Jimmy Carter Quits Baptist Church

[David]

He tried to found an alternative to the Southern Baptist Convention. Didn't fly. The only answer was quit. Buh Bye Bye.

SOURCE

Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[Rafael]

Carter has turned into a real kook!

[luknikfan]

There are many Baptist denominations within the Baptist "religion". Independent Baptist, American Baptist, Reformed. Many others - some quite small to be sure.

The article does not say he is leaving the Baptist "religion" - just his particular Baptist denomination.

Southern Baptists, many pentecostals. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Catholics and Orthodox still enforce this rule against women. Ultimately - IMO - they will change on this. But it is going to take another generation or two IMO before women are granted equal rights with men to serve as Christian ministers. Its about giving oneself in service to Christ - not about one's gender.

Carter will be considered by some as a modern day prophet on this. He has read Scripture, prayed and been led by the Holy Spirit to Truth. As promised in Scripture. He has no choice but to procalim that Truth. He is following in the steps of so many Christians before who have stepped out in faith.

[sfurbanette]

Would never want a small thing like God's word get in the way of one's political beliefs.

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by sfurbanette

Would never want a small thing like God's word get in the way of one's political beliefs.

Well, God's word is - for NT Chritians anyway - where the Spirit leads one reading Scripture. To all truth. This is a Scripture based decision by Carter and he indeed points out the what I call "verse checking" by some Christians opposed to his position. Hey, you can verse check Scripture to call into question the Trinity, faith alone and on and on. It just ain't there in Scripture plainly - it was imposed by the Catholic church centuries after the death of Jesus or by Luther and the Reformers well more than a thousand years after.

[Rifleman]

luknikfan wrote: There are many Baptist denominations within the Baptist "religion". Independent Baptist, American Baptist, Reformed. Many others - some quite small to be sure.

The article does not say he is leaving the Baptist "religion" - just his particular Baptist denomination.

Southern Baptists, many pentecostals. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Catholics and Orthodox still enforce this rule against women. Ultimately - IMO - they will change on this. But it is going to take another generation or two IMO before women are granted equal rights with men to serve as Christian ministers. Its about giving oneself in service to Christ - not about one's gender.

Carter will be considered by some as a modern day prophet on this. He has read Scripture, prayed and been led by the Holy Spirit to Truth. As promised in Scripture. He has no choice but to procalim that Truth. He is following in the steps of so many Christians before who have stepped out in faith.

Jimmy Carter left the Baptists, because he doesn't believe anything they say. He doesn't believe in Creation, he doesn't believe Abortion is wrong, and apparantly doesn't believe the Bible. To compare the Apostle Paul's rules for women as being akin to Slavery and prostitution., well that's as crazy as if he compared Israel's self defense methods to "apartheit!" Somehow, all the Islamos he has taken $$$ from over all the years, he has no pronlem with their treatment of women, even being stricter and actually demeaning to women. He also rejects most of the Sermon on the Mount and has regularly slandered other Christians for their faith.

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Jimmy Carter left the Baptists, because he doesn't believe anything they say. He doesn't believe in Creation, he doesn't believe Abortion is wrong, and apparantly doesn't believe the Bible. To compare the Apostle Paul's rules for women as being akin to Slavery and prostitution., well that's as crazy as if he compared Israel's self defense methods to "apartheit!" Somehow, all the Islamos he has taken $$$ from over all the years, he has no pronlem with their treatment of women, even being stricter and actually demeaning to women. He also rejects most of the Sermon on the Mount and has regularly slandered other Christians for their faith.

Actually, if you read the links, Carter calls the treatment of women in Islam to task. Strongly so - referring to the veil and such.

Christianity got high-jacked very early on. We call them heresies today - those Christians who supported women priests, did not accept the Trinity - saw it as a sort of return to polytheism. One of the reasons Islam converted much of the Christian East - as the East had a hard time with the Trinity. Come on - this dogma was imposed on Christians in the third century. It was not a part of primitive, original, first apostle Christianity.

You see Christianity and the Bible through a Reformed Christian Trinitarism which, if you had not been so indoctrintated/brought up, you would never have come to from a plain reading of Scripture. One not imposed by the Reformed institutional church.

Go back and read the sources. Read those called heretics who were just as much disciples as the first apotles but were surpressed and persecuted by an institutional church even in the early second century.

Jimmy Carter is stepping out in faith in so much as he is trying to return to the true primitive church. Not that anyone can do that this so far removed.

