Critical Turning Point of American Religious History

Their massive choir visited Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary a couple of years ago. They were great. The students were impressive and Dr. Patterson said that Cederville was one of the few Christian Colleges in the U.S. that knows how to have a chapel service. Then he welcomed their students to apply at SEBTS after they finished college.

 

Agreement between an Independant and a Southern Baptist? Isn't that one of the "signs of the times?"

Seriously, I think that's great. Perhaps we can take an example from this at our level.

 

SBC guy here--admittedly a Founder's Conference guy, but SBC nonetheless.

I think it continues a trend which started when Falwell went SBC, and when Paige Patterson virtually recognized Liberty Seminary as the seventh SBC seminary.

Of course, since Dr. Al Mohler cleaned out the rat's nest in Louisville, Southern Seminary is pretty conservative itself, arguably more conservative than some IFB schools! OF course, we aren't even mentioning John MacArthur and The Master's College and Seminary, who is more Baptist than most Baptists, and who was made an honorary Baptist by the pronouncement of Dr. W. A. Criswell several years ago...

Since the conservative resurgence of the SBC beginning in 1979, a lot of the reasons that IFB folks left the SBC in the 40's, 60's and 60's have gone away.

 

Thoughts and comments? Is this high praise for personal gain by the University, is it conservative "gloating", or is it simply the truth? </font>[/QUOTE]“conservative movement within the SBC. Southern Baptists who hold to historical orthodox Christian doctrine, most notably biblical inerrancy”

How dare those people who want to go back to the inerrancy of the gospel…. Folks, don’t this set off an alarm? God bless men like Adrian Rogers who have stood on the everlasting Word of God as their only source of God speaking to man….

 

Sometimes I've wondered if the SBC has become so arrogant in it's organization if they too could get right with God.

 

That is a bit arrogant of SBC leaders in my opinion. Critical turning point in American Religous History...only time will tell but to most religious watchers it is simply two conservative groups trying to "out conservative" each other. BTW I am Southern Baptist

 

I think it will be footnoted in American history as a brief backlash or perhaps the point at which Southern Baptists moved into historical irrelevance.

But then, that's whay you expected me to say .

Joshua

 

So far, I don't believe that the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC has created a Baptist resurgance in the US. If anything it has caused time and resources that should have been spent on winning the lost to Christ to be wasted on petty infighting. The conservatives have seized control but at a great cost.

 

Addressing the last two posts, let me say this:

1. As for the SBC possibly moving into historical irrelevance, the historical record is that denominations who give into liberal theology are the ones who become irrelevant. The mainline churches have lost droves of members in the past 50 years since they whole-heartedly embraced the theology of unbelief and relativism. For the most part their "mission" efforts now center in social welfare projects that may help people, but result in few, if any, converts to Christ. I was raised in such a denomination, and they have lost over half the members they had when I was a youth, for the simple reason that there is no substance of the "faith once delievered to the saints," only form.

2. As far as the infighting and resources used in rescuing the SBC from its liberal drift, it was a necessary sacrifice, given the historical record noted above. In the midst of "draining the swamp," (fulfilling the great commission), we realized we were up to our posteriors in alligators, so we had to stop and shoot alligators so we could get back to draining the swamp.

 

He is my perspective as a fundamentalist.

First, I think the conservative turnaround in the SBC is remarkable in that I can think of NO precedent for it in American denominational history. No other Protestant denomination that fell into liberalism ever recovered from it. In my hometown of Winston-Salem, NC is an historically VERY liberal SBC church--First Baptist. Just this past Christmas, while at my grandmother's, I sat down and watched their TV broadcast. The pastor spoke of being fed theological liberalism in the liberal seminary at Wake Forest in the late 60's. Then he told of the professor from whom he was learning liberalism and how he later decided that his liberalism was incorrect. He later wrote conservative commentaries, particularly in the area of Lucan studies. I was surprised and thrilled to hear of defense of inerrancy coming from the pastor of that long-time liberal church.

However, I for one am not ready to join the SBC. Though I hear SBCers talk about local chuch autonomy, I am skeptical that they exercise it as well as IFBers can. I would fear that if I gave money to the Cooperative Program, there might be some liberal like Joshua who is still hiding away in the woodwork. If he got a cent of my money, I couldn't bear it! IFBers have operated outside the SBC for 70-80 years. We have colleges and seminaries that are doing great ministries and that have never had a single liberal on their faculty in all their history. For now, I am content to remain on a different track from the SBC. Let them continue their housecleaning and I'll reconsider in 10-20 years!

 

I am delighted to see this. Colleges like Cedarville are endorsed by groups like the GARBC and others, while remailing independent. It sounds like a great thing for the SBC and Cedarville. I am quite familiar with Cedarville and think it is a fine school. Having been saved in a SBC I am always pleased to read something positive. The SBC is still by far the largest non-RC group in the world and obviously the largest Baptist group. I am not sure how Major be can say that they are "moving into historical irrelevance". If the SBC dropped off the face of the earth today they would still be historical relevance.

 

Also ... how is this arrogant on the part of the SBC'ers. One very disturbing thing I have noted on here (the BB) that for some of us, the SBC can do NOTHING right ever. It reminds me of all these little countries always critizing the US, no matter what.

 

Actually, Mark, I did not say that the SBC was becoming irrelevant--someone else said that. I was correcting someone who is against the conservative resurgence, who thinks that recovering the "faith once delivered" is a bad thing.

I think the SBC would have become irrelevant had the liberal drift continued--just another denomination with lots of empty churches and empty members.

 

Dr. Bob, I hope you recognize that while J. Frank Norris did some good things, he was a rampant liar, guilty of perjury, almost certainly an arsonist and probably a murderer.

I've done quite a bit of research on Norris the person since I've been here in Fort Worth and have carefully researched the evidence and the trials of Norris for arson (of his own church building and parsonage) for perjury (he tried to place the blame for the arson on his enemies but the evidence was against him) and for the killing/murder of Dexter Chipps by Norris in his study (Norris claimed he shot in self-defense, but he shot four times, Chipps took three bullets in the back, and there was no gun found on Dexter Chipps).

It's a fascinating story that I hope to turn into a book one day.

 

Romans 12:3 don't think more highly of yourself then you ought.

The SBC is so proud of their baptist heritage and turn around that they go and start churches without baptist in the name!
Churches and denominations die because they become irrelevent. Is the SBC important, well to 16+ million people worldwide it is, but when compared to 6 billion or even 250 million in the US we should be very careful about claiming victory so proudly. We have a lot of work to do.

 

But those who left the NBC went on to accomplish a great deal and to leave strong churches, schools, and mission boards in place for later generations. There is no way to know if they might have won if they had stayed in. They judged for themselves at the time that they could not win and so they left. I think history will be conclude that they made the right decision.

Another thought. Liberalism and modernism in the 1920s was a powerful and united force. At that time, history seemed to be on their side, and fundamentalists were not well equipped to answer their attacks and their strategies. When the conservatives in the 70s and 80s in the SBC began to fight against the liberals, it was a different story. By that time it was evident that liberalism spelled death for the churches that adopted it as all of the major denominations were in a steep decline. In the 20s, it was easy for liberals to portray fundamentalists as a bunch of ignorant, backwoods, anti-education bumpkins. By the 70s, it was easy for conservatives to say "Look at what happens to churches that adopt liberalism. They die". That argument could not be made in the NBC in the 1920s because liberalism had not yet failed. However, that argument carried the day in the 70s and 80s in the SBC because it was empirically verifiable.