Al Mohler's response to SBC Statement

[go2church]

When you set yourself up as the final authority, call other people names and question the Christianity of others, you shouldn't be surprised that others will use the same "strategy" and direct it toward you.

I am being intentionally provocative to highlight the fundamentalist turn that the SBC leadership has taken and continues to travel.

 

[mandym]

When you set yourself up as the final authority, call other people names and question the Christianity of others, you shouldn't be surprised that others will use the same "strategy" and direct it toward you.

I am being intentionally provocative to highlight the fundamentalist turn that the SBC leadership has taken and continues to travel.

Yes everyone believes that.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The BF&M IS our statement of faith.

All Southern Baptists should ascribe to it or move out.

That statement removes you from historic Baptist principles, so you should move out.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Absolutely. A church must be in agreement on the FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH or it is doomed to divisive chaos (ie, Wisconsin politics)

If someone in my church adopted the false teaching of man-centric salvation (to gain or to keep it by works) they would be instructed in truth. If they resisted the truth they would be escorted to the door.

Now on a hundred lesser areas we can be civil in disagreement on interpretation. But losing salvation? That is a deal breaker.

So, I could not be in your church, and with your attitude above, I wouldn't want to be. But you would still be welcome in mine, as long as you didn't try to force everyone to your belief.

You have stated what's wrong with many Calvinists and why many see no way for compromise with them, and also why many are wary of this movement taking over.

 

[mandym]

So, I could not be in your church, and with your attitude above,

Nope and in fact Calvinists would need to screen people and discover whether or not they are elect before they can invite them to church.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Your stated hatred of the person of Dr. Mohler speaks volumes about you.

Your misrepresentation and false accusations speak volumes about you -- and I don't need to put that in bold.

I don't hate Mohler; I hate what he represents.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Jesus Christ was no moderate. To imply such is to deny Scripture. There is nothing of the spirit and teaching of Jesus Christ shown by the so-called moderates. They want a pathetic Jesus Christ who offers a pathetic Gospel to a wimpy people.

[offensive statement removed]

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Honestly, the name calling is disgusting, IMO. You call yourselves believers and yet you mock a brother in Christ. I really find this to be so ungodly and unbecoming. No wonder people don't want to become Christians when our own attack our own. Grow up!

His words and actions belie that he is my "brother".

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I contend that Jesus was a moderate, and I have read others who agree.

Jesus was opposed to the extremists of His day -- the Pharisees, Sadducees, the political extremists. He would be equally opposed to the fundamentalist fanatics and godless liberals of today, too.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

1. I will agree partly with Michael here. I think mohler is putting too much power into the BF&M. In reality, Every SBC church and/believer does NOT have to subscribe tot he BF&M. I know several in my own church who don't. they are not any less southern baptists.

2. I think in a different thread, didn't you somewhat agree that any baptists association or denomiation SHOULD be based on SOME basic common belief set, but that you simply think the BF&M is too narrow, or too specific? For example, would you not say that Baptists should hold to "soul liberty"? Is this not in some ways a "creed" that you believe all baptists should hold to?

Didn't mean to ignore your post -- almost missed it.

To try to answer your question: I don't believe in creeds if they are used to hammer believers over the head with what they "must" believe.

Confessions of faith are fine and necessary, in their proper place.

Here is the Preamble to the 1963 BF&M; Mohler's statements deny what Baptists have traditionally and historically have believed about statements of faith (notice particularly what the last sentence of item 4 says):

"Furthermore, it concurs in the introductory "statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life." It is, therefore, quoted in full as part of this report to the Convention.

(1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.

(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life."



The "Conservative Resurgence" hates that last sentence of Item 4; it goes against their popery.

 

[OldRegular]

Your misrepresentation and false accusations speak volumes about you -- and I don't need to put that in bold.

I don't hate Mohler; I hate what he represents.

The above statement is obviously untrue. Your post expressing your personal hatred of Dr. Mohler was deleted by Dr. Bob!

 

[annsni]

His words and actions belie that he is my "brother".

So you are saying that Dr. Mohler is unsaved?

