Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
All evidence like this will be somewhat ancedotal. However, I see you did not refute my claims relative to the campaigns being waged. No way one can see this as merely "a few." In my local association, there are three pastors actively waging this war, and doing so in a pretty nefarious and obtrusive fashion. In the neighboring association, there is a cadre of pastors connected with this group I referred to relative to the letter/questionnaire mission. More on that later. But to say this is some sort of diminutive fringe when high ranking SBs have brought it to fore from the platform of the SBC is, as I said earlier and you have not refuted, a develpment that cannot be ignored or seen as some sort of coincidence or anamoly.
This is fallacious. I will not argue that a poll may have occurred on here where Reformed men said they would not allow non-Reformed to preach. However, this has not been my experience. I have seen Reformed men shunned from pulpit supply constantly. A local Reformed pastor often utilizes non Reformed men. My best friend has had two Reformed ministers in his 20 years of ministry (me, for a revival, and his mentor for a revival). For his vacations, sabbaticals, etc., he uses non-Reformed men. I have utilized only one or two Reformed preachers in my ministry. The rest have not been largely Reformed.
Fallacious. Appeal to probability. First, I don't know I've cried foul as much as I've lamented that divisive and pugnacious people are causing unnecessary strife, dividing what Christ gave His body and blood to unite. Second, there's a fair list of non-Reformed who have been at Reformed seminaries. Daniel Akin VP and Dean of the School of Theology at SBTS. Also at the Theology school there under Mohler: Polhill, Seifred, Cutrerer, Howell, Newman, Robert Smith, Rainer, Terry, Lawless, Dever (not Mark) and on and on I could go. I could compile a similar list at RTS, TEDS, and GCTS. Is this list longer than the list of Reformed men who are allowed to teach at non-Reformed schools/seminaries? To the best of my recollection, yes it is. However, it may or may not be apples and oranges. Either way, your fallacious assertion is just that. Appeals to probability just aren't good arguments.
?
Yes I am. I am opposed to political movements of any kind. I am opposed to those who use theological caricatures and fallacious arguments and outright slander and malice to see their will imposed on the churches. I don't care if they're Reformed or not, conservative or not. Our weapons are not of this world. We don't war the way the world does. (2 Cor 10:3-4). It's sad you seem to applaud this.
Fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and begging the question. So the minister was de facto a charlatan and the one doing the deceiving? This is really a poor argument. While it could be the case, it is just as likely that it is not the case. I'm entering my third decade of ministry. I've dealt with pulpit committees all over the nation. Rarely am I queried regarding theology. Amusingly, my first pastoral search cmte asked me only one doctrinal question: You aren't one of them there liberal dispensationalists, are you :laugh: Seriously. Ran into this a year and a half ago, too. Got this from a church just recently where I supplied, also. Obviously, they don't understand a lot of eschatology (I'm not dispy, by the way) but they have bought a false caricature of what they think eschatology is, and have given it an unnecessary weight. I assert this is the same that is happening with the Cal/Non-Reformed debate. You appear to disagree.
Again, begging the question by assuming facts not in evidence.
This is an alarming assertion on your part. I could set a "trap" but won't waste my or your time. Let me just ask it this way: what other theological premise must one agree with you on in order to remain in ministry? Eschatology? Spiritual gifts? Ecclesiastical government? Either you have other areas, and that's sad, or you don't, and that's just as sad.
A bit of a non-sequitur, and again begging the question. However, I'll play along. I am not in favor of any pastor being deceptive or divisive. Nor am I in favor of groups being deceptive or divisive. You seem to have no problem since the Reformed are suffering. However, you would likely recoil if the shoe was on the other foot. I am merely asking for consistency.
Again, an outlandish begging of the question, or petitio principii if you prefer.
Now you're backpeddling a bit from above when you said categorically that these were a fringe miniscule amount of people. Perhaps you may need to qualify the "large and small" and that would explain away this.
Again, a non-sequitur.
Actually, yes you did. It was edited out due to it being a violation of BB rules. However, it was cited by another poster. I won't repeat it because it was a violation of BB rules and as such it will have to be edited in the other post. This was perhaps the singular most disturbing thing you posted, and extraordinarily disappointing. I can handle a post chock full of illogical and fallacious arguments. But outright ad hominem and perjorative words are not charitable....nor permissible on this board.
Certainly. But the how is very important, and I don't believe we have the right to go to subversive lengths to do so.
Fallacious. Hasty generalization.
At once, I find myself puzzled by this since you are seemingly arguing against this earlier, and amazed by this implied assumption that the founders of the SBc were atheological. First, we don't foster cooperation through division. Second, theology does matter. However, we have no right to use various planks or subplanks of theology as battering rams or wedge issues. Perhaps this is our single biggest point of departure here.
Agreed.
Very sad. Agreed.
Look at it for what it is, not what we think it is or imagine it is. I have not seen one single man try to make a church Reformed and lose his church over it. I've heard of such. I have seen IFBs fired because they tried to takeover SBC churches. I've seen KJVOs divide churches. I've seen Reformed pastors take non-Reformed churches and the churches have grown exponentially. I've seen non-Reformed pastors do the same at non-Reformed churches.
