Has Southern become closet Presbyterian?

Try reading the text:
#1-They received the word.
#2-They were baptized.
#3-They continually devoted themselves to apostolic doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer.

The evidence of 3,000 conversions was the fact that these were added to the church and progressed in the faith. You seem to be operating under the assumption that this account was written down on that very day and that there must have been some mechanism for counting noses at that very moment, but this assumption lacks biblical support, IMO. If you can find an altar call in that text, you're a more creative exegete than I am. </font>[/QUOTE]Historically baptism and salvation were not separated like we often do. If one were baptized they named Christ as their Lord renouncing the emperor as their lord. That means that at the emperor's option he could have had them executed for naming Christ as their lord and renouncing him as lord. When they were saved they didn't go through a class and then sit in church for awhile. Baptism was a demonstration of their faith. It was serious business to name Christ as their Lord. They could have been executed or have their business boycotted. They could have been without a job. There were 3000 that day that received the word and were baptized that same day. They received the word and showed a response. If there was not a response demanded then how would they have responded.

According to oral tradition it probably was not written down that very day. But obviously it is now and they remembered the event before it was written.

Read what precedes what you quoted, “Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.”

So do you think they responded a few days later. They received and responded that same day.

Are you telling me that you never preach expecting a response to the message God has laid on your heart? Even Spurgeon talked about that to his students. The next time you preach, preach with passion and call people to walk with God and see what happens. It is never wrong to call people to do the right thing.

A New Testament preacher ... has to be surgical.
Oswald Chambers (1874-1917)

John Wesley said, “Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or laymen, such alone will shake the gates of hell and set up the kingdom of God upon the earth.”

When Jesus called His disciples do you think He said think about it. No! He said “Come follow Me.”

The nature of the gospel demands a response.

In Acts 3:19 Peter says, “"Therefore repent ....” Repent is in the imperative. It is a command.

Luke 13:3, "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Mark 1:15, “and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Repent and believe are in the imperative.

2 Cor .5:11, “Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.

Rev. 22:17, “The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost. “ Come is in the imperative.

Exodus 32:26, “then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, "Whoever is for the Lord, come to me!" And all the sons of Levi gathered together to him.

Joshua 24:15, “"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Choose is in the imperative.

1 Kings 18:21, “Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word.”

Invitataions are not just about coming forward to be saved. They are also about pastoral care. That may include prayer, counseling, and a multitude of things.

On one occasion I gave an invitation. As part of the invitation after I had preached on James 1:2-5 I mentioned that maybe someone was going through a serious trial and that possibly nobody could even begin to understand how they felt and they would like someone to pray for them. A lady came forward to ask for prayer. She mentioned that her cousin had just been murdered. We prayed for that lady and the family at that moment in public prayer.

I have never given invitations as a manipulation tool. It is a time for the pastor and staff to be sensitive to the people and allow them to be cared for in any way they feel is necessary. It is a time to show great care. It is not a time to manipulate people. If you knew me very well you would know it is not me nor about me but God. I am very against manipulation. But I am dead serious about calling people to walk with God. I have seen people get mad at me during and after the service. I did not grow up in a Christian home. I pray for the people on a regular basis. I pray for each person I visit.

If you asked me why people come forward I will tell it is because of God at work. It is His hand upon them. It is not about great oratory or manipulation. I am not a very good preacher. But God knows who I am. God wants my faithfulness not great oratory and certainly not manipulation. If I do He will humiliate me until I am humbled.

 

Well, there are so many straw men in that post I could outfit my garden with scarecrows for decades.

Nevertheless, thank you for not trying to prove that there is an altar call in that text, which was my original point that I am assuming you were trying to attack.

 

Do you have issues with altar calls or invitations Seigfried?

 

I still don't understand this thread. What's wrong with Presbyterianism, that we need to stoop to the level of denominational McCarthyism?

 

The problem is that many Southern Baptists want to discredit their SBC heritage and to do that they must create a scapegoat to blame and then rewite history in that vein.

In this particular scenario, the mention of the Presbyterian Church serves to divert honest inquiry away from historical truth and avoids the stigma of being proven wrong.

