Being upfront

[Luke2427]

Here is an idea, it may even produce more cooperation and light rather than heat. Have information teams, which churches may request. A respected articulate representative of each side who address the church with a presentation of their positions and take questions from the congregants without engaging one another. It could be done with the right personalities and in the proper spirit.

I'm not against that.

I am simply saying that the Southern Baptist Convention is open to Calvinism.

So it should be assumed that her churches that do not identify themselves as closed to it are like the denomination of which they are a part.

 

[quantumfaith]

Sorry to toss the tangent, Luke were the Pilgrims Puritans? If so, then the USDA in their diversity training is teaching that they were illegal immigrants. WOW.
I thought the Left, liked illegal immigrants?

 

[Luke2427]

Sorry to toss the tangent, Luke were the Pilgrims Puritans? If so, then the USDA in their diversity training is teaching that they were illegal immigrants. WOW.
I thought the Left, liked illegal immigrants?

Right. But to bring it back to the subject matter, the Pilgrim were Calvinist separatists and they were followed by Calvinist Puritans.

Should Arminian leaning candidates be up front and say, "Before we go any further I just want you to know that I am severely at theological odds with the pilgrims, puritans and most of the founders of this nation.

 

[quantumfaith]

Right. But to bring it back to the subject matter, the Pilgrim were Calvinist separatists and they were followed by Calvinist Puritans.

Should Arminian leaning candidates be up front and say, "Before we go any further I just want you to know that I am severely at theological odds with the pilgrims, puritans and most of the founders of this nation.

How many times do I have to respond Yes?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Calvinists should identify themselves AS CALVINISTS to pulpit committees?

Yes

Why?

Because unnecessary splits are caused by it. Calvinism is (to date) a relatively new surging movement.....it has started with (largely) young seminarians and not specifically within the ranks of the tithers or donators or 35-year founding members of many Baptist Churches.
MANY SBC Churches started 50 years or so ago have been (and always were) essentially and ENTIRELY "Arminian" in their beliefs...They are honestly UNAWARE of the fact that their Pulpit Commitees should even ask young new Seminarians that question:

Two things here:
1.) I actually blame the "Arminians" for the failure to teach their Churches (by-and-large) the differring points of view. Provided they had done so, this may be a non-issue. But, they haven't. However, you can't claim that the "Best Church-planters"....in your "Let the best Theology Win thread" thread is the issue...if you are objecting to Arminians refusing the Pastoral leadership of Calvinists...
2.) You CAN'T have it BOTH ways...if your young Calvinist Seminary grads have no marketable skills, and need someone to feed them...Then they need to beg their bread from the hard-working Denizens of more "Calvinist" Churches (who are often more likely to dig the "elder-rule" idea and not pay professionals as much).

The denomination is open to Calvinism.

It is....But, as you know...there are Arminians who are beginning to object to this.

Calvinism has ALWAYS been present in the denomination and at points it has been the predominate view.

True...one doesn't (logically anyway) derive an "ought" from an "is"....it "is" the case that that has always been so..but, some are beginning to feel that that was not a perfect idea.

Should Arminians have had to identify themselves 125 years ago when Calvinism was the predominate view point?

Yes.

R. G. Lee was a Calvinist who made Belvue Baptist Church great. Should Dr. Adrian Rogers who followed him a couple pastorates later have been up front in the pulpit committee meeting and say, "Now before you consider me, I just want you to know that my theology is the DEAD LEVEL OPPOSITE of R. G. Lee's theology,"?

In PRECISELY the way you phrased it...not EXACTLY....but, Pretty-Close...yes.

Should all ARMINIAN (except for the eternal security doctrine) pastors say, "Before you vote on me, I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from great Baptists like William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee, etc... I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from that of the first and largest Southern Baptist Seminary. I think you should know that my theology is VERY different from the theology of the Great Awakening

This is a hybrid form of statement designed to create something of an Argument from consequences and an Argument from Authority at the same time...It's Brilliantly constructed, but, nothing doing...I'll still essentially say, YES, they should.

which saved Baptist life in America and made Baptists one of the largest Christian movements IN America,"?

