About to hit the fan in the SBC

[Greektim]

This statement: "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation" was just released and buzzing around the SBC world. Pretty bad display of Calvinism. Any thoughts here?

Here is another perspective: http://sbcvoices.com/a-statement-of...tist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation/

James White posted on his facebook page:

...signed by Emir Caner and David Allen, no less. Let the strawmen ignite!

Wow, this statement is one of the worst attempts at systematic theology I've ever read. Incredible, just incredible.

OK, we need to do a Radio Free Geneva on this one...a brilliant example of "we refuse to hear what you are saying so there!" theology.

The number of equivocations, terminology and category errors, in this one document is shocking. These writers are theological leaders?

How about an RFG extra DL this week tomorrow, 5pm EDT in response to the SBC Salvation document?

 

[mont974x4]

I am not sure how the author can state that Calvinists in the SBC are a minority. That has not been my experience. I also do not see how this can be a non-essential issue as it relates directly to salvation. It is about time that people are forced to decide what they really believe and to state it openly. The labels don't matter so much as a clear understanding and expression of the doctrines at issue.

 

[JonC]

It does look to be in line with “traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology (at least as expressed in the writings of the early convention – particularly in denouncing the anti-mission movement). It is also in line with the more moderate Calvinism of the New Hampshire Confession which was used in the BF&M of 1925. So in a way, I can see why they would refer it to a “traditional SBC” stance.

 

[preachinjesus]

The Calvinist Resurrgence (lol...I'm calling it that from now on) is perplexing and vexing for established leaders.

We must be mindful that there is a sizable (majority?) group of young SBC leaders coming up through the ranks (below the age of 40) who are Reformed in their view of soteriology. They have little trouble articulating their beliefs and have made no mistake that they demand a place at the table in the convention. What will be interesting is how graciously they participate in the conversation.

I know in my circles we've had extremely divisive (former) staff members, church members, and personal friends who press their Reformed viewpoint and demand absolute agreement. When you challenge them and show how vapid their arguments actually are they immediately spin into a frenzy and become almost unChristian in their zealous replies.

Of course I also have staff members, church members and personal friends who are Reformed and graciously engage in dialogue, recognizing we have a greater calling that following Calvin, Augustine, or their particular brand of theology.

The biggest question in all of this is whether or not we unite over the Gospel as central and press on in missions as essential.

I have plenty of good friends who are Reformed and are fine that I'm not. I have no time for arrogant, rebellious, and cocksure ramblers who have an agenda and mercilessly persecute those who disagree. There are both in our convention.

FTR, I'm fine with having Calvinists in our broader convention life. We need to have a wide tent as Southern (er...Great Commission) Baptists.

This document is okay. Ironically it is going to get trashed by Calvinists. Historically, this is a fine statement on what Southern Baptists have believed and taught concerning salvation. Should be curious to see how it goes over.

 

[saturneptune]

This is the way I look at SBC statements of this type. Each local church of the SBC is autonomous. A local church at any time can, by a vote of the congregation, withdraw from the Convention. That ends the problem one way or another. The Convention has no governing authority over any local church.

A majority in our local congregation is not Calvinist by a margin of about 70-30.

 

[Winman]

I am not a Southern Baptist, but I like it, and I agree with it. :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Sounds like a goat stampede out of SBC....:thumbs: This is a clear denial and apostasy from the faith.

 

[Ed B]

.....
A majority in our local congregation is not Calvinist by a margin of about 70-30.

I am probably over reacting but to me your percentages show the risk that this document presents. If it goes beyond simply someone's opinion on a blog to a document that is used for something more at the association level - as a way to help define the only correct SBC soteriology - then you may see churches splitting over something that isn't causing a split in most local Churches today. I know the author says that is not his intent, but then he follows it up by asking people to affirm it if they agree.


I would hate to see my church lose 30% of its people, or even 30% of the people who do more than fill a pew, because this document was used as a measure to determine who is fit to fill leadership positions, teach Sunday school, qualify as deacons, etc, in the local congregation. I see no good coming from the “We Deny” statements in particular, but I do see potential that it snowballs into something that is divisive.

 

[Winman]

Sounds like a goat stampede out of SBC....:thumbs: This is a clear denial and apostasy from the faith.

More like telling the goats to go graze somewhere else, they're not wanted.

 

[mandym]

The reformed side is a very small minority.and i have seen a lot of younger men coming up reformed. If they ever became the majority it would split the convention.

 

[agedman]

It doesn't matter which side of the argument one stakes a claim, it will automatically alienate believers especially as one who lacks true love froths in itching ear eloquence.

The vast majority of pew sitters in a SBC church have absolutely no concept of the Calvinistic and Arminian views, but will rely solely on what ever puff and fluff tickles their ears. God and Godly folks on both sides will be damaged and some will be cast out and assemblies divide over rumor and accusation that behind the scenes is forced by petty power and positional jealousy.

Pastors and staff are going to be divided in a question and response that will flow into divisiveness and camping in support of one or another which will make unrepairable impact in state and regional groups.

School faculties and loyalties will be tested beyond the point of support and especially the graduate levels will become encampments for supporting only those who hold the same view - which in turn will ultimately impact the local assembly.