The thing about Carter and other Chritians who are stepping boldly out in faith - it is not an individual thing maybe? Perhaps the Spirit is moving Chritians today to reclaim a highjacked primitive faith? No one knows for sure but Carter may indeed in history prove to be prophetic.

Clearly Christianity was high-jacked almost out of the gate - IMO as always.

[Rifleman]

luknikfan wrote: Actually, if you read the links, Carter calls the treatment of women in Islam to task. Strongly so - referring to the veil and such.

Well then why does he continue to take money from them? Why did he insist that Hamas was legitimate? I cab go on. Furthermore, the average Islamic treatment of women doesn't even compare to Christianity, even less Southern Baptist.

luknifan wrote; Christianity got high-jacked very early on. We call them heresies today - those Christians who supported women priests, did not accept the Trinity - saw it as a sort of return to polytheism. One of the reasons Islam converted much of the Christian East - as the East had a hard time with the Trinity. Come on - this dogma was imposed on Christians in the third century. It was not a part of primitive, original, first apostle Christianity.

I don't know why you are making this stuff up. Paul and others wrote about major heresies in the FIRST Century, and warned of, in a prophetic way, of future heresies. You seek to muddy the waters, by making claims that the heresies were actually the religion. The East fell because of any conversion than by the sword, exactly as they do today. The East was separated from the West over the issue of the Pope. The Trinity was an over-reaction to Gnisticism, and other heresies that rejected the authority and diviimity of Christ, much like Jehovah's Winesses do today. only to a greater degree. There were also NO PRiests, women or otherwise, in the early Church, LOOK IT UP! There were only Apostles, Elders, and Deacons.

[b]You see Christianity and the Bible through a Reformed Christian Trinitarism which, if you had not been so indoctrintated/brought up, you would never have come to from a plain reading of Scripture. One not imposed by the Reformed institutional church.

And you view Christianity, through the eyes of someone who despises it and seeks to destroy it at any opportunity. And actually, you are completely wrong about me. I reject the issue of women priests as much as I reject the issue of MEN priests. The scriptures don't authorize pirests. Similarly I reject the "Trinity", but at the same time I don't reject the divinity of Christ and deny the existance of the Holy Spirit. To do so, would be to directly reject Christianity. And it is you that are always condemning Christianity for a variety of beliefsa, and yet you then semm to encourage it. I call that "hypocracy". And when you accuse ME of not conducting a plain reading of scriptures. that is salnder. It is you that made up scriptures and it was you that purposely took scripture out of context in order to promote a false reading.

Go back and read the sources. Read those called heretics who were just as much disciples as the first apotles but were surpressed and persecuted by an institutional church even in the early second century.

What sources, there are no sources.

In the Second Century. with the death of the Apostles and the persecution of the Jerusalem Church, there was no institutional Church! It wouldn't be until the third century that an institutional Church (A bad idea) was formed. The heresy of the Gnostcs is an actual heresy. I would harldly recognize Gbostics, who praised Judas, and wrote fabricated and frauduent gospels as faithful followers of the apostles, especially when the Apostle Paul and Peter propheised against them.

Now if you want to clain that the Scritpures and the Church as a whole were already aposticized by the second century, it would make more sense, but I could just as easily prove you wrong. While transcripts from the first century don't exist, and the earliest ones come from this time, the scriptures HAD already been spread through the world, and later transcripts from other parts of the world, that remained isolated from the Roman world, prove thier authenticity.

luknikfan wrote; Jimmy Carter is stepping out in faith in so much as he is trying to return to the true primitive church. Not that anyone can do that this so far removed.

He may be stepping out on faith, but not on a valid faith. More likely, he is finally leaving. for political purposes, the Church that he has been slandering for years. He should have been kicked out long ago, but the Southern Baptists are better Christians than him.

lukinfan wrote: The thing about Carter and other Chritians who are stepping boldly out in faith - it is not an individual thing maybe? Perhaps the Spirit is moving Chritians today to reclaim a highjacked primitive faith? No one knows for sure but Carter may indeed in history prove to be prophetic.

Clearly Christianity was high-jacked almost out of the gate - IMO as always.

