Is the SBC really Baptist?

[Yeshua1]

No. First of all most Calvinists in the SBC are not reformed in the purest sense. At most a minority of the leadership would claim to be 5-point Calvinists and I haven't read of any effort by them to make that a test of fellowship in the convention. There is a minority on the other side who are concerned (unnecessarily) that an increase in Calvinism within the SBC will result in missions being neglected. But no, there is no plot or grand scheme among SBC leadership to turn the convention into Particular Baptists.

I should have used term "DTS" kind of calvinist, as one who would hold to being a '4 pointer" position as regarding the DoG!

 

[Tom Butler]

Sounds to me like your church does not affirm soul liberty, a key baptist principle. E.Y. Mullins probably couldn't be a member of your church, were he alive today.

Of course it does. Nothing I said has anything to do with soul competency or priesthood of the believer.

We are a Baptist church. Baptist believe certain things.

You believe sprinkling is okay? Fine. We won't kill you. But we won't let you pastor our church. We won't let you teach. We won't let you be a deacon. Nobody says you can't believe in sprinkling instead of immersion.
You are perfectly free to believe it.

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration. You're certainly free to. Many people do. But we won't let you join our church.

nodak had it right:

It is totally not an issue of whether or not we agree with what they teach.

It is totally an issue of whether or not we must have a human mediator to stand between us and God.

Soul competency is not a license to go to any church and expect them to accept your differing view.

 

[Jerome]

Tom, is your church autonomous enough amend your own doctrinal statement?

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom, is your church autonomous enough amend your own doctrinal statement?

Yes, of course.

I'm eager to see where you are going with this?

 

[preachinjesus]

Challenge away. It goes right along with the priesthood of the believer.

Walter Shurden outlines the Baptist "Four Fragile Freedoms": http://www.ministerscouncil.com/OnLineManual/documents/OutlineShurdensbook.pdf

Well you're gonna have to do better than Walter Shurden. My challenge to you is to show me/us how soul liberty is a historical Baptist distinctive.

I think EY Mullins' influence here is vastly overstated. Find some other folks from the history of Baptist theology.

 

[preachinjesus]

When I first became a Southern Baptist, soul competency was THE key Baptist teaching.

Briefly, it is the idea each person is able to come to faith in Christ for salvation without a human mediator, and is able under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to read and understand the Scripture.

So how do you define Preisthood of all believers?

You don't go to church to be told what to believe. You find a church that teaches what you see in the Bible.

Ah, well them days are over...

Actually I don't disagree with this. I will, however, point out that the general trend in evangelicalism in general and SBC life specifically is to find a church where you connect (with the pastor, groups, etc) and join up. This doctrinal decision is farther down the list now.

These days the SBC leadership seems to want us to come to church so they can tell us what to believe.

It is totally not an issue of whether or not we agree with what they teach.

It is totally an issue of whether or not we must have a human mediator to stand between us and God.

I don't disagree that there is a movement towards this and has been for a while now. However, this is what the vast majority of people are expecting their churches to do for them. In the face of rampant biblical illiteracy this is how ministry is changing.

As for that last point, show me four significant SBC leaders serving today who believe we need a mediator.

Shurden's book is excellent. So is "The Axioms of Religion" by E. Y. Mullins if you want to understand what has changed.

Well my thoughts on Shurden and Mullins stand. You definitely don't want to hitch your wagon to Shurden and EY Mullins is way over used by some. :saint:

 

[preachinjesus]

And that's why I said that E. Y. Mullins, a towering figure in 20th Century Southern Baptist life, could not be a Southern Baptist today. And Herschel Hobbs probably couldn't, either!

I disagree with this all around. The SBC is a larger organization than you're allowing for.

Today's SBC has become increasingly authoritarian, creedal, exclusivist, an in denial of historic Baptist distinctives.

Absolutely a tremendous overstatement of the facts.

Show me four baptist distinctives, their historical roots, and how they're being tread on by the SBC today. If anything the Resurrgence recaptured Baptist distinctives for the convention.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I disagree with this all around. The SBC is a larger organization than you're allowing for.