 

[annsni]

The above statement is obviously untrue. Your post expressing your personal hatred of Dr. Mohler was deleted by Dr. Bob!

I agree. I saw it clearly myself.

 

[SolaSaint]

I truly wish whoever controls this board would give us all an ignore capability, so we can just place someone who makes inappropraite posts on ignore and we wouldn't even see what they spew out. I would immediately place Mr. Wrenn on ignore.

 

[mandym]

I truly wish whoever controls this board would give us all an ignore capability, so we can just place someone who makes inappropraite posts on ignore and we wouldn't even see what they spew out. I would immediately place Mr. Wrenn on ignore.

You already have that capability. In the top tool bar on the far left got to:

Usercp>Setting & Options>Ignore List

 

[agedman]

So, I could not be in your church, and with your attitude above, I wouldn't want to be. But you would still be welcome in mine, as long as you didn't try to force everyone to your belief.

You have stated what's wrong with many Calvinists and why many see no way for compromise with them, and also why many are wary of this movement taking over.

I had to stop reading the thread to comment on this post.

It is wrong thinking and needs to be exposed.

Dr. Bob was stating that a person who denied fundamental core statements adopted by the assembly should not be part of that assembly.

That isn't "hateful" or even unloving, but practicing discernment.

The post quoted above, Michael Wren vainly attempts to place Dr. Bob as a lesser believer. What Wren stated and shamefully exposes as his own character and willingness to support is that in effect "his" assembly would be much more accepting of error; he has no problem with being in agreement and even fellowship with those who would be labeled as teaching heretical views.

 

[annsni]

I had to stop reading the thread to comment on this post.

It is wrong thinking and needs to be exposed.

Dr. Bob was stating that a person who denied fundamental core statements adopted by the assembly should not be part of that assembly.

That isn't "hateful" or even unloving, but practicing discernment.

The post quoted above, Michael Wren vainly attempts to place Dr. Bob as a lesser believer. What Wren stated and shamefully exposes as his own character and willingness to support is that in effect "his" assembly would be much more accepting of error; he has no problem with being in agreement and even fellowship with those who would be labeled as teaching heretical views.

I totally agree with you and it's sad.

 

[agedman]

No. But the church should be committed to only teach and promote that which is consistent with the confession of faith of the sbc.

I agree!!!

And EVERY member should not be in disagreement with the foundational truths in which the local assembly has agreed to unify.

If someone comes to join the assembly and doesn't believe in the foundational statement of that assembly, then they have no right being accepted into membership.

THAT is part of the problem in much of the SBC. For over a century (beginning with Finney like folks) the local assemblies pledged upon the altar of what appears to be the will of God, rather than what is the will of God.

Most SB pew sitters have never even read with any discernment the foundational documents of the local assembly. How can they unify if they don't know the foundation of the unity?

 

[agedman]

I totally agree with you and it's sad.

I'm sorry that agreeing with me would make you sad. :tear:

I'll try to post disagreeable things to make you feel happy.

:tongue3:

 

[agedman]

Didn't mean to ignore your post -- almost missed it.

To try to answer your question: I don't believe in creeds if they are used to hammer believers over the head with what they "must" believe.

Confessions of faith are fine and necessary, in their proper place.

Here is the Preamble to the 1963 BF&M; Mohler's statements deny what Baptists have traditionally and historically have believed about statements of faith (notice particularly what the last sentence of item 4 says):

"Furthermore, it concurs in the introductory "statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life." It is, therefore, quoted in full as part of this report to the Convention.

(1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.

(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life."



The "Conservative Resurgence" hates that last sentence of Item 4; it goes against their popery.

Strange that "fundamental" and "conservative" are so wrong in the eyes of some on this thread.

There is certainly a huge problem with what is true Biblically based belief if a person would embrace the antonyms of "fundamental" and "conservative":

Antonyms of Fundamental: taken from thesaurus.com

Additional

Advanced

Auxiliary

Extra

Minor

Secondary

Subordinate

Trivial

Unimportant​

Antonyms of conservative: taken from thesaurus.com

Exaggerated

Incautious

Left-wing

Liberal

Progressive

Radical​