This is probably somewhat debateable....I must honestly and humbly suggest that Wesly helped only a wee-tad.
Should they?

If we applied this "principle" that some of you articulate about Calvinists needing to wear a scarlet "C" on their chests when they come to pulpit committee meetings;

No-one has exactly suggested a "Scarlett 'C'" (wouldn't hurt)...but it's when one applies for a job...not attends committee meetings.

Well, Obviously, you are being somewhat hyperbolic with the way you frame your argument...but you are attempting to use this as a literary sort of device to drive home to us the suggestion you are trying to make...I get your point. You aren't wrong for doing so...but let me describe the situation briefly for you from our POV:

For 80-100 years THOUSANDS of essentially Arminian churches have been planted, nurtured and built by....Arminians. MANY of them...are simply un-aware of the entire Arm/Cal debate. They honestly believe that pretty much everyone assumes that man possesses freedom of will, and that Jesus Christ DIED for EVERYONE. To deny this....is (you have to admit) pretty serious.
Despite the stupidity of Spurgeon...you can't (nor should you) "believe like a Calvinist and Preach like an Arminian" [Or however he stated it].
It would be dis-ingenuous.
In a way...it is the fault of Arminians that many Churches (whom they were responsible for teaching) simply are utterly uninformed of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism....

However, you must understand that Arminians see belief in the freedom of human will as a "Properly Basic" belief...<---By that I mean the serious Epistomological position as described by Plantinga. They would automatically ASSUME that everyone accepts these notions. They see it as self-evidently true....BTW...so did you before you became a Calvinist.

Too many of these young Seminary Grads (ironically, saved, raised, called and taught) in Armininian Churches...go to a Para-Church organization (an SBC Seminary is one by definition) sometimes, they are given stipends by those same Arminian Churches...to attend them:

And then said young grad becomes convinced as a still somewhat acne-challenged 24-year-old...of all of the tenents of Calvinism in a Seminary, and when he applies at said Church (with no marketable skills in the real world)...they don't ask him about what they percieve to be a self-evident and properly basic truth...(Namely that man possesses free will).

Slowly, he, with his passion and energy grows the church (kinda)...but his TRUE beliefs begin to surface, namely, that Jesus REALLY doesn't love a LOT of people, and that it pleases him that there be countless millions who burn in Hell...

There then become those in the congregation who begin to object to such notions...but, at the same time, having a new and enthusiastic and energetic Pastor under the age of 155 (as most Baptist Pastors are)...is tempting to retain...Thus, given a few years..a split occurs...and I promise you...NONE of those young men volunteered the fact that they learned in Seminary that Jesus had NO intention of saving MILLIONS of people...

Maybe, Arms and Cals should part ways in the SBC...I vaguely doubt you'd let me teach at will in your church.

if we applied that to "noncals" for the past 150 years for pastoral candidacy- I think "non-cal" would be almost non-existent within SBC ranks.

If true..(and it may be) this demonstrates that Calvinists were foolish to allow so much Arminian incurssion for 150 years...maybe, you guys were merely as asleep at the wheel as Arms are now. I wonder if this discussion happened about 85-100 years ago as it does now? There's a good subject for a young Neo-Calvie Doctoral Candidate no?

But it is a little under-handed to want to apply it NOW when two things are conveniently (for non-cals) true:

#1- Arminianism is the predominate view among Southern Baptists

#2- Calvinism is surging.

Can you not see the almost crookedness of this "principle" non-cals claim should be applied?

