Featured SBC- Hatfields vs McCoys?

This is what I am talking about in the OP.

#1. It is not true that "non-calvinists" do not go in and try to convert Calvinist churches in the SBC. If they never did this, then the SBC would still be largely reformed as it was in its moorings. No, the SBC was not exclusively Calvinistic, but the great majority of the SBC was. No one disputes this just like no one disputes that by the 1950's or so the SBC was largely "non-calvinistic".

#2. It does not matter if Arminians seek Arminianize churches or if Calvinists seek to Calvinize churches. As long as either side is forthright in their endeavor, it is perfectly fine.

The problem is when either group tries to define or redefine the denomination by means outside of ordinary ministry. For example, preaching, praying, singing and teaching are ordinary means. If Arminians, in a forthright manner, introduce their sincere soteriological convictions into churches by these means and the churches embrace them- fine. That's called playing fair.

If Arminians can build Great Commission, Christ-honoring churches and seminaries BETTER than Calvinists- then the SBC OUGHT to become largely Arminian.

And the reverse is equally true. If Calvinists can build Great Commission, Christ-honoring churches and seminaries BETTER than Arminians- then the SBC OUGHT to become largely Calvinistic.

What is NOT acceptable is when one tries to control the denomination by means other than preaching, praying, singing and teaching.

THAT'S what this letter is. It tries to stem the rising tide of Calvinism in the denomination by attacking other good, Great Commission, Christ honoring ministries.

The only way Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, etc... should attempt to stem the tide of Calvinism is by building churches through ordinary means of the Gospel which embrace their particular soteriological convictions.

 

Brother Bob, both sides have tried to do this at various points in the denomination's history. I contend there is nothing wrong with this as long as it is done through forthright and ordinary means of ministry.

If Arminianism produces stronger churches and more preachers for the pulpits of SBC churches then it SHOULD- I repeat SHOULD take over the SBC. The FACTS are that at one point Arminians DID unreform the SBC.

But churches like Belvue Baptist prospered and grew and won people to Christ- more power to Dr. Rogers for that.

But yo keep in mind, Brother Bob, that Dr. R. G. Lee, who pastored Belvue before Dr. Adrian Rogers, was a Calvinist. Dr. Rogers simply came in preaching his particular soteriological convictions and the church embraced them.

Good for him. As long as he is building the church, exalting the King and expanding the Kingdom- BRAVO!

But the SAME is true of Calvinists who build great churches and turn out of their seminaries great preachers.

As long as they are reforming the SBC through ordinary means of ministry while exalting the King and expanding the Kingdom- BRAVO!

What is NOT OK is when one side or the other tries to marginalize, ostracize and attack the other side who are, with their soteriological view point, expanding the Kingdom.

THAT is what this letter does and it is not good.

 

Winman, you did not read what you are responding to very well at all.

Reread it, please. I said the SBC was LARGELY Calvinistic in her moorings.

No one disputes that.

So "non-calvinists" did UNreform the SBC at some point to get us to the place where the SBC majority is "non-calvinistic".

I could agree with this, but this is not what is happening. Non-Cal churches have complained for years of Calvinists "sneaking" into their churches and then attempting to force their views on a non-Cal congregation. You almost NEVER hear of an non-Cal pastor doing this.

Why?

Do you dispute that churches should grow and the Kingdom should expand by means of preaching, teaching, singing and praying?

Why not?

If the church votes you in to be their pastor and teacher, why should you not teach the Word of God the way you understand it?

I said that both Calvinists and Arminians should be forthright when they take churches.

If the church has a particular soteriological viewpoint that they do not wish to be challenged, they simply ask the trial pastor what perspective he will promote. If he is forthright then he absolutely SHOULD promote what he said he would promote.

If the church, like the denomination, does not take a stand one way or the other and they hire a man because he is a gifted preacher and chuch builder then he has done nothing wrong by building that church the way he understands the Scripture to command it to be built.

Dr. Adrian Rogers took a Calvinistic church in Belvue and UNreformed it. I don't have a problem with it. I love and respect both Belvue and Dr. Rogers greatly. As long as he is exalting the King and expanding the Kingdom- great. But make no mistake, the great Dr. R. G. Lee who pastored directly before him was a Calvinist and taught the people the Doctrines of Grace while there.

This happens on both sides and which ever side is doing the best job winning souls, building churches, exalting the King and expanding the Kingdom SHOULD do so.

This is not thought through very well, in my opinion. I have said repeatedly that both Calvinists and non-calvinists should be forthright.

But MOST SBC churches follow suit with the official position of the SBC denomination- which is that they do not have an official position.

Most churches hire pastors based on their God-giftedness to preach and build churches.

And that's how they SHOULD hire pastors.

That's how Belvue hired "non-cal" Dr. Rogers after being led for many years by thoroughly Calvinistic Dr. R. G. Lee.

The current pastor of the great First Baptist in Dallas is not a Calvinist. But the might man of God, Dr. W. A. Criswell who led the church to become the largest protestant church in the world at one point was absolutely a Calvinist.

Should the pastor who followed Dr. Criswell have said- "Look, before you hire me I want you to know that I intend to TOTALLY undermine Dr. Criswell's soteriological teaching?"

I honestly don't think so. The church asks, "Do you ascribe to the Baptist Faith and Message?" The pastor says, "Absolutely."

That's that.

Non-calvinsts are not going around saying, "Hey, I am proudly opposed to the soteriological teachings that this denomination was largely founded upon. I am thoroughly against the doctrines of the Reformation and great Baptists like Charles Spurgeon. I just wanted you to know, before you hired me."

...nor SHOULD they.

Then build churches that believe what you believe.

But asking the denomination and the churches of the denomination to totally undermine nearly two centuries of policy of not disallowing either viewpoint is reckless and idiotic.

If "non-cals" had adopted that policy and abode by it for the past 100 years the SBC would to this day still be largely reformed in their soteriology.

 

I understand what you are saying Brother Bob. I really do.

But I think what you might not be considering yet is that neither the denomination NOR the vast majority of churches have ever taken a stand against either soteriology.

The denomination welcomes both "cals" and "non-cals" to preach their particular understanding of the Doctrines of Grace.

This denominational policy is reflected in the vast majority of the churches that make it up.

If the pulpit committee, representing the church that appointed it, does not express a preference one way or the other they are being consistent with the denominational policy.

The Calvinist pastor AS WELL as the non-calvinist pastor should feel welcome to pastor any church that does not specify one way or the other.

 

And that's part of the problem there. The dishonesty emanating from the use of the word "traditional".

The MOST "traditional" view of the SBC is that of the Doctrines of Grace.

The SBC was largely Calvinistic in her origins.

To insinuate that this is not the case is manipulative and dishonest.