Would the LORD LEAD someone to the SBC????

First of all, you didn't leave the "Independent Fundamental Baptist movement" for the "Southern Baptist Convention". You left an IFB church for a conservative SBC church. Big difference

Secondly, even though a number of folks in your new church favor the NIV, if you prefer the KJV, you should continue using the KJV. Thirdly, what you call CCM only seems modern right now. What is currently considered classic and comfortable was once considered too modern for certain churches.

If you are worshipping the Lord in spirit and truth, and being taught sound doctrine, it sounds like you are in a pretty good church.

 

Sounds to me like you are doing what the Lord has led you to do. It is mistaken to think that God only blesses certain groups of Christians because of what they do or what translation of the Bible they accept or what music they listen to. It is pretty clear to me, by the abundance of God's blessing on Christians of all stripes and varieties, that God is blessing a wide variety of people who honor him. It is also mistaken to think that being "conservative" equals being correct.

I believe it is important for people to be comfortable and secure in their faith, while at the same time to be uncomfortable with the fact that there are lost people all around who need to hear the gospel. Paul in I Corinthians 9:22 says "To the weak, I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

Fundamentalism is only a human interpretation of the things of God which all of us only see dimly at this point. It is no more valid than any other expression of the Christian faith, as long as that expression honors and acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. I have many friends who attend independent, fundamentalist Baptist churches and I don't let that be a barrier to my fellowship with them, although it is unfortunate that some of them can't understand grace and won't fellowship with me because I do not accept some of their human interpretations of scripture or their human expressions of faith.

I've witnessed God's blessing first hand in all kinds of churches, from Catholics to Charismatics. I think He, in his infinite wisdom and sovreignty, is far bigger than any of us wants him to be. I'm glad you discovered the spirit's leading and you've found a place where you are free in the spirit to worship God.

 

Perhaps a better question is:

Would God lead someone to leave the SBC for the confining legalism of many IFBs?

Sorry couldn't resist painting with a broad brush.

What's that old joke?

A Presbyterian, Methodist, and SB were discussing what denomination Jesus would join if He were on earth today. After the Presbyterian and Methodist made their most valid case that Jesus would be a part of their group, the Southern Baptist simply replied -- if Jesus were alive today why would he change denominations?

Baptized by immersion in Southern Galilee by a Baptist makes one ...

 

Interesting question. I think the SBC has a number of problems and my response would be generally negative toward your question for a number of reasons.

1. A number of SBC are conservative, traditional churches, committed to biblical orthodoxy. The problem arises with commands regarding maintaining a purity of doctrine and fellowship (Rom 16:17-18; 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; 2 Thess 3; Titus 1; 2 John; 3 John; Jude). The SBC over the years has shown a tolerance for false doctrine and and ecclesiastical involvement with those who teach false doctrine or refuse to biblically deal with those who teach false doctrine. To their credit, the SBC has turned back to the biblical direction. If they succeed in fully rescuing the convention, it will be one of the few times in church history when biblical doctrine has returned once it has left a major convention/denomination. There is a widespread misunderstanding with the use of terms today such as fundamental, evangelical, new evangelical, conservative, etc. I would be for a return to the historic usage of these terms when there two groups: There were the fundamentalists/evangelicals/conservatives and the New-evangelicals. There was never a historical distinction between fundamentalist and conservative. The attempt to do so in the SBC today is misguided, IMO. It is an attempt to separate from some "fundamentalists" who have no idea about historic fundamentalism. I am a fundamentalist, in the historic connotation. I am an evangelical in the historic connotation. I am a conservative in the historic connotation. The SBC is largely New-evangelical with few exceptions.

2. The Bible version issue is a non-issue. If all things were equal (a big "if"), I would choose a church using the NIV over a church using the KJV any day. My interest is in doctrine, not in which version they use. Those who make it an issue belie a misunderstanding of biblical doctrine. That issue does not deal with the SBC but with Christianity in general.

3. The music issue is a bit more complicated. The CCM scene has shown a disregard for the transcendance of God, and have trivialized much of his majesty. While the zeal of many of these people must be admired, their judgment and discernment is called into question. There is a transcendant holiness and majesty of God that demands communication in a proper medium. But that issue really has nothing to do with the SBC. It is an issue that addresses all churches.

All told, I do not believe God would lead someone into compromise. I have a lot of good brethren friends here who are in the SBC (Tom, Robert, and some others). I disagree with them and wish they would take a different route but I consider them godly friends with a desire to please God. I do not say that against them in anyway. I think the SBC is back to the right but I am not convinced they have come far enough in separating from false doctrine and false practice.

 

I'm not disagreeing that the Lord didn't move you from where you are but I can say you should find a church that is not teaching heresy. This will only discourage you in the future. The bible says we should all be in one accord. If different translations are being used you will not be in one accord. For they all have differences. Please don't put down a system Like, Bbf, Sbc, Lfb, etc.. It starts by looking at that churches bible doctrine to see if they are scriptual.

 

Heresy?!? Is this a common charge from the KJVO camp, that using other translations is heresy?

Surely Mr. Lanius and his family already know that it is possible to be "of one accord" with people who use other translations.

Joshua

 

Guess I'm not "common" then, cause I'm in that camp and I don't believe that. KJVO for ME ... whatever works for others is fine for them, as long as it's sound doctrine.

Ditto what Jonathan said.