I DO appreciate where you are coming from, inasmuch as BOTH your point #1 and #2 are TRUE...
I don't blame you for your angst....
My solution though, you won't like...it's let them part ways and wish one another the best

You, I think, don't want that.
I LOVE you brother...and I'm beginning to think the WORLD of you...but, it is the case that sound teaching is indeed CRITICAL in Christ's Churches....I dunno, not yet committed to the idea, but maybe a peacable split is the best option...it would hurt, one of my best friends was raised in my "Arminian" Church and is a brilliant attendee of an Associated Reformed Church...which has NOTHING but RAVE reviews from EVERYONE in our entire county. They even hosted an Association meeting on their grounds... But the consequences of those Soteriological ideas are indeed FAR reaching

I HATE the notion of the SBC splitting I really do...but maybe...it would just work?
Maybe...it is best to have the Point of view you presently seem to, which is that perfect felowship within associated Churches is possible regardless of whether they be more Arminian or Calvinist...I honestly hope so. I do, But, on the local level...a candidate should be VERY forthright.
Dunno brother, throwing it out there, and I am LITERALLY tearing up as I do so.

 

[Luke2427]

How many times do I have to respond Yes?

Ok, great.

What we need then is for Al Mohler to go around to all the churches looking for pastors that he can and tell them to be sure and ask the candidate if his soteriology is consistent with the pilgrims, puritans, founders, Great Awakening, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, R. G. Lee, W. A. Criswell, etc...

And if Calvinism takes the position once again as the predominate view point of the Southern Baptist Convention, which it seems to be doing, then all Calvinist leaders in that day should move heaven and earth to see to it that no Arminian leaning pastoral candidate stands a chance in hell of getting a church in the SBC.

Right?

 

[quantumfaith]

Ok, great.

What we need then is for Al Mohler to go around to all the churches looking for pastors that he can and tell them to be sure and ask the candidate if his soteriology is consistent with the pilgrims, puritans, founders, Great Awakening, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, R. G. Lee, W. A. Criswell, etc...

And if Calvinism takes the position once again as the predominate view point of the Southern Baptist Convention, which it seems to be doing, then all Calvinist leaders in that day should move heaven and earth to see to it that no Arminian leaning pastoral candidate stands a chance in hell of getting a church in the SBC.

Right?

ummmmmm....whatever

 

[GBC Pastor]

And if Calvinism takes the position once again as the predominate view point of the Southern Baptist Convention, which it seems to be doing, then all Calvinist leaders in that day should move heaven and earth to see to it that no Arminian leaning pastoral candidate stands a chance in hell of getting a church in the SBC.

Right?

Right! If Calvinism became the predominant view then non-Cal pastoral candidates should be transparent about their beliefs. Actually all sides should be transparent regardless of the predominant view.

Congrats Luke you have solved the problem!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Gents...This is a REAL issue of our age...I LOVE my Calvinist brethren....but it's a discussion which MUST be understood within context. Strangely....it isn't "us vs. them" It's whether we should Associate.....and it's not an easy discussion to have.

 

[Jerome]

A 9Marksist's approach:

http://www.9marks.org/blog/secrecy-pastoral-searches

9Marks: Can you give a few examples of what you did?

ML: I made sure that they understood that I’m a Calvinist—five points.

9Marks: So let’s sum this up. What basic tips to you have for others in candidating?

ML: First, be clear about your doctrinal convictions. Be clear about the doctrines and the pastoral practices that you are willing to be fired over. If you’re not, you will be blown by the wind.

Second, make the process as transparent as you can. This is one of the things that characterizes Paul’s ministry; he points out that his ministry was not done in secret. Be transparent with your own church.

 

[quantumfaith]

Gents...This is a REAL issue of our age...I LOVE my Calvinist brethren....but it's a discussion which MUST be understood within context. Strangely....it isn't "us vs. them" It's whether we should Associate.....and it's not an easy discussion to have.

I completely agree, however, I do not discount the possibility that there may be that rare church that could love, respect and cooperate with one another in a "bi-partisan" way. It would require amazing leadership skills on the part of the pastor and staff and tempered with genuine grace on the part of everyone.

 

[Luke2427]

Yes

Because unnecessary splits are caused by it.

Do you not think these splits took place when young Arminians did the same thing to the SBC 100 years ago?