Absolutely a tremendous overstatement of the facts.

Show me four baptist distinctives, their historical roots, and how they're being tread on by the SBC today. If anything the Resurrgence recaptured Baptist distinctives for the convention.

The Resurgence was and is counterfeit Baptist.

Soul liberty and priesthood of the believer go hand-in-hand, as I mentioned earlier. These are historical baptist distinctives, as are Bible freedom, church freedom, and religious freedom. Denigrate Shurden all you wish, but he is right.

So you're claiming that autonomy (church freedom), the right and ability to read and interpret the Bible for yourself under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit (Bible freedom), religious freedom, and priesthood of the believer-soul freedom are not historical Baptist distinctives. Oh, wait -- you are right: They are not historical since the fundie takeover, but prior to that they were.

I'm not surprised you want to minimize Mullins. He doesn't fit with the little fundie SBC dictators. Mullins was very influential -- as I said, a towering figure. All you have to do to know that is to read. Of course you already know it, but admitting the truth endangers the legitimacy of the fundamentalist purge.

 

[mandym]

The Resurgence was and is counterfeit Baptist.

I doubt you know anything about it.

 

[preachinjesus]

The Resurgence was and is counterfeit Baptist.

Well, at least you've played your hand.

Obfuscate all you want, my challenge still stands.

Soul liberty and priesthood of the believer go hand-in-hand, as I mentioned earlier. These are historical baptist distinctives, as are Bible freedom, church freedom, and religious freedom. Denigrate Shurden all you wish, but he is right.

I'm not "denigrating" Shurden, I'm simply saying he isn't the best scholar you have in your corner. Show me/us how, beyond EY Mullins, soul liberty (which is different from priesthood of all believers) is a historical Baptist distinctive.

I'm saying its not.

So you're claiming that autonomy (church freedom), the right and ability to read and interpret the Bible for yourself under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit (Bible freedom), religious freedom, and priesthood of the believer-soul freedom are not historical Baptist distinctives. Oh, wait -- you are right: They are not historical since the fundie takeover, but prior to that they were.

Who is saying any or all of this? I'm not saying that.

Autonomy of the local church has always been a Baptist distinctive. I've talked about that elsewhere. I've defended that elsewhere (including on this board) and I always will. Bible freedom makes no sense how you've described it and, frankly, I think you've got "Bible freedom", soul liberty, and priesthood of all believers confused and conflated.

Take your definition of "Bible freedom" and apply it to soul liberty, take your definition of soul liberty and work it out with priesthood and you've actually pretty well defined soul liberty and priesthood of all believers. "Bible freedom" isn't a Baptist distinctive and makes no sense. If you properly identity soul liberty and priesthood of all believers, like I've challenged nodak to do, you actually have something to stand on. How you both have misdefined both provided no theological basis for your remarks.

I'm not surprised you want to minimize Mullins. He doesn't fit with the little fundie SBC dictators. Mullins was very influential -- as I said, a towering figure. All you have to do to know that is to read. Of course you already know it, but admitting the truth endangers the legitimacy of the fundamentalist purge.

Well, I get that you're not a fan of the resurrgence. I think on balance it is a good thing that is now in the stage of glorifying its excesses, which is a bad thing. (I had friends who lost their jobs because of it too, so don't think we all don't have a dog in the fight here.)

Mullins isn't as influential as you're making him. He is important but not nearly what you're making of him. I've got a copy of The Axioms of Religion on my shelf just in front of me. So don't think I haven't interacted with him.

Ultimately, however, my challenge still stands: show me/us four other scholars, historically, who have championed soul liberty as a historical Baptist distinctive.

 

[nodak]

What era writers do you want?

We given you E Y Mullins, Hershel Hobbs, and Walter Shurden. If you need a 4th, try Fisher Humphries.

I have a sneaking suspicion no matter who we give you, you won't accept their credentials.

So try going to some early W A Criswell writings and you will find him saying many of the same things.

I will agree many today find a church where they like the music and make friends, then go looking at doctrine.