It will be just as is stated here: http://sbcvoices.com/a-statement-of-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation/

Just as the writer points out:

Read the statement and ask yourself, “Is this a necessary statement that will help Southern Baptists fulfill the Great Commission or will it simply cause more disunity within the SBC?”​

What is more alarming to me is that so few will see that this is actually a scheme by the Satanic forces that will ultimately result in furthering the Laodicean types of churches as people flee the contentiousness of the SBC.

 

[saturneptune]

I am probably over reacting but to me your percentages show the risk that this document presents. If it goes beyond simply someone's opinion on a blog to a document that is used for something more at the association level - as a way to help define the only correct SBC soteriology - then you may see churches splitting over something that isn't causing a split in most local Churches today. I know the author says that is not his intent, but then he follows it up by asking people to affirm it if they agree.


I would hate to see my church lose 30% of its people, or even 30% of the people who do more than fill a pew, because this document was used as a measure to determine who is fit to fill leadership positions, teach Sunday school, qualify as deacons, etc, in the local congregation. I see no good coming from the “We Deny” statements in particular, but I do see potential that it snowballs into something that is divisive.

This is not the type of issue our church would split over. Several decades ago we had a split over church relocation, and learned our lesson. I doubt our church would vote to leave the SBC short of some kind of unBiblical doctrine, certainly not over the nonsense of Calvinism vs Arminianism.

Documents or standards are up to the local church. We are not a hierarchy. In other words, statements out of the SBC make good reading, and at times are amusing, but mean nothing in relation to the authority in a local church. Personally, I think the "we deny" statements are not necessary, but they are meaningless as far as governing a church or establishing doctrine.

With the SBC level, the state level, and the associational level, and each church having the right to belong to all, some or none, I do not know why anyone would care about a document like this. If it irks a congregation that much, get rid of the particular relationship of church to association.

 

[Yeshua1]

This statement: "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation" was just released and buzzing around the SBC world. Pretty bad display of Calvinism. Any thoughts here?

Here is another perspective: http://sbcvoices.com/a-statement-of...tist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation/

James White posted on his facebook page:

just read the SBC statement as regarding Sotierology...

Would say that there is NOW a baptist haven wide open for classical Arminianists

pretty much all can be saved, jesus died for sins of all, and that God views us 'OK", as Jesus death reconciled world to Himself, as we are not guilty as by birth, denying effects original Sin, but when we chose to sin!

 

[Robert Snow]

Sounds like a goat stampede out of SBC....:thumbs: This is a clear denial and apostasy from the faith.

Ridiculous analysis.

Finally the SBC is doing something that makes me glad I attend a SBC church. :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

just read the SBC statement as regarding Sotierology...

Would say that there is NOW a baptist haven wide open for classical Arminianists

pretty much all can be saved, jesus died for sins of all, and that God views us 'OK", as Jesus death reconciled world to Himself, as we are not guilty as by birth, denying effects original Sin, but when we chose to sin!

Here's your toothbrush, here's a bag with your clothes in it, and here are some papers you need to read. Have a nice life.

You don't get it, you have been served.

 

[Ed B]

The vast majority of pew sitters in a SBC church have absolutely no concept of the Calvinistic and Arminian views, but will rely solely on what ever puff and fluff tickles their ears. God and Godly folks on both sides will be damaged and some will be cast out and assemblies divide over rumor and accusation that behind the scenes is forced by petty power and positional jealousy.

I agree

My mother's SBC pastor is now preaching a Sunday evening series on how the Calvinists are trying to destroy the SBC ...her words. The pew sitters in her Church, including my mother, don't see the threat and after weeks of sermons on Church history she and her friends are figuratively "eye-rolling" and "face-palming" the whole thing because they don't see the relevance.

She is by no means a 5 point Calvinist and would not have known the meaning of TULIP until perhaps now if at all. It just isn't on the radar for her or at her local church. I like her Pastor and he has been doing a good job on the whole, but I think he is making a mistake with this series because it is unnecessary in the context of his congregation. At least according to my mother and her friends, "all he is doing is talking about church history."

 

[Yeshua1]

Here's your toothbrush, here's a bag with your clothes in it, and here are some papers you need to read. Have a nice life.

You don't get it, you have been served.

good news in this is that I am NOT a SBC....

other thing here is does the SBC have to vote on this sort of issue, would leadership allow this to become 'official" doctrine?

 

[Ed B]

good news in this is that I am NOT a SBC....

other thing here is does the SBC have to vote on this sort of issue, would leadership allow this to become 'official" doctrine?

THAT could be seen as creedal and would likely blow the thing up.

I am curious as to whether this site is just a private blog that uses the SBC label or if it is in some way an official site for the SBC. I assume it is a private blog but I don't know that.

 

[Winman]

good news in this is that I am NOT a SBC....

other thing here is does the SBC have to vote on this sort of issue, would leadership allow this to become 'official" doctrine?

I'm not SBC either, but I know what this is.

 

[Iconoclast]

just read the SBC statement as regarding Sotierology...

Would say that there is NOW a baptist haven wide open for classical Arminianists

pretty much all can be saved, jesus died for sins of all, and that God views us 'OK", as Jesus death reconciled world to Himself, as we are not guilty as by birth, denying effects original Sin, but when we chose to sin!

Yes....in other words apostasy.:thumbs: