SBC- Hatfields vs McCoys?

[Luke2427]

If some people press the issue in SBC it will emblazon a feud that will lead to the crippling or death of the SBC.

Page Patterson, Jerry Vines and other well respected brethren seem determined to turn up the heat on this feud that will likely kill us as a movement.

The document "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation" is sure to hurt feelings unnecessarily and to incite a fight between Calvinists and non-Calvinists that the SBC cannot afford.

Let's face it- we NEED each OTHER.

Debating it on a site like this one is good and healthy if done properly. But turning it into a divisive issue in the denomination is a deadly move.

Let each side produce its own seminaries, churches and preachers. Let churches choose their pastors based on their ability to expound the Scriptures and further the Great Commission.

EVERYONE agrees that neither viewpoint is a missions killer.
EVERYONE acknowledges that people from both viewpoints build wonderful churches.

If the SBC folks of the more Arminian persuasion produce more preachers, more churches and more high quality seminaries- fine. If through their relentless pursuit of the Great Commission THEY inadvertantly eradicate Calvinism from the denomination- then so be it. Let God be God.

If the SBC folks of the more Calvinistic persuasion do the same- fine.

But let's stop dividing the denomination over it. Let's stop taking pot shots at one another.

BECAUSE I AM TELLING YOU THAT A WAR BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES IN THE DENOMINATION WILL END NO BETTER THAN IT DID FOR THE HATFIELDS AND MCCOYS.

The collateral damage in the wake of this feud is family members, loved ones, friends, and struggling churches already on the brink.

The immediate damage will be the loss of the SBC as an appreciable influence in this culture.

The results of THAT- are terrifying.

 

[Salty]

The same could be said of any major issue:
KJVO, legalism, single pastor vs plurality of elder, ect, ect, ect.

The problem comes in when one group demands that a certain practice is a non-waiverable doctrine.

 

[Tom Bryant]

If some people press the issue in SBC it will emblazon a feud that will lead to the crippling or death of the SBC.

Page Patterson, Jerry Vines and other well respected brethren seem determined to turn up the heat on this feud that will likely kill us as a movement.

The document "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation" is sure to hurt feelings unnecessarily and to incite a fight between Calvinists and non-Calvinists that the SBC cannot afford.

Let's face it- we NEED each OTHER.

Debating it on a site like this one is good and healthy if done properly. But turning it into a divisive issue in the denomination is a deadly move.

Let each side produce its own seminaries, churches and preachers. Let churches choose their pastors based on their ability to expound the Scriptures and further the Great Commission.

EVERYONE agrees that neither viewpoint is a missions killer.
EVERYONE acknowledges that people from both viewpoints build wonderful churches.

If the SBC folks of the more Arminian persuasion produce more preachers, more churches and more high quality seminaries- fine. If through their relentless pursuit of the Great Commission THEY inadvertantly eradicate Calvinism from the denomination- then so be it. Let God be God.

If the SBC folks of the more Calvinistic persuasion do the same- fine.

But let's stop dividing the denomination over it. Let's stop taking pot shots at one another.

BECAUSE I AM TELLING YOU THAT A WAR BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES IN THE DENOMINATION WILL END NO BETTER THAN IT DID FOR THE HATFIELDS AND MCCOYS.

The collateral damage in the wake of this feud is family members, loved ones, friends, and struggling churches already on the brink.

The immediate damage will be the loss of the SBC as an appreciable influence in this culture.

The results of THAT- are terrifying.

Good word! I appreciate you saying this!

 

[saturneptune]

Excellent post. Both sides are behaving like third grade spoiled brats. The first thing I would do is fire all those who are reponsible for starting the letter on one side, and shutting down Dr. White's loud mouth on the other.

What a price to pay, potentially destroying a denomination, and tearing up local churches over such a nonsensical issue. Where do these people come from?

 

[Luke2427]

The same could be said of any major issue:
KJVO, legalism, single pastor vs plurality of elder, ect, ect, ect.

The problem comes in when one group demands that a certain practice is a non-waiverable doctrine.

Right.

There is nothing wrong with feeling strongly about the way you believe. There is nothing wrong with preaching the Bible the way you honestly see it.
There is nothing wrong with building seminaries that espouse your particular scriptural viewpoints.
There is nothing wrong with preaching your viewpoints.

What is wrong is when you try to ostracize good people who are doing those things with the opposite viewpoints- good people who are building good churches, training good preachers in good seminaries, and doing a good job carrying out the Great Commission.

The ONLY reason I can think of that people would do this is because they are afraid that their viewpoint is losing ground to the opposite viewpoint.

Listen, the ONLY way your viewpoint should be preserved is through the ordinary means of ministry. If the churches and seminaries which espouse your viewpoint cannot preserve it simply by teaching it- then it should fail.

If you have to attack, demonize and ostracize other good Christians and good Christian ministries to keep your viewpoint alive- then your viewpoint SHOULD perish.

I half expect the "non-calvinists" behind this to try to RESOLVE Calvinism out of the denomination this year at the convention.