That in itself may be part of the problem.

We've gotten so caught up in the "purpose" of selling our franchise, we don't worry anymore about what the product is.

Which led to the fundamentalist takeover.

Had we returned to the Baptist distinctives, we would still be a mostly very conservative convention.

Instead, some notables panicked that everyone didn't see things their way, and set out to force us to do so.

Any time anyone has to tell me what the Bible means, rather than me reading it myself, they have stepped between me and Holy Spirit. Trying to be a human mediator.

I suggest a very modern non Baptist book, "Pagan Christianity", for a refresher on the RCC and its influence.

And then you will understand why some refer to the SBC as the RCC-South today.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I doubt you know anything about it.

You doubt wrongly.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, at least you've played your hand.

Obfuscate all you want, my challenge still stands.



I'm not "denigrating" Shurden, I'm simply saying he isn't the best scholar you have in your corner. Show me/us how, beyond EY Mullins, soul liberty (which is different from priesthood of all believers) is a historical Baptist distinctive.

I'm saying its not.



Who is saying any or all of this? I'm not saying that.

Autonomy of the local church has always been a Baptist distinctive. I've talked about that elsewhere. I've defended that elsewhere (including on this board) and I always will. Bible freedom makes no sense how you've described it and, frankly, I think you've got "Bible freedom", soul liberty, and priesthood of all believers confused and conflated.

Take your definition of "Bible freedom" and apply it to soul liberty, take your definition of soul liberty and work it out with priesthood and you've actually pretty well defined soul liberty and priesthood of all believers. "Bible freedom" isn't a Baptist distinctive and makes no sense. If you properly identity soul liberty and priesthood of all believers, like I've challenged nodak to do, you actually have something to stand on. How you both have misdefined both provided no theological basis for your remarks.



Well, I get that you're not a fan of the resurrgence. I think on balance it is a good thing that is now in the stage of glorifying its excesses, which is a bad thing. (I had friends who lost their jobs because of it too, so don't think we all don't have a dog in the fight here.)

Mullins isn't as influential as you're making him. He is important but not nearly what you're making of him. I've got a copy of The Axioms of Religion on my shelf just in front of me. So don't think I haven't interacted with him.

Ultimately, however, my challenge still stands: show me/us four other scholars, historically, who have championed soul liberty as a historical Baptist distinctive.

And you've played your hand.

BTW, the Baptist distinctive is priesthood of THE BELIEVER, which your statement shows that you do not hold to. One must correctly state and believe this principle to see how it relates to Bible freedom and soul freedom.

Might I suggest you do some more research on historic Baptist principles.

If you do not believe that the right and ability to read and interpret the Bible for yourself under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit is a Baptist principle, you are either suffering from delusion or ignorant of Baptist history.

As I said, if you don't believe what I'm saying about Mullins, just read. BTW, why do you wish to denigrate Mullins? Would you also deny him a place in the SBC if he were living today?

P.S. Look, I don't mean to be hostile toward you personally; this is just something that I'm passionate about. This is the one major thing that could prevent me from being a Southern Baptist -- this departure from Baptist principles. I have nothing for those who believe like the Alliance of Baptists; I think it would be good if they and the fundies were all tossed into a ring and had to stay there together. But people like Daniel Vestal and other moderate-conservatives having to leave the convention is a tragedy.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What era writers do you want?

We given you E Y Mullins, Hershel Hobbs, and Walter Shurden. If you need a 4th, try Fisher Humphries.

I have a sneaking suspicion no matter who we give you, you won't accept their credentials.

So try going to some early W A Criswell writings and you will find him saying many of the same things.

I will agree many today find a church where they like the music and make friends, then go looking at doctrine.

That in itself may be part of the problem.

We've gotten so caught up in the "purpose" of selling our franchise, we don't worry anymore about what the product is.

Which led to the fundamentalist takeover.

Had we returned to the Baptist distinctives, we would still be a mostly very conservative convention.

Instead, some notables panicked that everyone didn't see things their way, and set out to force us to do so.