Do you think Arminians came to largely Calvinist churches touting their Arminianism?

Or do you think they knew the denomination welcomed them so they entered these churches, preached their doctrines and let the best side win (become the predominate view point).

Calvinism is (to date) a relatively new surging movement.....it has started with (largely) young seminarians and not specifically within the ranks of the tithers or donators or 35-year founding members of many Baptist Churches.
MANY SBC Churches started 50 years or so ago have been (and always were) essentially and ENTIRELY "Arminian" in their beliefs...T

It is REsurging not just surging. It is resurging in a movement it was instrumental in starting to begin with.

In 1700 Baptists had almost died in America. There were only 24 baptist churches in America.

Then the Great Awakening (a thoroughly Calvinistic revival) took hold. By 1790 there were almost 1,000 baptist churches.

It was only 55 years later that Baptists in the South split from the Triennial convention.

There is NO QUESTION, even if you gave Arminians the Sandy Creek movement (which would not be fully accurate) that the SBC was LARGELY Calvinistic in its moorings.

Its first seminary and, to this day- its largest seminary, is Calvinist.

What if the SBC had taken the stand that they would not sanction and support Home and Foreign Missionaries who were not Calvinists?

Two things would happen:

1- There would be no Calvinist vs Arminian issue like there is today in the SBC.

2- There may not BE an SBC. Calvinism had become dry and formal. Were it not for Arminian fervor the movement might have died.


The same thing is true today. Except reverse the positions.

hey are honestly UNAWARE of the fact that their Pulpit Commitees should even ask young new Seminarians that question:

Two things here:
1.) I actually blame the "Arminians" for the failure to teach their Churches (by-and-large) the differring points of view. Provided they had done so, this may be a non-issue. But, they haven't. However, you can't claim that the "Best Church-planters"....in your "Let the best Theology Win thread" thread is the issue...if you are objecting to Arminians refusing the Pastoral leadership of Calvinists...
2.) You CAN'T have it BOTH ways...if your young Calvinist Seminary grads have no marketable skills, and need someone to feed them...Then they need to beg their bread from the hard-working Denizens of more "Calvinist" Churches (who are often more likely to dig the "elder-rule" idea and not pay professionals as much).

Not when those Arminian churches inherited funds and benefits from Calvinists of a few generations ago.

It is....But, as you know...there are Arminians who are beginning to object to this.

True...one doesn't (logically anyway) derive an "ought" from an "is"....it "is" the case that that has always been so..but, some are beginning to feel that that was not a perfect idea.

Yes.

In PRECISELY the way you phrased it...not EXACTLY....but, Pretty-Close...yes.

Ok then. Then NOBODY is doing it right. It is a wash.

The Arminian can't rightly criticize the Calvinist for not being up front when Arminians are not being up front either.

I think neither needs to identify themselves unless asked.

This is a hybrid form of statement designed to create something of an Argument from consequences and an Argument from Authority at the same time...It's Brilliantly constructed, but, nothing doing...I'll still essentially say, YES, they should.

This is probably somewhat debateable....I must honestly and humbly suggest that Wesly helped only a wee-tad.
Should they?

Negligible. Wesley's impact was felt in England mostly in his day and Asbury and his followers did not give us many Baptist churches- just Methodist ones.

For 80-100 years THOUSANDS of essentially Arminian churches have been planted, nurtured and built by....Arminians.

Arminians who took over a largely Calvinist denomination and benefited from a missions structure already in place, dug out by Calvinists for the most part, from whence to launch their Arminianism.

Too many of these young Seminary Grads (ironically, saved, raised, called and taught) in Armininian Churches...go to a Para-Church organization (an SBC Seminary is one by definition) sometimes, they are given stipends by those same Arminian Churches...to attend them:

And then said young grad becomes convinced as a still somewhat acne-challenged 24-year-old...of all of the tenents of Calvinism in a Seminary, and when he applies at said Church (with no marketable skills in the real world)...they don't ask him about what they percieve to be a self-evident and properly basic truth...(Namely that man possesses free will).