If Calvinism is taking over because Calvinism is, at this point, producing more preachers and missionaries and evangelistic churches- then it SHOULD take over.

If Arminianism reigns in this denomination for the same reasons- then it SHOULD reign.

What NEITHER side should do is start sniping at the other side and try to "resolve" the other side out of the denomination.

 

[saturneptune]

If this stuff ever infects our local church, I might lose, but I would call for a vote to withdraw from the SBC. This has nothing to do with which side one is on.

 

[kyredneck]

If some people press the issue in SBC it will emblazon a feud that will lead to the crippling or death of the SBC.....
Let's face it- we NEED each OTHER.....

Good word! I appreciate you saying this!

I was raised SB, still have family & friends who are SB, I've seen this feud brewing for quite some time; and don't get me wrong, I'm NOT wishing a split upon you. I personally desire that we ALL could be more tolerant of one another. It seems the Baptists would 'declare' one another out of existence.

From my angle of observing here at this locale there seems to be more resentment from non-Cal towards Cals (among SBs I know) than vice versa.

I read the statement and it seems to me to correctly portray 'traditional SB doctrine' that I was taught growing up in a SB church.

 

[Luke2427]

I was raised SB, still have family & friends who are SB, I've seen this feud brewing for quite some time; and don't get me wrong, I'm NOT wishing a split upon you. I personally desire that we ALL could be more tolerant of one another. It seems the Baptists would 'declare' one another out of existence.

From my angle of observing here at this locale there seems to be more resentment from non-Cal towards Cals (among SBs I know) than vice versa.

I read the statement and it seems to me to correctly portray 'traditional SB doctrine' that I was taught growing up in a SB church.

What both sides need to acknowledge is that there have been periods of time when both sides represented the vast majority of the denomination. There was a time, in its origins, when the VAST majority of the denomination were Calvinists. Then there came a time when Calvinism took a dive in this nation and the VAST majority of SBC folks were Arminian (except for security).

Now the majority is "arminian" but Calvinism is growing rapidly. It may be another changing of the guard.

But these changings of the guard ought to occur naturally. When Calvinism dries up and Arminianism produces the more potent preachers and churches and missionaries- fine.
When after a while of that Arminianism dries up and Calvinism begins to produce the more vibrant preachers and churches and missionaries- fine.

But when we go to war against one another and try to define the denomination through means other than ordinary ministry- we have then begun to tread the path to destruction.

Let things occur naturally.

 

[Ed B]

If some people press the issue in SBC it will emblazon a feud that will lead to the crippling or death of the SBC.

Page Patterson, Jerry Vines and other well respected brethren seem determined to turn up the heat on this feud that will likely kill us as a movement.

The document "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation" is sure to hurt feelings unnecessarily and to incite a fight between Calvinists and non-Calvinists that the SBC cannot afford.

Let's face it- we NEED each OTHER.

Debating it on a site like this one is good and healthy if done properly. But turning it into a divisive issue in the denomination is a deadly move.

Let each side produce its own seminaries, churches and preachers. Let churches choose their pastors based on their ability to expound the Scriptures and further the Great Commission.

EVERYONE agrees that neither viewpoint is a missions killer.
EVERYONE acknowledges that people from both viewpoints build wonderful churches.

If the SBC folks of the more Arminian persuasion produce more preachers, more churches and more high quality seminaries- fine. If through their relentless pursuit of the Great Commission THEY inadvertantly eradicate Calvinism from the denomination- then so be it. Let God be God.

If the SBC folks of the more Calvinistic persuasion do the same- fine.

But let's stop dividing the denomination over it. Let's stop taking pot shots at one another.

BECAUSE I AM TELLING YOU THAT A WAR BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES IN THE DENOMINATION WILL END NO BETTER THAN IT DID FOR THE HATFIELDS AND MCCOYS.

The collateral damage in the wake of this feud is family members, loved ones, friends, and struggling churches already on the brink.

The immediate damage will be the loss of the SBC as an appreciable influence in this culture.

The results of THAT- are terrifying.

Very good post. I hope this divisiveness dies down quickly and we can carry on with working together side by side allowing room for differences in the finer points of theology.

If this turns into a pitched battle the blood will be on the hands of leadership. This angst and division is not coming from the pews.

 

[saturneptune]

I hope this divisiveness dies down quickly and we can carry on with working together side by side allowing room for differences in the finer points of theology.

If this turns into a pitched battle the blood will be on the hands of leadership. This angst and division is not coming from the pews.

No, it is not coming from the pews. It is coming from immature leaders within the SBC and loud mouth radio commentators. It is not worthy of the Lord's work. Very good post.

 

[Oldtimer]

"It's not coming from the pews" is right. I was at church today from about 8:30 am until about 2:30 pm. Not once did I hear SBC mentioned. Not during the casual conversation before/after Bible Study, Worship, and Fellowship. Nor, during those times, either.

 

[preachinjesus]

"It's not coming from the pews" is right. I was at church today from about 8:30 am until about 2:30 pm. Not once did I hear SBC mentioned. Not during the casual conversation before/after Bible Study, Worship, and Fellowship. Nor, during those times, either.