This is indeed sad. It is sad whenever churches or ministers are fractured, ripped apart, etc. I recently know of a man who pretty much single-handedly took a church of around 100 and in three years managed to tick off 75% of everyone. This church now runs 20 in Sunday worship. They needed to make a change. They did. But they did it wrong. Now, who's at fault? Everyone. The church called the man and he told them what he was going to do. They didn't hear him or didn't care. When you want what want, you get what you get. So the church was at fault. But the man was at fault. He was derelict in his duties and was extremely divisive and rancorous. But no one, and I mean no one should be forcibly terminated in the middle of the night by a small number. All deserve blame, yet all deserve better than what they got. My point? Pray for churches that have been through the ringer. Pray for pastors that have been through the ringer. Realize that both may have happened at the same time.
Very good post. What happened? I blame Obama. :tongue3: Seriously, the internet makes bloviaters out of more than a few. Also, you don't have to be charitable if all you see is a keyboard. And frankly, Satan is alive and well trying to divide Cals and non-Cals. Bible-believing evangelicals are Satan's worst nighmare, so divide and conquer is the MO.
Actually Tom, one not only can but it is statistically verifiable to them being merely a few in contrast to the whole. (few not meaning a couple or a couple more) but referring to a minority.
Ok.. out of how may in your local association?
Again, compared to how many pastor in total, lets say, in total of your states association. I'm not saying there are some out there, and in some places, more than others (in fact I did say this earlier). My point is that in contrast to the whole, yes.. they are not many.
Really? What was brought to the fore.. be specific. Was it brought forth for a vote? However, all you have given thus far are assumptive views, and opinions as if they confirm anything substantially. Mine are according to the numbers and the numbers do not coincide with your rendition.
Ok.. you state my comment is fallacious, yet you base it upon your experience regarding yourself, and 2 other pastors. I based my point not ONLY on my experiences but the words and declarations of other Reformed pastors (additional note: I have 8 reformed friends that are pastors and none of them would allow someone none reformed to preach from their pulpits). Thus who is exactly is being fallacious in their arguments?
I will agree.. however which group are you referring to.. the Cals who are doing the same thing or the non-Cals?
Southern is not a 'Reformed' Seminary
Though it has become more Calvinistic, it is not a Reformed SeminaryYou misunderstand. I do not applaud the fact that such measures must be taken by any side, in order to find out if someone has taken a pastorate under false or deceptive pretenses. The fact it has to be put out there because it is a reality, is what baffles me that you cry out against it.
Hmm.. Facts back up the case. The 'fact' it is an event that has been, is, and appears to be continuing is not a poor argument. The 'fact' that other reformed people (even those of high standing -as I have referenced already) state it is an issue does not lend credibility to it being a poor argument. The 'fact' I have had to deal the results of such doesn't preclude it being a poor argument .. when ALL of the above are noted as those coming into 'these' position did so deceitfully. The 'facts' lend credibility to my statement of some of these men coming into the pastorate KNOWING the church does not hold to their theological view, and thus lied through admission or omission to the search committees. Again, I am not saying ALL do this but it is apparently a problem large enough for other Calvinists to say something about it.
And yet any pastor (or potential one) worth their salt, would know or at least get to know that churches 'theological' views. And even then, the most commonly held theological view held by most churches is? Not Reformed.
I agree
Wrong. It is knowing facts that ARE evidenced. Remember here, I'm not talking about ALL, I'm talking about those I know of, others have specifically dealt with, even Reformed men speaking to. This is not some fanciful dream but a reality, and it 'seems' one of which you turn a blind eye to. It happens but it is not something that is every day nor common place, but it IS and DOES happen enough that it has gotten the attention of even Reformed men such as Tom Ascol at founder.com.
Uh.. you are making an incorrect case here. My point was not agreeing on theology to stay in the ministry, but taking a church through deceptive means.. to quote Tom Ascol - Don't try to hide your convictions. To do so is cowardly and dishonest and has no place in Gospel ministry. I merely paraphrased his statement.
And yet neither of those hold any relevance to the topic nor subject at hand.
Assumptive and argumentative on your part regarding me. Why stoop to ascribing to me a position I never made any indication that I agree with?
I agree, and thus if you stayed with my arguments and not invent your own regarding my position will allow for much greater consistency. I would NOT recoil if non-Cals were trying to deceptively gain access to reformed and in fact stood my ground against a person who sought to do just that, but into another church (not reformed but different theologically)
Incorrect, You NOT ME made that statement. Thus no back peddling at all.
Actually no I am not.
Actually it wasn't against BB Rules to my knowledge. It was not speaking of anyone here, but was SPECIFICALLY of those who willingly deceive to gain appointment to a church for the purposes of changing it. They lied.. there is no Ad-hom there.. it directly speaks to their actions.
Your assumption have not disputed the facts. Thus you can say it is "Fallacious, Hasty generalization" but the FACT remains. It was not and that is based on facts.
Again, you are not sticking with my statements. I said nothing about the founders as individuals, but the SBC as an entity. It has NEVER held nor ascribed to any specific theological (Reformed, Arminian, ect) view, ever.
Agreed.
Again Agreed.. yet for the SBC it does not, regarding any system of theology but regarding mainline orthodox theological views in general.
Agreed yet again!
.\
I have not noted any fallacies thus far in my arguments, and what 'my' arguments deal with. However the only insulting and pejorative language I used was regarding those who HAVE or ARE willingly using deception to acquire churches they KNOW do not hold the same theological views they hold, for sake of pastoring there and changing the church. I stand by that statement unequivocally.
You are evading the point. I tell you what...take the 1689 confession of faith.
you write down in a notebook each of the headings on top of the page, then you write what you know from the bible about each topic,offering whatever verses you know,and a paragraph or two telling what they mean...see which is more biblical and whcih statement is more biblical! Do it honestly
let us know the results......actually we see the results in some of your posts