And reverse the roles a hundred years ago...

Slowly, he, with his passion and energy grows the church (kinda)...but his TRUE beliefs begin to surface, namely, that Jesus REALLY doesn't love a LOT of people, and that it pleases him that there be countless millions who burn in Hell...

"kinda" is not an accurate term to describe what Calvinists are doing in many SBC churches- like Platt's church for example.

There then become those in the congregation who begin to object to such notions...but, at the same time, having a new and enthusiastic and energetic Pastor under the age of 155 (as most Baptist Pastors are)...is tempting to retain...Thus, given a few years..a split occurs...and I promise you...NONE of those young men volunteered the fact that they learned in Seminary that Jesus had NO intention of saving MILLIONS of people...

They shouldn't HAVE to- the denomination EMBRACES that teaching- along with the idea that God sure wishes he could save more but he just can't :thumbs:

Maybe, Arms and Cals should part ways in the SBC...I vaguely doubt you'd let me teach at will in your church.

Yes, Arminians should leave the denomination and start their own. I agree.:thumbs:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Lemme pose a scenario:

Would you invite (as a Senior Pastor) an "Arminian" or brilliant and informed "Molinist" to apply as a viable candidate for an Associate's position at your churches?
SHOULD a dedicated Calvinist (Senior Pastor) knowingly hire an Associate Pastor who was truly dedicated to the truth-claims of Arminianism...and if so, what level of "freedom" should he posses to teach his views of Soteriology in classes and even the pulpit itself???

This isn't easy folks...not easy at ALL IMO.....
If I were a Senior Pastor..My position...I'd give Luke "MY" Pulpit all day...but, there would be LIMITS...places that the "Spirit" simply was NOT authorized to let him go...

If "The Spirit of God" demanded that by his leading...Luke divulged the "truths" commonly understood as Calvinism...
IT would be MY JOB!!! to bring him down from that pulpit and "stifle" the "Spirit's" leading as he led Luke to preach thus..

See how hard that is?

It's not so simple as 1,2,3 IMO

This isn't an easy question.

 

[quantumfaith]

Lemme pose a scenario:

Would you invite (as a Senior Pastor) an "Arminian" or brilliant and informed "Molinist" to apply as a viable candidate for an Associate's position at your churches?
SHOULD a dedicated Calvinist (Senior Pastor) knowingly hire an Associate Pastor who was truly dedicated to the truth-claims of Arminianism...and if so, what level of "freedom" should he posses to teach his views of Soteriology in classes and even the pulpit itself???

This isn't easy folks...not easy at ALL IMO.....
If I were a Senior Pastor..My position...I'd give Luke "MY" Pulpit all day...but, there would be LIMITS...places that the "Spirit" simply was NOT authorized to let him go...

If "The Spirit of God" demanded that by his leading...Luke divulged the "truths" commonly understood as Calvinism...
IT would be MY JOB!!! to bring him down from that pulpit and "stifle" the "Spirit's" leading as he led Luke to preach thus..

See how hard that is?

It's not so simple as 1,2,3 IMO

This isn't an easy question.

Isn't this the reason behind many SBC churches splitting. Half of the church felt the Lord wants red carpet, the other half feels the Lord is leading toward green carpet?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Isn't this the reason behind many SBC churches splitting. Half of the church felt the Lord wants red carpet, the other half feels the Lord is leading toward green carpet?

NO...it isn't...

I do NOT relegate the "Cal/Arm" debate to a carpet-color one.

 

[Luke2427]

Lemme pose a scenario:

Would you invite (as a Senior Pastor) an "Arminian" or brilliant and informed "Molinist" to apply as a viable candidate for an Associate's position at your churches?
SHOULD a dedicated Calvinist (Senior Pastor) knowingly hire an Associate Pastor who was truly dedicated to the truth-claims of Arminianism...and if so, what level of "freedom" should he posses to teach his views of Soteriology in classes and even the pulpit itself???

