) published a book entitled When We Talk about God ... Letââ¬â¢s Be Honest in 1996 that denies, reinterprets, or questions practically every doctrine of the Christian faith. Godsey says that ââ¬Åthe notion that God is the all powerful, the high and mighty principal of heaven and earth should be laid aside.ââ¬Â That is wicked heresy of the highest degree. For almost two decades, students at Mercer have been influenced by this man and by professors who hold similar views (but who are not as bold as Godsey about putting their doctrine into print); these students have graduated into positions within the SBC and have, in turn, influenced great numbers of church members.
There have been many attempts to have Godsey step down, but the fact remains that this man has remained at the head of one of the SBCââ¬â¢s influential schools from 1979 until his scheduled retirement in 2004. This is a testimony to the fact that large numbers of people in the SBC are at least sympathetic with heresy and unbelief. Many others do not like what Godsey is teaching, but they are not willing to make the only statement against heresy which means anything, which is to publicly denounce it in no uncertain terms and to separate from it in the strictest sense.
The problem within the Southern Baptist Convention is its refusal to deal with heresy after a biblical fashion. Heretics are to be rejected and dismissed from the churches (Titus 3) and separated from (Rom. 16:17, etc.). If the Southern Baptist Convention would obey the Bible in these matters, it would be much smaller than it is now, but it would not have to play politics with the Christian faith. The doctrine of biblical separation is not practiced by Southern Baptist preachers, even the most conservative ones.[/FONT]
Petr
2005-10-09 09:05 | User Profile
Interesting article about Carter, SBC politics, and a general aspect of life in the US pretty much impermeable or at least ignored by secular culture, the constant internal struggle within the so-called "conservative" denominations.
Carter in some ways seems typical of "the evangelical left" but in other ways the scary thing is in fact he strikes one as so moderate and faithful, at least relative to other so-called evangelicals.
2005-10-09 11:18 | User Profile
In an inversed sense, Carter reminds me of Bush.
2005-10-09 11:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]In an inversed sense, Carter reminds me of Bush.[/QUOTE]
Sertorius, Carter is nothing but a leftist troublemaker.
2005-10-09 12:07 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
He's a busybody with unrealistic dreams, ie., zealots, just like Bush is. He is inversed to Bush only in the sense that Carter would freeze up when challenged whereas, Bush will shoot first without thinking things through.
2005-10-09 21:46 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "Carter in some ways seems typical of "the evangelical left" but in other ways the scary thing is in fact he strikes one as so moderate and faithful, at least relative to other so-called evangelicals."[/I][/B] [/FONT][/COLOR]
Remember the warning about "[B]wolves in sheeps' clothing[/B]".
Many utterly anti-Biblical sects and preachers manage to sound[I] sooooo[/I] sweet and spiritual in their public statements. ([B]Quakers [/B]have pioneered this deceitful infiltration ever since the 17th century, and they are still masters in making leftist, humanistic propaganda sound very Christian with their cant.)
Here is a great online book that thoroughly devastates not only "liberation theology," but the common leftist interpretation of the Bible altogether:
[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Red][SIZE=4][B] Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators - A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider[/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B] by David Chilton[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS][B] "Here is a supremely biblical refutation of Ronald Sider's call for 1977 socialism in his book, [I]Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger[/I]. Chilton demonstrates that "Christian Socialism" is simply a [I]baptized humanism[/I], the goal of which is not charity but raw police state power."[/B][/FONT]
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21b6_47e.htm[/url]
Petr
2005-10-10 18:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Red][SIZE=4][B] Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators - A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider[/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B] by David Chilton[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS][B] "Here is a supremely biblical refutation of Ronald Sider's call for 1977 socialism in his book, [I]Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger[/I]. Chilton demonstrates that "Christian Socialism" is simply a [I]baptized humanism[/I], the goal of which is not charity but raw police state power."[/B][/FONT]
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21b6_47e.htm[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]Hey, thanks for the link Petr. I'll have to read the book. I've always been of the opinion that a lot of preachers just get off on power tripping with guilt, and the Siderite/socialist just found a different approach, that maybe seems a bit more fashionable.
2005-10-10 20:21 | User Profile
I'm glad I'm able to help, Okie. Here a whole [B]list[/B] of very read-worthy online books:
Are you familiar with the (orthodox) preterist school of eschatology, Okie?
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/_bksauth.htm[/url]
Petr
2005-10-10 20:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Sertorius, Carter is nothing but a leftist troublemaker.[/QUOTE] And he's about twice as smart as you are, for all that his Peter Principle moment came as Governor of Georgia. Like any number of folks who fall into D.C. and come out deformed, he has fallen in love with his illusions.
AE
2005-10-10 20:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I'm glad I'm able to help, Okie. Here a whole [B]list[/B] of very read-worthy online books:
Are you familiar with the (orthodox) preterist school of eschatology, Okie?
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/_bksauth.htm[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]Very. In fact I recognize if not have read several of those books on the list. Chalcedon is well known around here, even Walter says he likes it. Appreciate the free nature of them though - I'll have to read more of them. Thanks again.
2005-10-10 21:34 | User Profile
Btw Okie, [B]some[/B] of those books do not seem to load online (at least with me), but most of them should.