 

Siegfried is right, this constant smearing of Southern is old hat. Southern is hardly Presbyterian. Presbyterians are covenant theologs. Al Mohler is not a covenant guy, even though he is reformed.

Assuming that calvinism = presbyterianism is ignorance. The particular baptists (of which the SBC came from) were all calvinists.

Johnv, what is right about presbyterianism?

 

Bro. Jeff,

Your question is off topic and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Start another thread if you want to debate altar calls. The point is that this thread is preposterous, as several, including myself, have noted numerous times.

Please provide evidence that Calvinistic soteriology is equivalent to Presbyterianism, or at least some evidence that Southern is departing from historic Baptist distinctives. If you can't do that, this thread has run its course.

Maybe you would be courageous to start a thread on why Bob Griffin, a self-avowed Reformed Baptist, is really a closet Presbyterian. At least there would be some intellectual honesty in that, since he is present to refute such silliness.

 

Daniel David,

Presbyterian deacons perform their biblical function--serving. They leave the leadership/shepherding role to the pastors/elders, as it should be. Not to say their view of elders is entirely correct, but I think their view of deacons is pretty close--at least the ones I've bumped into.

They also tend to be much less man-centered, pragmatic, and humanistic in their philosophy of ministry than a lot of Baptists are.

That's about all I can come up with off the top of my head.

 

Siegfried, of course I meant what they believe.

I am all for the plurality of elders as the primary government for the assembly.

 

Did anyone mention debate? Perhaps you should quit reading into posts what you wish for them to say.

You have indeed noted. Please don't confuse that with proven.

What kind of evidence would suit you Bro. Seigfried. If you are so foolish as to reduce the argument to "Southern = Calvinist, Calvinist = Pres." then I would again request that you stop reading into the posts.

I find it quite ironic that you who earlier made sarcastic reference to straw men would turn around an produce a fine one yourself. Pot - meet kettle.


Now, if you are reading this (and not reading into) post please make note of the following lines.

1. I would like to know if you take issue with invitations. If you feel this is off topic please PM me. I'm simply interested in your position and it's reasons.

2. Southern has indeed departed from baptist distinctives.

First, it's become quite popular amongst reformed baptists to intimate that all early baptist leaders were calvinist. Indeed, some were but not all, nor was our present day SBC formed as a calvinist institution.

This, however, is not the primary issue with Southern.

As has been mentioned, they are strongly covenental in their theology which again isn't a strict departure from classic baptist theology but is outside of the norm.

They've also partnered with a Pres. seminary on numerous occasions and specifically in regards to literature and chapel lectures.

Isolated these events seem to be nothing of import but when one begins to put them together the picture looks less and less "baptist".

I'm a fan of the scholarship and commitment to inerrancy that southern is known for. That does not prevent me from noticing some weaknesses in their positions.

 

Lots. Probably as much as there is with most Baptist congregations.

 

1. So are you saying Southern Seminary officially takes the position that all early baptist leaders were Calvinists? I realize that some at Southern believe this, but is that the seminary position? If that IS what you're arguing, so what? Does that make them Presbys? If it's NOT your argument that Southern takes this position, then your comments are irrelevant.

2. Are you saying that rejecting covenant theology is a Baptist distinctive? It seems like you are saying no, but then you say rejecting it is "the norm." What gives you the right to say what is the norm? (And I'm not covenant, by the way) Is covenant theology the official position of the seminary?

Again, unless you're arguing that you can't be a Baptist and be covenant, your comments are irrelevant.

3. They've partnered with a Presby seminary? Yikes! I guess that makes Billy Graham a Methodist, a Presbyterian, a Pentecostal, an Episcopalian, a Greek Orthodox AND a Roman Catholic. Wait, doesn't Southern have the Billy Graham Center for Missions and Evangelism? You heard it first here: Southern is a closet Roman Catholic seminary!

Please, I BEG of you. Show me just one historic Baptist distictive that Southern is rejecting.

 

go2church,

Are you saying that the pastor(s) of a church is (are) not supposed to lead and shepherd? Are those roles incompatible with the priesthood of the believer? What exactly does a pastor do in your view if it does not include leading/shepherding?

