Featured Being upfront

I'm not against that.

I am simply saying that the Southern Baptist Convention is open to Calvinism.

So it should be assumed that her churches that do not identify themselves as closed to it are like the denomination of which they are a part.

 

Right. But to bring it back to the subject matter, the Pilgrim were Calvinist separatists and they were followed by Calvinist Puritans.

Should Arminian leaning candidates be up front and say, "Before we go any further I just want you to know that I am severely at theological odds with the pilgrims, puritans and most of the founders of this nation.

 

Ok, great.

What we need then is for Al Mohler to go around to all the churches looking for pastors that he can and tell them to be sure and ask the candidate if his soteriology is consistent with the pilgrims, puritans, founders, Great Awakening, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, R. G. Lee, W. A. Criswell, etc...

And if Calvinism takes the position once again as the predominate view point of the Southern Baptist Convention, which it seems to be doing, then all Calvinist leaders in that day should move heaven and earth to see to it that no Arminian leaning pastoral candidate stands a chance in hell of getting a church in the SBC.

Right?

 

Do you not think these splits took place when young Arminians did the same thing to the SBC 100 years ago?

Do you think Arminians came to largely Calvinist churches touting their Arminianism?

Or do you think they knew the denomination welcomed them so they entered these churches, preached their doctrines and let the best side win (become the predominate view point).

It is REsurging not just surging. It is resurging in a movement it was instrumental in starting to begin with.

In 1700 Baptists had almost died in America. There were only 24 baptist churches in America.

Then the Great Awakening (a thoroughly Calvinistic revival) took hold. By 1790 there were almost 1,000 baptist churches.

It was only 55 years later that Baptists in the South split from the Triennial convention.

There is NO QUESTION, even if you gave Arminians the Sandy Creek movement (which would not be fully accurate) that the SBC was LARGELY Calvinistic in its moorings.

Its first seminary and, to this day- its largest seminary, is Calvinist.

What if the SBC had taken the stand that they would not sanction and support Home and Foreign Missionaries who were not Calvinists?

Two things would happen:

1- There would be no Calvinist vs Arminian issue like there is today in the SBC.

2- There may not BE an SBC. Calvinism had become dry and formal. Were it not for Arminian fervor the movement might have died.


The same thing is true today. Except reverse the positions.

Not when those Arminian churches inherited funds and benefits from Calvinists of a few generations ago.

Ok then. Then NOBODY is doing it right. It is a wash.

The Arminian can't rightly criticize the Calvinist for not being up front when Arminians are not being up front either.

I think neither needs to identify themselves unless asked.

Negligible. Wesley's impact was felt in England mostly in his day and Asbury and his followers did not give us many Baptist churches- just Methodist ones.

Arminians who took over a largely Calvinist denomination and benefited from a missions structure already in place, dug out by Calvinists for the most part, from whence to launch their Arminianism.

And reverse the roles a hundred years ago...

"kinda" is not an accurate term to describe what Calvinists are doing in many SBC churches- like Platt's church for example.

They shouldn't HAVE to- the denomination EMBRACES that teaching- along with the idea that God sure wishes he could save more but he just can't :thumbs:

Yes, Arminians should leave the denomination and start their own. I agree.:thumbs:

 

I gotta go- I got a church activity tonight so I can't address this fully.

But I would start a thread about what this "Spirit of God demanded..." stuff means if I had time.

I think this is a wrong way to think.