It is interesting that you would use the term "primitive", especially when Fundemental would be more precise, but then Jimmy Carter slanders those he calls "fundementalists'. And as I have pointe dout, there is nothing primitive about women priests, rejecting the Trinity, which BTW, I see no evidence that Carter, in spite of everything else he has done, actually rejected the Trinity. As I have pointed out, he has endorsed abortion, and rejected Creation, as well as he is following the mantra and philosophy of the Religious left, and in doing so, has rejexted the Bible. Did the Apostles reject the Ninle? Did they endorse abortion? Would a woman killing her newborn as a right, ne acceptable to the Apostles, because She has the right to choose?

[Orin]

There is something to be said for the simpler "primitive" faith from the very early days. Nothing messes things up or takes the fun out of things faster than organisation. Our Preacher Woman associate minister is filling in while our regular Preacher Man is on vacation. Some will say I'm going to hell for listening to a Preacher Woman. So be it.

[schaabdl]

Why is this even news? Every day people "quit" a denomination for various reasons - too conservative, too liberal, too loud, too reverent. The flavor of his former church no longer tasted good to him - fine - there's the door and find where you are comfortable. But it is not news unless someone is trying to make an issue of religion.

[Rifleman]

schaabdl wrote; Why is this even news? Every day people "quit" a denomination for various reasons - too conservative, too liberal, too loud, too reverent. The flavor of his former church no longer tasted good to him - fine - there's the door and find where you are comfortable. But it is not news unless someone is trying to make an issue of religion.

You answered it youself. Jimmy Carter has been gone from the Southern Baptist convention for years, this is merely Jmmy Carter pretending to be doing if for the sake of nobility, a myth that luknikfan is attempting to feed.

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well then why does he continue to take money from them? Why did he insist that Hamas was legitimate? I cab go on. Furthermore, the average Islamic treatment of women doesn't even compare to Christianity, even less Southern Baptist.



I don't know why you are making this stuff up. Paul and others wrote about major heresies in the FIRST Century, and warned of, in a prophetic way, of future heresies. You seek to muddy the waters, by making claims that the heresies were actually the religion. The East fell because of any conversion than by the sword, exactly as they do today. The East was separated from the West over the issue of the Pope. The Trinity was an over-reaction to Gnisticism, and other heresies that rejected the authority and diviimity of Christ, much like Jehovah's Winesses do today. only to a greater degree. There were also NO PRiests, women or otherwise, in the early Church, LOOK IT UP! There were only Apostles, Elders, and Deacons.



And you view Christianity, through the eyes of someone who despises it and seeks to destroy it at any opportunity. And actually, you are completely wrong about me. I reject the issue of women priests as much as I reject the issue of MEN priests. The scriptures don't authorize pirests. Similarly I reject the "Trinity", but at the same time I don't reject the divinity of Christ and deny the existance of the Holy Spirit. To do so, would be to directly reject Christianity. And it is you that are always condemning Christianity for a variety of beliefsa, and yet you then semm to encourage it. I call that "hypocracy". And when you accuse ME of not conducting a plain reading of scriptures. that is salnder. It is you that made up scriptures and it was you that purposely took scripture out of context in order to promote a false reading.



What sources, there are no sources.

In the Second Century. with the death of the Apostles and the persecution of the Jerusalem Church, there was no institutional Church! It wouldn't be until the third century that an institutional Church (A bad idea) was formed. The heresy of the Gnostcs is an actual heresy. I would harldly recognize Gbostics, who praised Judas, and wrote fabricated and frauduent gospels as faithful followers of the apostles, especially when the Apostle Paul and Peter propheised against them.

Now if you want to clain that the Scritpures and the Church as a whole were already aposticized by the second century, it would make more sense, but I could just as easily prove you wrong. While transcripts from the first century don't exist, and the earliest ones come from this time, the scriptures HAD already been spread through the world, and later transcripts from other parts of the world, that remained isolated from the Roman world, prove thier authenticity.



He may be stepping out on faith, but not on a valid faith. More likely, he is finally leaving. for political purposes, the Church that he has been slandering for years. He should have been kicked out long ago, but the Southern Baptists are better Christians than him.



It is interesting that you would use the term "primitive", especially when Fundemental would be more precise, but then Jimmy Carter slanders those he calls "fundementalists'. And as I have pointe dout, there is nothing primitive about women priests, rejecting the Trinity, which BTW, I see no evidence that Carter, in spite of everything else he has done, actually rejected the Trinity. As I have pointed out, he has endorsed abortion, and rejected Creation, as well as he is following the mantra and philosophy of the Religious left, and in doing so, has rejexted the Bible. Did the Apostles reject the Ninle? Did they endorse abortion? Would a woman killing her newborn as a right, ne acceptable to the Apostles, because She has the right to choose?

