Southern Baptists Elect a New President, Ed Litton, Who Is Seen As a Bridge Builder

[Yttrium]

Persons.

So he's being heretical by saying "parts" instead of "persons". Wow that's picky. You must have quite the semantics police force in your church group.

 

[Hammster]

People is a perfectly acceptable plural of person.

Okay.

 

[durangodawood]

Okay.

Well okay then. God is people.

 

[Hammster]

So he's being heretical by saying "parts" instead of "persons". Wow that's picky. You must have quite the semantics police force in your church group.

Not at all.

 

[Hammster]

Well okay then. God is people.

No, He’s not. He is one.

 

[HannahT]

Ed Litton, embraced a role as the man best equipped to build bridges and promote unity.

The SBC has been having issues in loads of areas, and also caused plenty of drama of doctrine.

Can he build bridges etc.? Good luck to him, but I will believe it when I see it.

 

[durangodawood]

No, He’s not. He is one.

Yes. I get that. But Hes also 3, as you noted already.

 

[Hammster]

Yes. I get that. But Hes also 3, as you noted already.

Well, I’m not going to get into a theological discussion with an unbeliever, mainly since that’s not what the thread is about. My point was to show why he was a poor choice as president.

 

[SummerMadness]

Well, I’m not going to get into a theological discussion with an unbeliever, mainly since that’s not what the thread is about. My point was to show why he was a poor choice as president.

You have not done anything to promote discussion with believers using two- and three-word sentences. But like I said, that's not a problem. If you believe he is not a good choice because he is not an ultra right-winger, that's cool. Thankfully the SBC chose to not go in that direction. Peace.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, I’m not going to get into a theological discussion with an unbeliever, mainly since that’s not what the thread is about. My point was to show why he was a poor choice as president.

I think what we've learned here is that language is never gong to summarize a mystery properly. So accusations of heresy based on semantic hairsplitting of sound bites are suspect Id think.

But, as you say, not my fight.

 

[98cwitr]

So he's being heretical by saying "parts" instead of "persons". Wow that's picky. You must have quite the semantics police force in your church group.

It avoids confusion, eliminates nuance, and is accurate. There is nothing wrong with using clear language, and when referring to God and theological concepts, we should be "picky" IMO.

 

[Hammster]

You have not done anything to promote discussion with believers using two- and three-word sentences. But like I said, that's not a problem. If you believe he is not a good choice because he is not an ultra right-winger, that's cool. Thankfully the SBC chose to not go in that direction. Peace.

Yeah, don’t want to let orthodoxy get in the way.

 

[Tigger45]

Well, I’m not going to get into a theological discussion with an unbeliever, mainly since that’s not what the thread is about. My point was to show why he was a poor choice as president.

I would agree. For someone being considered to become president of any respectable Trinitarian Christian denomination, who presumably has at least a MDiv, saying co-equal parts of God (which in there lies the problem) is sloppy at best and heretical at worst. Now coming from a lay person I could understand but not the person in charge of straightening out the already on going mess.

 

[durangodawood]

It avoids confusion, eliminates nuance, and is accurate. There is nothing wrong with using clear language, and when referring to God and theological concepts, we should be "picky" IMO.

This sounds like thinking youll have better success nailing jello to a wall by using sharper nails.

 

[public hermit]

This was from his church’s website. It’s since been removed without comment.

View attachment 300820

That’s heretical, by the way.

When did Southern Baptists start adhering to creeds and orthodoxy outside the witness of scripture? SB's don't write creeds, but confessions of faith, which in turn are not authoritative. If a particular congregation wants to use "co-equal parts" there is no creed to which one can appeal and call it outside the pale of orthodoxy.

That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

An Explanation of Baptist Confessions of Faith

That's a pretty free-wheeling approach to how one affirms their faith. I think you're trying to hold that particular church to a standard that doesn't actually exist, for them.

 

[Yttrium]

It avoids confusion, eliminates nuance, and is accurate. There is nothing wrong with using clear language, and when referring to God and theological concepts, we should be "picky" IMO.

Fine, I'm just shocked at the sudden jump to heresy.

 

[98cwitr]

Fine, I'm just shocked at the sudden jump to heresy.

No jump, simply acknowledgement.

 

[98cwitr]

This sounds like thinking youll have better success nailing jello to a wall by using sharper nails.

Just freeze it and drive the nail in slowly.

 

[durangodawood]

Just freeze it and drive the nail in slowly.

Yep. Sounds like the theological method.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Southern baptist seem to be more of a political group now than an actual evangelizing group people.