I'm 100% convinced that the vast majority of the people in our pews and chairs on Sunday could care less about these idiotic controversies. They don't care about these things not because they are ignorant or have a shallow theology, but because they often understand the purpose of church better than the staff members.

As I've said in the other thread: this is a silly debate to waste time on for our convention. I believe we have strong biblicists on both sides here and also have passionate, missions oriented people on both sides. I also think we are big enough denominationally to share space and not disfellowship over this.

Humility is the utmost virtue here.

 

[saturneptune]

Humility is the utmost virtue here.

Bull's eye. It is almost comical to think of the word humility when thinking about those who wrote the letter, and the radio entertainer who is opposing the letter. There is no way the Lord is in two opposing self centered clowns trying to get the most attention. It almost reminds me of the Pharisees praying in the New Testement on the street corner with the eyes squinted open to see who was watching.

 

[Amy.G]

Calvinism aside, have any of you read these articles? They read like they were written by someone who has barely studied the bible. They are just a mismash of pitifully put together so called "doctrines". They don't even sound Baptist. It's very concerning to me that so many theologians signed it. Can anyone say apostasy?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Calvinism aside, have any of you read these articles? They read like they were written by someone who has barely studied the bible. They are just a mismash of pitifully put together so called "doctrines". They don't even sound Baptist. It's very concerning to me that so many theologians signed it. Can anyone say apostasy?

You can, but I am not surprised by that.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Bull's eye. It is almost comical to think of the word humility when thinking about those who wrote the letter, and the radio entertainer who is opposing the letter. There is no way the Lord is in two opposing self centered clowns trying to get the most attention. It almost reminds me of the Pharisees praying in the New Testement on the street corner with the eyes squinted open to see who was watching.

I agree. But in my observations here, it does appear to me that there is one side which wants to try to shove its beliefs down the throats of the other, and when those on the other side cough them back up and out, they get accused of heresy and apostasy (see Amy G.'s post, for a prime example).

 

[preachinjesus]

Calvinism aside, have any of you read these articles? They read like they were written by someone who has barely studied the bible. They are just a mismash of pitifully put together so called "doctrines". They don't even sound Baptist. It's very concerning to me that so many theologians signed it. Can anyone say apostasy?

I'm not defending the document but I do know a couples of guys who have rather distinguished degrees did have a hand in crafting the document. These are men I respect theologically and academically because of their credentials.

I would challenge anyone saying its a poorly framed document to put together a better one.

As for the "apostasy" charge...now you're just being dramatic. It isn't apostasy. Frankly, I would defend most of what they are saying and take on anyone (head-to-head debate...like a steel cage match...yeah!) who says it is apostasy. If that is the charge...I'd say you don't know much about apostasy.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I'm not defending the document but I do know a couples of guys who have rather distinguished degrees did have a hand in crafting the document. These are men I respect theologically and academically because of their credentials.

I would challenge anyone saying its a poorly framed document to put together a better one.

As for the "apostasy" charge...now you're just being dramatic. It isn't apostasy. Frankly, I would defend most of what they are saying and take on anyone (head-to-head debate...like a steel cage match...yeah!) who says it is apostasy. If that is the charge...I'd say you don't know much about apostasy.

Oh, you are wrong. An apostate is anyone who doesn't believe like her.

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree. But in my observations here, it does appear to me that there is one side which wants to try to shove its beliefs down the throats of the other, and when those on the other side cough them back up and out, they get accused of heresy and apostasy (see Amy G.'s post, for a prime example).

AmyG's post was right on the money. If you look at the founders of the SBC as was posted in an earlier thread, you will see this letter is a falling away from the original intent of the founders. That is apostasy. denial of clear scripture is apostasy. Sorry you do not like it, but that is what it is.

Michael, you have gone off and started your own group-celtic-anabaptist-druid- communion. Whatever you call it. I am not sure you are being objective here. History is history. If these people want to leave as you have and invent their own group, let them go. For them to attack the Historic faith is not acceptable.
There is already reaction taking place nationwide. it is not a small controversy. It is small minded to think it is.
They made it public, now it is open for public scrutiny...including Dr.White, Al moehler, and any others who want to get involved.

Like here on the BB. as soon as someone takes a biblical stand, there are those who want to censor, or minimize the person rather than what was said.
Stick on point. Apostasy from the historic faith is real just like Korahs rebellion was real apostasy in real time.
Close your eyes if you want to. They went public, and now the response and correction are also public.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[menageriekeeper]

who cares what the founders thought? They can be wrong just as the writers of this article was/is wrong. As an Arminian, I agree with Luke. We in the SBC don't need this sort of devicivenss. Surely there are better things to do than attack one another on what is absolutely a non-essential. Most in the pew Baptists don't care how anyone thinks the the Lord accomplished His work. They are just glad He did!! As we should be.

I can argue against Calvinism all day long, but in the END, I expect I'll be arguing the same points in heaven with the same people until Christ sets us all straight! We take these discussions much, much too far when we apply them to the salvation or lack thereof of another. We ought to know better!