This isn't easy folks...not easy at ALL IMO.....
If I were a Senior Pastor..My position...I'd give Luke "MY" Pulpit all day...but, there would be LIMITS...places that the "Spirit" simply was NOT authorized to let him go...

If "The Spirit of God" demanded that by his leading...Luke divulged the "truths" commonly understood as Calvinism...
IT would be MY JOB!!! to bring him down from that pulpit and "stifle" the "Spirit's" leading as he led Luke to preach thus..

See how hard that is?

It's not so simple as 1,2,3 IMO

This isn't an easy question.

I gotta go- I got a church activity tonight so I can't address this fully.

But I would start a thread about what this "Spirit of God demanded..." stuff means if I had time.

I think this is a wrong way to think.

 

[quantumfaith]

NO...it isn't...

I do NOT relegate the "Cal/Arm" debate to a carpet-color one.

I think, maybe intentionally so, you missed the perhaps "obscure" point. The analogy is actually quite simple. Some feel lea down this path, others feel led down that path.
And I am confident that you KNOW I was not attempting to be disparaging.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ok, great.


And if Calvinism takes the position once again as the predominate view point of the Southern Baptist Convention, which it seems to be doing, then all Calvinist leaders in that day should move heaven and earth to see to it that no Arminian leaning pastoral candidate stands a chance in hell of getting a church in the SBC.

Right?

I have zero knowledge of SBC (what I see I dont like) but you throw around commentary like this so do you have statistics to back this up? Where is the growth indicators?

 

[kyredneck]

Do you not think these splits took place when young Arminians did the same thing to the SBC 100 years ago?

Do you think Arminians came to largely Calvinist churches touting their Arminianism?

Or do you think they knew the denomination welcomed them so they entered these churches, preached their doctrines and let the best side win (become the predominate view point)....

Alexander Campbell and 'Raccoon' John Smith ripped the Old Baptists apart right here in the Bluegrass early 1800s and spawned the COC.

Arminian to the hilt.

Right here in my county large 'Christian' denomination churches that first began as Baptists.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Do you not think these splits took place when young Arminians did the same thing to the SBC 100 years ago?

It's quite possible..I do not know.

Do you think Arminians came to largely Calvinist churches touting their Arminianism?

It's possible...I don't know. Do you?

Or do you think they knew the denomination welcomed them so they entered these churches, preached their doctrines and let the best side win (become the predominate view point).

Possibly...I don't know. I am NOT so expert of the history of the SBC...that I am inclined to "debate" you on this....I merely pose what I "think" given my knowledge as possible scenarios.....Did they "welcome" them? Maybe. Why don't you tell us?
I'm not being snide...I don't know...I think these issues are important. That's all. Other-wise, I wouldn't bother to debate them.

It is REsurging not just surging. It is resurging in a movement it was instrumental in starting to begin with.

OK...it's "RE-surging" not merely "surging"...My, mistake, This seems to be ancillary.

In 1700 Baptists had almost died in America. There were only 24 baptist churches in America.
Then the Great Awakening (a thoroughly Calvinistic revival) took hold. By 1790 there were almost 1,000 baptist churches.

I think Edwards described himself as "Congregationalist"...I may be mistaken.

It was only 55 years later that Baptists in the South split from the Triennial convention.
There is NO QUESTION, even if you gave Arminians the Sandy Creek movement (which would not be fully accurate) that the SBC was LARGELY Calvinistic in its moorings.

I don't recall anyone questioning this...or similarly, your next statement:

Its first seminary and, to this day- its largest seminary, is Calvinist.

You're 100% right (for all I care actually)...I'mnot here to save a "denomination" anyway...I'm a
Baptist.

What if the SBC had taken the stand that they would not sanction and support Home and Foreign Missionaries who were not Calvinists?