 

I really can't understand what the "fuss" is all about. Our pastor uses the KJV;Our Sunday School Class uses the NIV. Members use other versions, but I think we are all in one accord.

Personally, I find the NIV easier to understand. When in doubt, I compare versions.

What difference does it make?

As to the original question, I believe that the Holy Spirit leads us to a church in order to serve where we are needed.

 

You reveal your own lack of knowledge of how the SBC functions as a convention in this post. It is a typical IFB accusation that holds no water.

Every level of SBC life is autonomous. To accuse the SBC of tolerating false doctrine or unbiblical ecclesiastical involvement is to fail to recognize the structure and function of the SBC.

Do you define "new-evangelicalism" in line with the original introduction of the term by Ockenga or more in line with some type of hybrid evangelicalism that flirts with more moderate thought?

 

What??? I understand that the SBC is a convention and that the churches are autonomous. That has nothing to do with what I was referring to. The unbiblical ecclesiastical involvement involves churches supporting schools that tolerated and taught false doctrine. The churches should have demanded immediate resignations or pulled their support. Each church is autonomous; they could have done that. Most refused. The SBC is only as good as the churches that are in association with it.

Ockenga's usage. However, over the last 60 years, Ockenga's kind of "new evangelical" opened the door to the hybrid type. Doctrine became a side issue such as it did in the NAE and the emphasis became unity rather than truth. Thus those who flirt with moderate (and modern) thought maintained equal standing with those who held to biblical truth. The problems in the New Evangelical movement was the philosophy that lead them to do what they did in the late 30s and 40s when they separated from the evangelicals/fundamentalists.

 

And this shows your lack of knowledge regarding the resurgence process. The whole resurgence was the effort of the pew people (orchestrated by such men as Patterson & Pressler) to demand immediate response from the seminaries, boards, etc. Most churches did not "refuse". Most were simply unaware of what was taking place. Similar to sending your child to an IFB school and not realizing they might be taught a person can only come to Christ if he is led to Christ using a KJV.

I am tempted to pursue a discussion regarding what classifies as false doctrine (and who is the judge of that criteria) but will abstain. I have wasted a lot of breath talking with IFBs on this subject and see no need to waste anymore at this point.

Without the time to explicate the rise of the "new evangelical" movement, I will simply suggest that most SB churches (of the resurgence persuasion) would seem to fall in line with early new evangelicalism which was actually just a revival of the earlier Reformation rooted evangelicalism.

The term evangelicalism has such theological, ideological, and historical diversity that it is difficult to pinpoint it to the extent you seem to be suggesting. I would want to take evangelicalism as a whole back to its Reformation roots of sola fida / sola Scriptura. You seem to refer to the form of evangelicalism that emerged from the Fundamentalist movement of the mid-19th century, which gave way to another hybrid form of Fundamentalism today that resembles both the earlier Fundamentalist movement combined with elements of the Holiness movement (in areas such as seperation).

The modern evangelical movement (and where I would place most SBCers) embraces the fundamentals without demanding the secondary matters that the Fundy/Holiness groups of today would demand.

The new or "Neo" evangelical movement embraces a form of diversity unknown to its initial leaders. If I understand how you are employing the term new evangelical, I would argue that most modern SBCers fall closer to the evangelical perspective than the neo-group.

Although labels carry a variety of meanings, I would refer to myself as a conservative evangelical in the historic sense of the word and I fall well within the mainstream of the SBC.

 

This is my understanding of the resurgence. I agree with you. The resurgence did come from the pew when people found out what was going on. The problem was that they didn’t know what was going on. There was a blind loyalty to the convention and to the coop. They were sending money to the cooperative without any accountability for it. That is one of the problems with the SBC. However, to say I don’t understand is simply wrong. I agree with you. Had they been keeping proper accountability with their money, that would have never happened, at least under the guise of the Southern Baptists.

I think this would be a great conversation. False doctrine would be a good place to begin. However, if you are not willing to discuss it, not much will be accomplished. False doctrine is anything contrary to Scripture and Scripture is the judge of that. Where someone can be shown to be in violation of Scripture, they should be confronted, exposed, and separated from if they refuse to repent. The discussion is about what is essential or central vs. what is peripheral. For instance, we can different on textual issues of the Greek text; we cannot differ on inspiration and inerrancy. One is clearly revealed; the other is not. We can differ on the timing of the rapture; we cannot differ on fact of the second coming.

With due respect, I think that if you take time to explicate the new evangelical position, you will find that it is not a revival of the reformation movement. Fundamentalism/evangelicalism was; new evangelicalism was a departure from that. Fundamentalism/evangelicalism stood firmly in the line of historic separatist principles that lead men of the reformation out of the church of false doctrine and caused them to stand up to her.

This is a misunderstanding of fundamentalism. There are many groups who call themselves fundamentalists who are not historic fundamentalists, which is why I specifically use that term. I am a historic fundamentalist, not a neo- or pseudo-fundamentalists. In essence, I am an evangelical, in the historic sense. I would argue that the vast majority of the SBC is not that, as can be demonstrated from their associations and tolerances. I don’t have time to go into that now but I would enjoy the conversation later. I must run to a prior commitment.

I would love to pursue this later as time permits.

 

I say, leave the SBC, y'all and go the Primitive Baptists..... just kidding.
I don't know much about the SBC here in the states but in the Philippines I'd say 98% of SBC's are liberal, out and out.

 

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me... Where does it say follow me to the SBC?... Not in my KJV!... Brother Glen