 

Bro. Jeff - You Wrote:

2. Southern has indeed departed from baptist distinctives.

And what would those distinctives be? Could you list them for us?

First, it's become quite popular amongst reformed baptists to intimate that all early baptist leaders were calvinist. Indeed, some were but not all, nor was our present day SBC formed as a calvinist institution.

But do you deny that Southern Seminary was founded and run as a Calvinistic Institution for at least 50 years?

In case you do - let me offer some proof.

1. The Abstract of Principles - a clear Calvinistic document.

2. ALL of the original professors were self-professed Calvinists.

3. The first two theology textbooks taught over a period of over 40 years at Southern Seminary were throughly Calvinistic.

This, however, is not the primary issue with Southern. As has been mentioned, they are strongly covenental in their theology which again isn't a strict departure from classic baptist theology but is outside of the norm.

Explain what you mean please by "strongly covental in their theology." And What Norm?

They've also partnered with a Pres. seminary on numerous occasions and specifically in regards to literature and chapel lectures.

So what?

Isolated these events seem to be nothing of import but when one begins to put them together the picture looks less and less "baptist".

Who is putting them together? NonCalvinist Conspiracy Theorists?

I'm a fan of the scholarship and commitment to inerrancy that southern is known for. That does not prevent me from noticing some weaknesses in their positions.

And we can thank Al Mohler and the SBC Leadership who put him there for that new commitment to Inerrancy at Southern. It certainly wasn't there before Mohler took over.

Why don't you come right out and say what's on your mind. Mohler's theology is downright erroneous and a threat to the SBC.

 

I'm amazed at the lack of reading being done in these posts.

The questions I've been asked have already been explained in the posts themselves.

Again, let me repeat: Southern has not made one large break w/ southern baptist distinctives. Repeat: Southern has not made one large break w/ southern baptist distinctives.

However, when one looks at the entire picture and takes the several isolated issues in on a broad picture you see a disturbing trend.

That is my point, clearly stated.

 

Again - Reading into the posts.

 

Jeff,

The disturbing trend I see is moderates and mod-sympathizers who try to gin up an emotional case against Southern. I realize you didn't write the name of this thread, but you're marching in lock step with the one who did. You may see a disturbing trend, and it's fine to have that opinion even if it's wrong. But a trend is not equivalent to a denial of Baptist disctinctives and a hidden agenda to change denominations. So stop trying to insinuate that.

 

Jeff,

The disturbing trend I see is moderates and mod-sympathizers who try to gin up an emotional case against Southern. I realize you didn't write the name of this thread, but you're marching in lock step with the one who did. You may see a disturbing trend, and it's fine to have that opinion even if it's wrong. But a trend is not equivalent to a denial of Baptist disctinctives and a hidden agenda to change denominations. So stop trying to insinuate that. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm truly amazed.

I am as conservative as they come and have no desire to attack Al Mohler (as has been stated) nor any notion that SBTS has any hidden agenda to change denominations.

I simply find it alarming how many seemingly isolated Pres. connections there are.

Please, again I implore you, read my posts for what they say.

 

Your website offer does not show that Spurgeon had altar calls! It only indicates that thousands were saved under his ministry. Spurgeon denounced "decisionism" (my term, not necessarily his)--that of forcing people under pressure to "come to the altar". Instead, he invited people to come to Christ. He was available to people for counsel & prayer, but did not have 39 verses of "Just as I Am" while waiting out the sweating sinner! You are the one who needs to do some historical research. I've studied church history under various sources.
A popular defense of Biblical preaching & invitation can be read in John MacArthur's book, Ashamed of the Gospel . It would do Mr. Warren good to read it too.
While Warren may credit Criswell at one point, he also credits Schuller at another. You've read Criswell. I read (in his own words) Schuller. I didn't say Schuller was his only mentor, but I did say he was his mentor.
Sir, you are building strawmen. Don't do it! Only the ignorant will follow you, and then they'll eventually see through your shallow arguments, by God's grace.
I believe others have well answered your silly argument of how could they know in Acts how many were saved unless they "went forward"?
Thanks to the Sovereign God and His faithful Word, people have been able to get saved long before Finney invented the altar call!