As a Molinist....when you begin speaking of counter-factuals...I think you enter MY domain (not yours) and frankly...I HAVE NO CLUE!!!! I don't think we do either what might or "would" have occurred eithter.....But...I DO think that GOD DOES, and he knows it as "Fact".

Two things would happen:
1- There would be no Calvinist vs Arminian issue like there is today in the SBC.

Only God perfectly understands the Contingencies of Humanly freedom or what counter-factuals DO or DO NOT possess anything like a "truth-value"...unless I mis-understand your Theology...This is a statement that you maintain is not actually possible to make.

MY Theology provides for the possiblility of such counter-factual truth-claims...yours (to my understanding) does not.

2- There may not BE an SBC. Calvinism had become dry and formal. Were it not for Arminian fervor the movement might have died.

I would agree that Arminianism added a certain fervour at the time...but,I wouldn't suggest that a strictly Calvinist SBC wouldn't find themselves re-igniting a fervor which translated similarly...They very well might have.

The same thing is true today. Except reverse the positions.
Not when those Arminian churches inherited funds and benefits from Calvinists of a few generations ago.
Ok then. Then NOBODY is doing it right. It is a wash.

Presumably, all this demonstrates is that Calvinists should not have been so hasty to permit Arminians to "infiltrate" their Churches or their convention or their Association... IF, that is your position, then fine...but I won't "tit-for-tat" about it...What I'll do is possibly suggest that a peaceable dis-association is possibly in order.

The Arminian can't rightly criticize the Calvinist for not being up front when Arminians are not being up front either.

Of course not...I think Arminians need to be 100% honest. But, I know of few complaints by Calvinists who were caught utterly off-guard by some sneaky Arminian who infiltrated them and started preaching about "free-willism" and such....that's not precisely the discussion we are having.

I think neither needs to identify themselves unless asked.

I think BOTH do...I know that Calvinists WILL ask, some Arminians simply won't KNOW to...so I would prefer they BOTH did.

Negligible. Wesley's impact was felt in England mostly in his day and Asbury and his followers did not give us many Baptist churches- just Methodist ones.

OK...debateable...as far as the general thrust of Soterilogical debate goes...but, fine...I would actually be willing to stipulate that EVERY major Spiritual and Theological advance in the Continental US was TOTALLY and completely under the guise and leadership of Calvinists if you felt like it...
I DO understand LOGIC...and EVEN if I stipulate as much (I'm willing to)...those schooled in logic know it doesn't prove anything.

Arminians who took over a largely Calvinist denomination and benefited from a missions structure already in place, dug out by Calvinists for the most part, from whence to launch their Arminianism.

Granted....Calvinists, were foolish enough to let evil Arminians take over their denomination.

And reverse the roles a hundred years ago...

Yes...Naive Calvinists let Evil Arminians take over their denomination.....What does this say??
They were so busy condemning the masses to hell with their insistence that God probablistically DIDN'T elect them that they missed the warning to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves"? Because, if you let the Arminians take over YOUR denomination in such a way...I pity you, you shouldn't have.

"kinda" is not an accurate term to describe what Calvinists are doing in many SBC churches- like Platt's church for example.

By "kinda" I meant to suggest "growth" in numbers only....which is the statistic I am assuming you will point to to demonstrate this particular Calvinists' success...

Note: In my Arminian Church...and EVERY Arminian Church I've been to in my life..we don't guage "growth" as sheerly a calculation of people who have filled out the "decision-cards"...We actually know better.

Yes, Arminians should leave the denomination and start their own. I agree.:thumbs:

I had not thought you would agree...In fact, I would think that this thread along with others you have posed suggested otherwise...

If you believe they should that would make for a good discussion...This isn't an easy discussion to have either. but, why then the complaint that the SBC seems un-wlecoming to you now??
Was your thread not based upon the idea that the SBC should accept BOTH views? And yet you said that you agree that Arminians should "leave" and start their own?
So....Do you want SBC Churches to decide if they be Calvinist or not, and LEAVE the SBC in accordance with it??? Is that your goal?