My favorites (besides the one by Chilton):
[B]"Moses and Pharaoh - Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion"[/B] by Gary North
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21e6_47e.htm[/url]
[B] "No Other Standard - Theonomy and Its Critics"[/B] by Greg Bahnsen
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/219e_47e.htm[/url] [B]
"Failure of the American Baptist Culture"[/B] by James Jordan
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21ce_47e.htm[/url]
Petr
2005-10-10 22:07 | User Profile
They write some books with some interesting points, but I do sometimes get the feeling that these book's titles frequently hint at grandiose analyses, then bog you down in Calvanist pecuneria.
But overall I though the biggest strike against Calvinist/theonomic style political activism was when Frank Schaeffer converted to Orthodoxy. To most people except the theonomic insiders themselves that's sort of like the Pope announcing he's become a Protestant.
What that means, [B]succinctly[/B] I think, is that it is difficult to really reconstruct a Christian society from a [I]sola scripta[/I] perspective. Obviously you need a certain amount of tradition from somewhere.
Also practically I don't see how these men will be able to build a numerically significant and politically competent movement based on the Church, when they don't to my knowledge, even have a numerically significant Church.
2005-10-10 22:24 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "But overall I though the biggest strike against Calvinist/theonomic style political activism was when Frank Schaeffer converted to Orthodoxy. To most people except the theonomic insiders themselves that's sort of like the Pope announcing he's become a Protestant."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Actually many of these guys argue that Francis Schaeffer (whom I do respect, his L'Abri movement has attracted some Scandinavians as well) did not go far [B]enough [/B]- that he was not consistent enough with theonomy, and thus got himself into a classic half-way sitting duck position.
Says Gary North: [COLOR=Indigo][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] "In 1984, the year before he died, Schaeffer had cried out against what he called The Great Evangelical Disaster.(28) Yet he had baptized the intellectual foundations of this disaster. He was a Calvinist who never wrote about his Calvinism; a Presbyterian who concealed his essay on infant baptism from his non-Presbyterian readers; a post-tribulation premillennialist who believed that prior to the Second Coming of Christ to establish an earthly millennium, the Church would inevitably go through the Great Tribulation; [B]an historian who lamented the decline of Christendom, but who explicitly rejected the inherently theocratic ideal of Christendom; [/B]and a promoter of a non-utilitarian Christianity who nevertheless suggested that the non-Christian world might someday listen to minority-status Christians, making them an influence for good, despite the fact that such minority influence could come only to the extent that Christianity becomes utilitarian for covenant-breakers. [B]It is no wonder that his son Franky, who produced his father's movies, has left Protestantism to join the Eastern Orthodox Church, and has renounced all Christian social activism. Theological schizophrenia is difficult to live with[/B].(29)"[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/html/gncf/appendix_d.htm[/url]
And in any case, I try to look beyond mere personal details like these and see the grand schemes, whether they agree with the Bible or not.
(Theonomists actually argue that Baptists and Pietists have made Western theology too individualistic, which conclusion even people like J.P. Holding seem to have also reached independently)
I think the basic attitude of theonomists towards Baptists is that they are like "the weaker brethren" mentioned in Romans 14 - that they are so afraid of being "polluted by the world" that they dare not to engage in full conflict to take it over, rather opting for an escapist retreat away from it.
Mind you, I'm not an uncritical towards theonomical ideas but right now I'm mighty interested and keep on studying.
Petr
2005-10-10 22:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed]Actually many of these guys argue that Francis Schaeffer (whom I do respect, his L'Abri movement has attracted some Scandinavians as well) did not go far [B]enough [/B]- that he was not consistent enough with theonomy, and thus got himself into a classic half-way sitting duck position.[/QUOTE]Uh-hmm. That's right. Sort of like the Maoists who claim Pol Pot failed because [I]he didn't go far enough[/I], he [I]compromised[/I].
These guys can talk a good show, and write half-interesting books, but they will never leave their never-never land.
2005-10-10 22:40 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Sort of like the Maoists who claim Pol Pot failed because he didn't go far enough, he compromised." [/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Or like Nazis who say that Hitler was too nice to his enemies...
Let's not get sour on each other here. I just happen to value the importance of good theological groundwork - and you know, I also feel joy studying the word of God and His law [B]for its own sake [/B]- like it is described in Psalms 119.
Petr
2005-10-10 22:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Sort of like the Maoists who claim Pol Pot failed because he didn't go far enough, he compromised." [/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Or like Nazis who say that Hitler was too nice to his enemies...
Or another example - as a Finn you'd appreciate this. I read that there was a disagreement between Finnish communists during the 1st Russian-Finnish war. The pragamatists thought that although flawed, the russians were still workers (i,e, comunists) and they should supported. The idealists said no - Finnish communists, in the middle of the war, should simultaneously attack both the Finnish and Soviet armies.
I won't say what Swedish proverb about Finn's this reminds me of :biggrin:
Let's not get sour on each other here. I just happen to value the importance of good theological groundwork - and you know, I also feel joy studying the word of God and His law [B]for its own sake [/B]- like it is described in Psalms 119. Petr[/QUOTE]True enough.