Being upfront

[Luke2427]

Calvinists should identify themselves AS CALVINISTS to pulpit committees?

Why?

The denomination is open to Calvinism. Calvinism has ALWAYS been present in the denomination and at points it has been the predominate view.

Should Arminians have had to identify themselves 125 years ago when Calvinism was the predominate view point?

R. G. Lee was a Calvinist who made Belvue Baptist Church great. Should Dr. Adrian Rogers who followed him a couple pastorates later have been up front in the pulpit committee meeting and say, "Now before you consider me, I just want you to know that my theology is the DEAD LEVEL OPPOSITE of R. G. Lee's theology,"?

Should all ARMINIAN (except for the eternal security doctrine) pastors say, "Before you vote on me, I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from great Baptists like William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee, etc... I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from that of the first and largest Southern Baptist Seminary. I think you should know that my theology is VERY different from the theology of the Great Awakening which saved Baptist life in America and made Baptists one of the largest Christian movements IN America,"?

Should they?


If we applied this "principle" that some of you articulate about Calvinists needing to wear a scarlet "C" on their chests when they come to pulpit committee meetings; if we applied that to "noncals" for the past 150 years for pastoral candidacy- I think "non-cal" would be almost non-existent within SBC ranks.

But it is a little under-handed to want to apply it NOW when two things are conveniently (for non-cals) true:

#1- Arminianism is the predominate view among Southern Baptists

#2- Calvinism is surging.

Can you not see the almost crookedness of this "principle" non-cals claim should be applied?

 

[Salty]

There are so many things a church wants you to be upfront about -.....

Give a general doctrine statement - if a church is concerned about a certain doctrine - let them expound on it.

some hot issues:
(no particular order)

divorced pastor
Pastoral control
Hippie hair and skimpy skirts
tongues
music
24 hour creation
open/close communion
Baptism- immediate / wait until after classes, ect
End times - pre-/post/A trib
KJ only / multiple-modern version
IFB/association- ect


Years ago, a Free will Baptist church, considered me to be a pastor. I looked over their doctrine statement.

I then wrote down several items I did not fully agree with and graded each item with a 1 - 5. 1 being a minor item and a 5 being a major item. We discuss the differences. I was called anyways.

So the question should be - Who should initially be more upfront - the church or the candidate?

 

[Luke2427]

There are so many things a church wants you to be upfront about -.....

Give a general doctrine statement - if a church is concerned about a certain doctrine - let them expound on it.

some hot issues:
(no particular order)

divorced pastor
Pastoral control
Hippie hair and skimpy skirts
tongues
music
24 hour creation
open/close communion
Baptism- immediate / wait until after classes, ect
End times - pre-/post/A trib
KJ only / multiple-modern version
IFB/association- ect


Years ago, a Free will Baptist church, considered me to be a pastor. I looked over their doctrine statement.

I then wrote down several items I did not fully agree with and graded each item with a 1 - 5. 1 being a minor item and a 5 being a major item. We discuss the differences. I was called anyways.

So the question should be - Who should initially be more upfront - the church or the candidate?

Exactly
______________

 

[quantumfaith]

Calvinists should identify themselves AS CALVINISTS to pulpit committees?

Why?

The denomination is open to Calvinism. Calvinism has ALWAYS been present in the denomination and at points it has been the predominate view.

Should Arminians have had to identify themselves 125 years ago when Calvinism was the predominate view point?

R. G. Lee was a Calvinist who made Belvue Baptist Church great. Should Dr. Adrian Rogers who followed him a couple pastorates later have been up front in the pulpit committee meeting and say, "Now before you consider me, I just want you to know that my theology is the DEAD LEVEL OPPOSITE of R. G. Lee's theology,"?

Should all ARMINIAN (except for the eternal security doctrine) pastors say, "Before you vote on me, I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from great Baptists like William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee, etc... I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from that of the first and largest Southern Baptist Seminary. I think you should know that my theology is VERY different from the theology of the Great Awakening which saved Baptist life in America and made Baptists one of the largest Christian movements IN America,"?

Should they?


If we applied this "principle" that some of you articulate about Calvinists needing to wear a scarlet "C" on their chests when they come to pulpit committee meetings; if we applied that to "noncals" for the past 150 years for pastoral candidacy- I think "non-cal" would be almost non-existent within SBC ranks.

But it is a little under-handed to want to apply it NOW when two things are conveniently (for non-cals) true:

#1- Arminianism is the predominate view among Southern Baptists

#2- Calvinism is surging.



Yes.

 

[GBC Pastor]

It seems to me the question should simply be: "Should pastoral candidates be open and upfront about their theology?" Answer: Yes. Across the board pastoral candidates should be open and honest about their theological views. Particularly if the pastoral candidate has a notion that his beliefs might be in conflict with the views of the church.

At the same time pulpit committees need to be better trained to ask these questions for themselves.