Any time anyone has to tell me what the Bible means, rather than me reading it myself, they have stepped between me and Holy Spirit. Trying to be a human mediator.

I suggest a very modern non Baptist book, "Pagan Christianity", for a refresher on the RCC and its influence.

And then you will understand why some refer to the SBC as the RCC-South today.

You are correct. They won't accept anyone we reference or acknowledge their true influence if it threatens the so-called "conservative" (foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalist) resurgence.

And I'll continue to assert: Mullins and Hobbs would be run out of today's SBC.

 

[quantumfaith]

Would someone be kind enough to begin a list of Baptist Distinctives, a list of things essential for one to call themselves "baptist"? I suspect, over the history of the SBC, most if not all "squabbles" ultimately differentiate down to the constant function of "control and authority". Who has it, who doesn't, and who wants it.

 

[JonC]

I’m actually not sure of the whole conversation. Prior to the “fundie” takeover the SBC was not only moving away from historic Baptist doctrine but also from Christian doctrine (in the seminary and associations, anyway). The “soul-liberty” and “priesthood of the believer” shouldn’t become an “anything goes as long as you believe it” theology – but that is what I am interpreting some here to indicate.

You could argue that all Baptists should only hold onto what you consider “historical Baptist belief,” but there has never been a monolithic Baptist voice. Baptist history is a history of disagreements regarding the definition of those “Baptist distinctive” doctrines.

It is good to debate those issues, within the context of the SBC by those who are Southern Baptist. But if there is a SBC doctrine that would prevent you from becoming a Southern Baptist (and I don’t mean this mean spirited) your opinion is not really very relevant. That’s why you are not Southern Baptist. Southern Baptist churches have a long and glorious history of disagreements and in-fighting without help from those outside the denomination trying to shape it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I’m actually not sure of the whole conversation. Prior to the “fundie” takeover the SBC was not only moving away from historic Baptist doctrine but also from Christian doctrine (in the seminary and associations, anyway). The “soul-liberty” and “priesthood of the believer” shouldn’t become an “anything goes as long as you believe it” theology – but that is what I am interpreting some here to indicate.

You could argue that all Baptists should only hold onto what you consider “historical Baptist belief,” but there has never been a monolithic Baptist voice. Baptist history is a history of disagreements regarding the definition of those “Baptist distinctive” doctrines.

It is good to debate those issues, within the context of the SBC by those who are Southern Baptist. But if there is a SBC doctrine that would prevent you from becoming a Southern Baptist (and I don’t mean this mean spirited) your opinion is not really very relevant. That’s why you are not Southern Baptist. Southern Baptist churches have a long and glorious history of disagreements and in-fighting without help from those outside the denomination trying to shape it.

I have spent a good part of my life as a Southern Baptist, so I guess my opinion is relevant.

I do not believe that “soul-liberty” and “priesthood of the believer” should become an “anything goes as long as you believe it” theology.

I think there was a gross over-reaction and misrepresentation about what was going on in the denomination and seminaries prior to the fundamentalist takeover. The "cry wolf" hysteria over liberalism in the convention was way overblown, as the size of the Alliance of Baptists shows. Regarding the seminaries, are they supposed to be education centers or indoctrination centers? Why shouldn't all views, all across the theological spectrum, be taught? How can anyone get a true education otherwise? Also, how can anyone go out in the real world and teach what they consider the truth against opposing views if they don't know what those opposing views are? Keeping the seminaries as isolated little enclaves of fundamentalist propaganda does not serve the students who go there for an education. Of course I realize many who go there now do so not for an education but precisely to continue to be indoctrinated and propagandized.

No, the SBC has seriously departed from the SBC that Mullins and Hobbs knew -- and that is not a good thing; it is sad.

 

[Ed B]

I have spent a good part of my life as a Southern Baptist, so I guess my opinion is relevant.

I do not believe that “soul-liberty” and “priesthood of the believer” should become an “anything goes as long as you believe it” theology.

