Featured Another SBC Seminary President speaks..

I liked the video as a whole, but really appreciated two of his points. The first is something I had not really considered, but I believe he is correct. The SBC is a denomination where such issues as election can be debated from within. This keeps theology, to an extent, alive in the Convention. The other point was at the end of the video. I never understood why some SBC members feel so strongly about ridding the Convention from the very position that those who founded the SBC held. Granted, the SBC was never comprised as a purely Calvinistic organization. Calvinism was never the test of fellowship. But the early leaders of the SBC were distinctly Calvinists and they were the ones who led the Convention through very difficult times and diverse situations.

And these Calvinists (e.g., W.B. Johnson, R.B. C. Howell) led the early SBC without dogmatically imposing their views on the denomination. The irony is that the SBC, under Calvinistic leadership, enjoyed the liberty of doctrine that the anti-Calvinists are trying to preserve by attacking that liberty. It just doesn't make sense.

 

If I remember correctly, Lutherans coined "Calvinism" while Calvin prefered"Reformed". It meant the same thing for so long ..to some... who knows. They seem to have considered themselves Baptists mostly.

 

That is a good point (and was my initial point).

I should have said that the first SBC presidents were Calvinists, not the entire leadership (and certainly not all of the churches). For example, the first two SBC presidents held Calvinistic views of salvation. We can read Howell's arguments against hyper-Calvinism (the anti-missions movement) where he presents their error as a misapplication of correct doctrine. Or we can read of their concerns over the influence of the Methodist Church (which was the largest denomination at that time).

We don't need to change history to discover that the SBC consisted of both Calvinists and non-Calvinists from it's start.

My point was that these men did not discriminate against those who opposed their understanding insofar as Calvinism goes. But it does seem that some SBC members and leaders are anti-Calvinistic (they do desire to discriminate against those who hold the position). And the reason they seem to want to discriminate is to protect the Convention against some kind of take over. It's ironic, that's all.

 

Howell was a strong supporter of the Baptist church as being the "true Church". He opposed Grave's Landmarkism because he seemed to present it as going too far (concerning an appropriate view of denominations). But he really held the same basic view.

So he did not see Baptists as being Protestant. I agree, Howell (and Graves) would not call themselves Reformed. If that is the issue (not the doctrine but the name) then I really don't see what the fuss is about. Just call it something else.

 

Have you ever read "The Covenants" by Howell? It's an interesting book from the perspective of the SBC's early leadership on the topic.

 

We don't go to the SBC as a church. It is a convention. I attend a church that is Southern Baptist by association. It is very biblical, affirms Gods sovereignty without allowing soteriology to dictate its existance. I am a Calvinist (using Y1's definition) and they teach what I believe.

I understand you to be saying participation in the SBC cooperative program and affirming the SBC statement of faith disqualifies a local church from your consderation. Is it that you believe the SBC should dictate local church doctrine or that you think such disagreement within our association of churches should be discouraged?

 

I agree. That's one reason I attend the church I attend. I won't support leadership that says other Christians are our enemies.

 

They do. I attend a SBC church so my leaders are members of my church. As a Baptist and a Southern Baptist, church leadership does not extend beyond the local church. This is why I can rejoice that those vocally opposed to Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic views can express their beliefs freely while remaining under the SBC banner. Many denominations would not tolerate such freedoms.

And if the SBC became intolerant of the view my church holds on the issue, that would not be an issue either. We just wouldn't be "SBC". But we would be the same church.

What I am saying is that it should be the church, not an affiliation with a convention, that determines whether or not membership should be considered. Within the SBC I have found great churches and not so great churches. I have seen Calvinism, Arminianism, anti-Calvinism, and hyper-Calvinism. I saw one that approached open theism. My point is that using SBC affiliation to acrept or reject a church may not be the wisest decision