Surely you know the English word priest comes from the Greek prebyter which means elder. Elders (presbyters) were set apart from the the commom priesthood of all beleivers:

"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." James 5:14-15.

Some of the early heresies were with groups allowing women to be ordained as elders.

There was an instituitional church long, long before the third century. In the sense of a group that defined "truth" to Christians and identified what it called heresies and stamped them out.

The minute you set up a separate group or "hierarchy" on believers - bishop, elder, deacon - you have created a defacto institution.

I agree the Trinity is an imposition. You reject it yet say Jesus is divine. And that you accept the Holy Spirit (as divine?). That smacks of polytheism which is what some Jews saw Chritians reverting to and is the perception of Islam which sees this "trinity of beings" - whether one accepts the formal definition in the Trinity dogma or not - as defacto polytheism.

From Ignatius of Antioch - some of the Apostles were alive during his lifetime. What he writes below shows an institution church from the geto:

"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (ibid., 6:1).

"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).

"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

[Rafael]

Just to lay down some markers - do you believe that the Bible, in its various versions, shows us an acceptable picture of God and His nature? that God caused the Bible to be written?

My answer to both questions is "yes".

[sfurbanette]

Originally Posted by Rafael

Just to lay down some markers - do you believe that the Bible, in its various versions, shows us an acceptable picture of God and His nature?

This seems like a sensible place to start. I think the church has been hijacked by the notion that we can/should make Scripture and faith subservient to what WE think, vs bringing our thoughts and actions into submission to God's word. Thus, we've ended up with women elders/preachers, homosexual ministers, gay marriage in the church, black liberation theology, feminist theology (read The Feminist Gospel - excellent break down on the history of feminism in the church), etc.

It may not be politically correct to oppose women in certain positions of leadership within the church, but it is BIBLICAL.

[BRamey]

Carter is so full of sh-- he doesn't know what the truth is or what he really believes in. He's just a walking contradiction and a joke. He liked it better back in the 70's when much of the press did their best to cover his butt even though he made it a dfficult job and doesn't like the internet since so many can expose his lies and deceit. Jimmy Carter wasn't much of a president to say the least, easily the worst the last 50 years, and he's an even worse human being.

[kestrel]

It may not be politically correct to oppose women in certain positions of leadership within the church, but it is BIBLICAL.

Ah... another enlightened soul.

People stuck 2000 years in the past, who rather unfortunately for me, turn out to vote in large numbers.

[Addison]

Originally Posted by kestrel

Ah... another enlightened soul.

People stuck 2000 years in the past, who rather unfortunately for me, turn out to vote in large numbers.

What she said was right though, Kes. If someone's going to go by the Bible, I don't see how they can skip over all the parts about women. It's pretty darned explicit about their not being in a position of authority over men.

[kestrel]

While we're on the topic about skipping over parts of the bible...
how about women going and living in their separate houses when they're on the rag?

How about condoning infanticide against our enemies or outcasts?

How about making the races separate... just like God made em?

Please... don't give me the "its in the bible so it's OK" nonsense.

[Addison]

Originally Posted by kestrel

While we're on the topic about skipping over parts of the bible...
how about women going and living in their separate houses when they're on the rag?

How about condoning infanticide against our enemies or outcasts?

How about making the races separate... just like God made em?

Please... don't give me the "its in the bible so it's OK" nonsense.

Yeah, that's a problem for me too. The one that gave me fits was where it talks about stoning a bride if her hymen isn't intact. I think an omnipotent God would have known human anatomy better... and would be more just in other cases (like where the prophet, Elisha, had the bear come kill the children who called him bald-head. ) ... So yeah, for many, these things create problems with the dependability of scripture - as in, doubt about whose ideas these actually were.

[sfurbanette]

Originally Posted by kestrel

While we're on the topic about skipping over parts of the bible...
how about women going and living in their separate houses when they're on the rag?

How about condoning infanticide against our enemies or outcasts?

How about making the races separate... just like God made em?

Please... don't give me the "its in the bible so it's OK" nonsense.

If you ladies are familiar with the concept of the Old and New Covenants, you could maybe understand that Old Testament law (stoning, races separate,etc) was largely done away with in the New Covenant. Christ's death on the cross made such sacrifices unnecessary under the new law...now believers are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves, or our own works, or such extraordinary ceremonial laws.