 

[quantumfaith]

It seems to me the question should simply be: "Should pastoral candidates be open and upfront about their theology?" Answer: Yes. Across the board pastoral candidates should be open and honest about their theological views. Particularly if the pastoral candidate has a notion that his beliefs might be in conflict with the views of the church.

At the same time pulpit committees need to be better trained to ask these questions for themselves.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

With the recent and current "turmoil", I suspect many churches will indeed seek information about such....not as some form of "witch hunt" but rather an understanding of theological terrain in their local body of believers.

 

[Luke2427]

It seems to me the question should simply be: "Should pastoral candidates be open and upfront about their theology?" Answer: Yes. Across the board pastoral candidates should be open and honest about their theological views. Particularly if the pastoral candidate has a notion that his beliefs might be in conflict with the views of the church.

But this is not in dispute. I have never one time in my life ever heard ANY one say, "You should lie about what you believe so you can get in that church."

If this happens at all, I think it is so isolated and small in percentage that it is less than miniscule and not worthy of discussion.

NOBODY thinks a pastoral candidate should lie.

The question is should he feel obligated to go in the pulpit committee meeting divulging information about himself that is PERFECTLY consistent with SBC theology and practices?

I think the answer is NO.

If asked by the church- certainly.

However, should SBC leaders be going around using their power and influence to TURN churches AGAINST Calvinist pastoral candidates?

That really is the more important question.

At the same time pulpit committees need to be better trained to ask these questions for themselves.

Why?

They should be taught by WHOM?

Perhaps Jerry Vines should come to churches that HAVE NO PREFERENCE one way or the other and tell them to be sure and ask if the candidate is a Calvinist because Calvinism is dangerous??

How should that go?

 

[quantumfaith]

There are so many things a church wants you to be upfront about -.....

Give a general doctrine statement - if a church is concerned about a certain doctrine - let them expound on it.

some hot issues:
(no particular order)

divorced pastor
Pastoral control
Hippie hair and skimpy skirts
tongues
music
24 hour creation
open/close communion
Baptism- immediate / wait until after classes, ect
End times - pre-/post/A trib
KJ only / multiple-modern version
IFB/association- ect


Years ago, a Free will Baptist church, considered me to be a pastor. I looked over their doctrine statement.

I then wrote down several items I did not fully agree with and graded each item with a 1 - 5. 1 being a minor item and a 5 being a major item. We discuss the differences. I was called anyways.

So the question should be - Who should initially be more upfront - the church or the candidate?

All parties should be upfront, congregation, pastor search committee and prospective pastor. (That is my view)

 

[Luke2427]

All parties should be upfront, congregation, pastor search committee and prospective pastor. (That is my view)

It is not a view, QF.

It is too vague to count as a view.

You have to be more specific.


Should all ARMINIAN (except for the eternal security doctrine) pastors say, "Before you vote on me, I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from great Baptists like William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee, etc... I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from that of the first and largest Southern Baptist Seminary. I think you should know that my theology is VERY different from the theology of the Great Awakening which saved Baptist life in America and made Baptists one of the largest Christian movements IN America,"?

Should they?

 

[quantumfaith]

It is not a view, QF.

It is too vague to count as a view.

You have to be more specific.


Should all ARMINIAN (except for the eternal security doctrine) pastors say, "Before you vote on me, I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from great Baptists like William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee, etc... I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from that of the first and largest Southern Baptist Seminary. I think you should know that my theology is VERY different from the theology of the Great Awakening which saved Baptist life in America and made Baptists one of the largest Christian movements IN America,"?

Should they?

I was perfectly clear Luke, and yes my view is appropriate. You KNOW that this question of theology is currently a devisive in many churches of the SBC. Clarity and "upfrontness" disarms potential conflict. I in no way, disparage the contributions and spiritual influences of great and respected SBC leaders who are identified as "C" . If you think this issue does not divide churches, then I think you are placing your head in the sand. Would you go to a church in view of a call, knowing nothing about the terrain of that church without being clear about your positions? If, you found it later to produce conflict, what would you do about that conflict? Invite and support a local schism?

 

[GBC Pastor]

If this happens at all, I think it is so isolated and small in percentage that it is less than miniscule and not worthy of discussion.


However, should SBC leaders be going around using their power and influence to TURN churches AGAINST Calvinist pastoral candidates?

That really is the more important question.

Actually I know of several instances of it in my state.

SBC leaders turning churches against Calvinism is however a new one for me. I would classify SBC leaders as providing education to many churches on the issues of Calvinism. The church has the autonomy to make up their own minds.

In terms of pulpit committee education I don't simply mean educated on Calvinism. I mean that a pulpit com. should know the position of the church body on issues of soteriology, eschatology, etc... And they should ask questions to make sure their pastoral candidate will not cause division because of his beliefs being in conflict with the church.

It's not a witch hunt Luke. It is simply a need for churches to be better informed and for pastoral candidates to practice transparency.

 

[quantumfaith]

Actually I know of several instances of it in my state.