I think there was a gross over-reaction and misrepresentation about what was going on in the denomination and seminaries prior to the fundamentalist takeover. The "cry wolf" hysteria over liberalism in the convention was way overblown, as the size of the Alliance of Baptists shows. Regarding the seminaries, are they supposed to be education centers or indoctrination centers? Why shouldn't all views, all across the theological spectrum, be taught? How can anyone get a true education otherwise? Also, how can anyone go out in the real world and teach what they consider the truth against opposing views if they don't know what those opposing views are? Keeping the seminaries as isolated little enclaves of fundamentalist propaganda does not serve the students who go there for an education. Of course I realize many who go there now do so not for an education but precisely to continue to be indoctrinated and propagandized.

No, the SBC has seriously departed from the SBC that Mullins and Hobbs knew -- and that is not a good thing; it is sad.

I might agree with your larger point but I will say I consider the mission of seminaries to be different than that of divinity schools or even church affiliated liberal arts universities. SBC seminaries are rightly intended to educate and train Baptist for work as vocational ministers and laypersons to serve in Baptist Churches or as Baptists out in the world. Yes, others can and do attend but with the understanding that they are attending a Baptist seminary. So with that in mind I think being exposed to other views is useful at a seminary but it is not the job of SBC seminaries to to turn out anything other than well educated and well equiped Baptists.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I might agree with your larger point but I will say I consider the mission of seminaries to be different than that of divinity schools or even church affiliated liberal arts universities. SBC seminaries are rightly intended to educate and train Baptist for work as vocational ministers and laypersons to serve in Baptist Churches or as Baptists out in the world. Yes, others can and do attend but with the understanding that they are attending a Baptist seminary. So with that in mind I think being exposed to other views is useful at a seminary but it is not the job of SBC seminaries to to turn out anything other than well educated and well equiped Baptists.

And I agree with that and still don't see how teaching all viewpoints would hinder that. I think it would actually enhance it. I have often learned the most when exposed to views that are the opposite of mine.

Also, how can a Baptist seminary graduate be either well educated or well equipped when they are taught that the post-takeover SBC is the one true way to be Southern Baptist?

BTW, I'm still waiting for Resurgence supporters here to say that Mullins and Hobbs would be welcome in today's SBC. I say they wouldn't, and that tells me all I need to know about how "Baptist" the SBC is now.

 

[Iconoclast]

Would someone be kind enough to begin a list of Baptist Distinctives, a list of things essential for one to call themselves "baptist"? I suspect, over the history of the SBC, most if not all "squabbles" ultimately differentiate down to the constant function of "control and authority". Who has it, who doesn't, and who wants it.

Found this site online....it's late..I did not read through it yet...but the listing is helpful!

http://baptistdistinctives.org/articles/

. Baptists: Who? What? Why? Where? When? • 2. What Makes a Baptist a Baptist? 3. Jesus is Lord • 4. The Authority of the Bible • 5. Is Soul Competency The Baptist Distinctive? • 6. Salvation by Grace Through Faith Alone • 7. Baptists: The Priesthood of The Believer or of Believers? • 8. Baptists: Believer’s Baptism • 9. Baptists Believe in Regenerate Church Membership • 10. Baptists: Regenerate Church Membership in Peril? • 11. Congregational Church Governance • 12. Baptist Congregational Church Governance: A Challenge • 13. Baptists Believe in Church Autonomy • 14. Baptist Autonomy: Difficulties and Benefits • 15. Baptists and Voluntary Cooperation • 16. Baptist Voluntary Cooperation: Challenges and Benefits • 17. Baptists: Two Ordinances Baptism and the Lord’s Supper • 18. Two Church Officers: Pastors and Deacons • 19. Baptists: Worship • 20. Baptists and Evangelism • 21. Baptists and Missions • 22. Baptists and Ministry • 23. Baptists: Applying the Gospel • 24. Baptists Champions of Religious Freedom • 25. Baptists: Separation of Church and State • 26. Baptists and Education • 27. Baptists •


here is another;
http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/distinctives.html

and again:
http://www.baptiststart.com/doctrine.htm