Al Mohler's response to SBC Statement

[annsni]

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:

Now THAT made me giggle.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Wow! I just watched the youtube video and didn't know that Dr. Mohler himself was so tribalistic!

He said there are just no other options than New Calvinism (or being Reformed). Now his comment calling the statement apparently heretical semi-Pelagianism and his condescending remark that the signers were ignorant of what they were signing make more sense.

 

[Dr. Bob]

What sort of Baptist Church would hold to false and erroneous doctrine and not contend for purity of its body??

I would not darken the door of a so-called Baptist church that was pro-sodomite, or pro-works salvation, or pro-evolution, or pro-political liberalism, etc

Attending a church is a privilege granted by the body of folks with whom we have basic agreement. God knows there are enough liberal churches that take no stand on doctrine; we earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

And remember, I am "tolerant" of others' views, but not in the church which God has placed me in eldership. The obligation to doctrinal fidelity trumps all the man-made error of many other bodies.

 

[Dr. Bob]

And I am one reformed soteriological proponent of grace that believes some arminian Baptoists might actually be truly regenerate, and don't called all of them semi-pelagian or pelagian heretics (word used in historic context - pelagian theology is "heresy") as would Dr Mohler.

:saint:

 

[Iconoclast]

What sort of Baptist Church would hold to false and erroneous doctrine and not contend for purity of its body??

I would not darken the door of a so-called Baptist church that was pro-sodomite, or pro-works salvation, or pro-evolution, or pro-political liberalism, etc

Attending a church is a privilege granted by the body of folks with whom we have basic agreement. God knows there are enough liberal churches that take no stand on doctrine; we earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

And remember, I am "tolerant" of others' views, but not in the church which God has placed me in eldership. The obligation to doctrinal fidelity trumps all the man-made error of many other bodies.

:thumbs::applause::thumbs::applause:

 

[annsni]

What sort of Baptist Church would hold to false and erroneous doctrine and not contend for purity of its body??

I would not darken the door of a so-called Baptist church that was pro-sodomite, or pro-works salvation, or pro-evolution, or pro-political liberalism, etc

Attending a church is a privilege granted by the body of folks with whom we have basic agreement. God knows there are enough liberal churches that take no stand on doctrine; we earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

And remember, I am "tolerant" of others' views, but not in the church which God has placed me in eldership. The obligation to doctrinal fidelity trumps all the man-made error of many other bodies.

Amen! :applause:

 

[Luke2427]

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​

I agree with this 100%.

However, it is true that some people can highjack a great term and drag it through the mud and force other people to reject it- not based on the merit of what it ACTUALLY means, but rather based on what the highjackers have made it mean in that particular society.

Take the WONDERFUL word- Catholic.

1500 years ago or so it was a glorious word that reminded us that all true Christians were ONE in Christ.

But an apostate movement took control of the term and now it is anathema. I cannot now call myself a catholic Christian, which REALLY means a member of the universal body of Christ around the world. I cannot do this because Roman Catholics have highjacked the term and I do not wish to be associated with their doctrines.

It does seem that this has happened to a lesser degree with the word "fundamentalist."

At least down here in the Deep South it carries with it a connotation of King James Onlyism and legalism.

 

[saturneptune]

According to Field Marshal Mohler, I could not be a Southern Baptist because I refuse to let a man-made creed "speak for me."


Michael,
Perhaps it is time to switch to decaf??? Your posts are getting somewhat violent and coming from a dark place.You are going out on a limb , but no one else is following.Ease up Rambo.There are still 7000 that have not bowed their knee to baal:thumbs:
Start a thread about soul liberty. Suggest what you think gets overlooked today,and we can discuss the merits of the case.:thumbs:

You have a habit of inviting sharp reponses on both sides of this issue. Why does Michael need decaf??? You need some common sense.

 

[agedman]

You have a habit of inviting sharp reponses on both sides of this issue. Why does Michael need decaf??? You need some common sense.

No one has been more "inviting (of) sharp re(s)ponces" than Michael Wren.

Wren stated, "I'll say that I despise all kinds of fundamentalism -- of the right and the left. ... I loathe them all...."​

Being fundamental in my beliefs and conservative in my political views, I found this post not only offensive generally, but highly inflammatory towards many on the BB who have fundamental and conservative views. He shows to Christlike Character in post(s) such as this - one post was edited by a moderator for excessive hostility.

Wren on another post stated, "His words and actions belie that he is my "brother".​

This is clearly questioning a person's salvation. Wren is stating either Mohler is not saved and therefore not his "brother" or that Wren is not a believer and therefore has no part being on the BB.

Wren on another post states, "The "Conservative Resurgence" hates that last sentence of Item 4; it goes against their popery."​

This would take all those of Conservative and fundamental thinking on the BB and align us with the anti-Christ. That is certainly volatile.

He was rebuked by the moderator, and by multiple threads.

Icon and I have had our disagreements, but one thing that Icon does is clearly state not only what he believes but his rational and Scriptural support of the view.

Wren has offered little to the BB to edify and encourage the believers who might read the threads.

 

[saturneptune]

I understand that the Calvin debates naturally evoke strong emotion. That is to be expected. I have never understood why it could not be talked about in a civil way, but is seems next to impossible.

Given that, the leadership that formed the letter that has been the subject of all of these threads did more harm than good. On the other side, entertainers who use inflammatory mass media like Mr. White, to counter the letter also do a great disservice to the local churches. Spreading the Gospel is not a circus or side show.

As the examples on both sides above that started this mess, there is enough emotion back and forth on its own without people from both sides throwing fire bombs into the situation.

Maybe it is not fair to point out one over the other, but advancing the doctrines of grace are not served well by such tactics. I pay very little attention to what the other side says.

 

[Luke2427]

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

1- no it doesn't.

2- even if it did it does not change the fact that this is what the sbc has chosen to adopt as our statement of faith. Those who wish to be consistent with what they wrongly think are traditional baptist standards of no confessionalism should leave the sbc and start their own movement.

Like it or not this is our confession. This is what is expected of any church that wishes to identify itsel as southern baptist.

 

[OldRegular]

What sort of Baptist Church would hold to false and erroneous doctrine and not contend for purity of its body??

I would not darken the door of a so-called Baptist church that was pro-sodomite, or pro-works salvation, or pro-evolution, or pro-political liberalism, etc

Attending a church is a privilege granted by the body of folks with whom we have basic agreement. God knows there are enough liberal churches that take no stand on doctrine; we earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

And remember, I am "tolerant" of others' views, but not in the church which God has placed me in eldership. The obligation to doctrinal fidelity trumps all the man-made error of many other bodies.

Well said Dr. Bob!

 

[OldRegular]

S/N and others:
The following was not posted by Iconoclast but by Wrenn. See post # 34.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
According to Field Marshal Mohler, I could not be a Southern Baptist because I refuse to let a man-made creed "speak for me."

Post #34

I know exactly what the historic Baptist principles are. And I know Mohler doesn't hold to them. His statements about the BF&M 2000 are enough to show that, as well as other things.

According to Field Marshal Mohler, I could not be a Southern Baptist because I refuse to let a man-made creed "speak for me."

 

[blackbird]

Like it or not this is our confession. This is what is expected of any church that wishes to identify itsel as southern baptist.

The BF & M 2000 is not a "confession" of beliefs as in what is considered a confession such as Apostle's Creed---so forth and so on