SBC leaders turning churches against Calvinism is however a new one for me. I would classify SBC leaders as providing education to many churches on the issues of Calvinism. The church has the autonomy to make up their own minds.

In terms of pulpit committee education I don't simply mean educated on Calvinism. I mean that a pulpit com. should know the position of the church body on issues of soteriology, eschatology, etc... And they should ask questions to make sure their pastoral candidate will not cause division because of his beliefs being in conflict with the church.

It's not a witch hunt Luke. It is simply a need for churches to be better informed and for pastoral candidates to practice transparency.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

I was perfectly clear Luke, and yes my view is appropriate. You KNOW that this question of theology is currently a devisive in many churches of the SBC. Clarity and "upfrontness" disarms potential conflict. I in no way, disparage the contributions and spiritual influences of great and respected SBC leaders who are identified as "C" . If you think this issue does not divide churches, then I think you are placing your head in the sand. Would you go to a church in view of a call, knowing nothing about the terrain of that church without being clear about your positions? If, you found it later to produce conflict, what would you do about that conflict? Invite and support a local schism?

And because it IS divisive...

Should Arminian candidates identify themselves as against the theology of the Great Awakening, great baptists like Charles Spurgeon, R. G. Lee, William Carey, W. A. Criswell, etc...?

Should they state up front- I just want this church to know- even though you have stated no preference whatsoever- that I disagree with the theology that was the predominate view point when this denomination was founded. I am closer to the General Baptist strain than the Regular and Separate Baptist strains. I disagree SHARPLY with the theology of the first Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the first several Southern Baptist presidents.

Should they?

 

[Mexdeaf]

This issue only divides churches if both "sides" fail to practice the most important of all Biblical concepts- GRACE.

I can appreciate a solidly Biblical sermon from an Arminian such as Dr. Adrian Rodgers as much as a sermon by Al Mohler, Jr.

People need to get their heads out of the sand and widen their perspective a little bit.

 

[Luke2427]

Actually I know of several instances of it in my state.

I doubt it.

I doubt that anyone lied.

SBC leaders turning churches against Calvinism is however a new one for me. I would classify SBC leaders as providing education to many churches on the issues of Calvinism. The church has the autonomy to make up their own minds.

When they send documents to churches looking for a pastor like "Trouble with Tulip" you think they are simply EDUCATING?

You don't think that is INDOCTRINATING??

You don't have a problem with SBC leaders taking a church that has no preference and using their power and influence to turn them AGAINST one side???

Come now.

In terms of pulpit committee education I don't simply mean educated on Calvinism. I mean that a pulpit com. should know the position of the church body on issues of soteriology, eschatology, etc... And they should ask questions to make sure their pastoral candidate will not cause division because of his beliefs being in conflict with the church.

Most churches are like the denomination. They don't take a stand for either one against the other.

It's not a witch hunt Luke. It is simply a need for churches to be better informed and for pastoral candidates to practice transparency.

Not when the effort is not even remotely neutral.

 

[quantumfaith]

And because it IS divisive...

Should Arminian candidates identify themselves as against the theology of the Great Awakening, great baptists like Charles Spurgeon, R. G. Lee, William Carey, W. A. Criswell, etc...?

Should they state up front- I just want this church to know- even though you have stated no preference whatsoever- that I disagree with the theology that was the predominate view point when this denomination was founded. I am closer to the General Baptist strain than the Regular and Separate Baptist strains. I disagree SHARPLY with the theology of the first Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the first several Southern Baptist presidents.

Should they?

I said Yes, they should be clear that they have a different perspective on theology than those aforementioned.

 

[quantumfaith]

I doubt it.

I doubt that anyone lied.



When they send documents to churches looking for a pastor like "Trouble with Tulip" you think they are simply EDUCATING?

You don't think that is INDOCTRINATING??

You don't have a problem with SBC leaders taking a church that has no preference and using their power and influence to turn them AGAINST one side???

Come now.



Most churches are like the denomination. They don't take a stand for either one against the other.



Not when the effort is not even remotely neutral.

Now Luke, YOU are implying and making assertions. My guess, incorrectly so.

 

[quantumfaith]

Here is an idea, it may even produce more cooperation and light rather than heat. Have information teams, which churches may request. A respected articulate representative of each side who address the church with a presentation of their positions and take questions from the congregants without engaging one another. It could be done with the right personalities and in the proper spirit.

 

[Luke2427]

Now Luke, YOU are implying and making assertions. My guess, incorrectly so.

Which is implying and making an assertion- my guess, incorrectly so. :thumbs:

 

[GBC Pastor]

Well it's a good thing the discussion isn't about your doubts. I know my facts, and I'll leave it at that.

I would call "The Trouble with Tulip" educational. When you have the president of Southern Seminary claiming that anyone who truly investigates soteriology will end up a Calvinist then such documents are needed to provide balance.

Most churches don't take a stand because they are ignorant of the issues, which is why education for pulpit committees is necessary.