Call for a little more honesty

[JonC]

Do you not think what he said was accurate? SBC as a convention, it's programs, it's training, it's missionaries, all trickle into the local SBC churches. What the convention does, most member churches adopt. Easy believerosm is rampant in the SBC and it's churches.

No, I don't. Here is the reason:

1. History disproves the idea. There was a time when liberal theology was growing in the SBC and its seminaries. I remember "seminary" becoming a "bad word" among SBC churches. But the issue at that time was the SBC was not accurately representing the body of churches it was called to represent. So there was a "turn over".

2. Even now there are many SBC churches that are apprehensive about the SBC itself. Several prefer seminaries that affirm the BF&M but that are not under the SBC governance. Many refuse to use SBC materials. But they remain SBC churches (perhaps out of tradition or because they support the SBC mission effort). My experience has been that the larger SBC churches support the SBC wholeheartedly while the smaller ones are perhaps more weary about several of the resolutions and even the direction.

3. There is no data that suggest that most SBC churches hold to a doctrine of "easy believism". People will believe what they want to believe (opinion), and that is fine. But when Christians start condemning other churches that is not fine.

 

[Reynolds]

No, I don't. Here is the reason:

1. History disproves the idea. There was a time when liberal theology was growing in the SBC and its seminaries. I remember "seminary" becoming a "bad word" among SBC churches. But the issue at that time was the SBC was not accurately representing the body of churches it was called to represent. So there was a "turn over".

2. Even now there are many SBC churches that are apprehensive about the SBC itself. Several prefer seminaries that affirm the BF&M but that are not under the SBC governance. Many refuse to use SBC materials. But they remain SBC churches (perhaps out of tradition or because they support the SBC mission effort). My experience has been that the larger SBC churches support the SBC wholeheartedly while the smaller ones are perhaps more weary about several of the resolutions and even the direction.

3. There is no data that suggest that most SBC churches hold to a doctrine of "easy believism". People will believe what they want to believe (opinion), and that is fine. But when Christians start condemning other churches that is not fine.

I condemn my convention, my association, and my church on this issue. It seems that as a whole, the non Calvi,rustic fundamentalists are the worst about teaching easy believerism.

 

[rlvaughn]

There was a time when liberal theology was growing in the SBC and its seminaries...There is no data that suggest that most SBC churches hold to a doctrine of "easy believism"...

I condemn my convention, my association, and my church on this issue. It seems that as a whole, the non Calvirustic fundamentalists are the worst about teaching easy believerism.

What I understand as the practice of "easy believism" or "easy believerism" is unrelated to the type of liberal theology that was somewhat rooted out of the SBC and its seminaries via the Conservative Resurgence. My experience, in accord with Reynolds, is that this is mostly seen among the non-Calvinistic conservative-fundamentalist type Baptists, both in and out of the SBC.

 

[JonC]

I condemn my convention, my association, and my church on this issue. It seems that as a whole, the non Calvi,rustic fundamentalists are the worst about teaching easy believerism.

As a member of your church you are more than welcome to condemn it.

The problem is if you extend out to condemn my church (which is SBC but very much rejects "easy believeism").

I have no issues with people discussing the SBC, the IMB, the NAMB, or their SBC churches. The issue is when people start applying their experience to other churches simply because they contribute to the SBC.

When I decided to join the SBC church I joined yesterday it was a process. Pastors met with me and my family. We all had to give our testimonies. We all had to be affirmed by the church. It was explained that we are accountable to each other. We are expected not to sin and when we do we are accountable to the congregation. We were explained that members of a congregation are in a covenant relationship with one another.

This was nothing new. It was the same in the last church we attended (before we moved here).

Perhaps that lets you know why I do not like generalizations applied to churches in ignorance. Condemn the SBC if you see fit. Condemn your church if you find it proper. But unless you have been a member of mine, you have no right to an opinion about the faithfulness of my church.

 

[kyredneck]

I condemn my convention, my association, and my church on this issue. It seems that as a whole, the non Calvi,rustic fundamentalists are the worst about teaching easy believerism.

What I understand as the practice of "easy believism" or "easy believerism" is unrelated to the type of liberal theology that was somewhat rooted out of the SBC and its seminaries via the Conservative Resurgence. My experience, in accord with Reynolds, is that this is mostly seen among the non-Calvinistic conservative-fundamentalist type Baptists, both in and out of the SBC.

Can someone define 'easy believism'?

 

[JonC]

What I understand as the practice of "easy believism" or "easy believerism" is unrelated to the type of liberal theology that was somewhat rooted out of the SBC and its seminaries via the Conservative Resurgence. My experience, in accord with Reynolds, is that this is mostly seen among the non-Calvinistic conservative-fundamentalist type Baptists, both in and out of the SBC.

I was a teenager in the 80's, so my experience may be different from many. Also, we have to keep in mind that the SBC is composed of independent churches.

There is a lot that I disagree with concerning the SBC (now). But this does not necessarily apply to the churches. We can't live in the past because so many SBC members were not around for the "outing" of liberalism.

 

[JonC]

Can someone define 'easy believism'?

I believe ice cream is good. That was an easy belief for me.

 

[Reynolds]

As a member of your church you are more than welcome to condemn it.

The problem is if you extend out to condemn my church (which is SBC but very much rejects "easy believeism").

I have no issues with people discussing the SBC, the IMB, the NAMB, or their SBC churches. The issue is when people start applying their experience to other churches simply because they contribute to the SBC.

When I decided to join the SBC church I joined yesterday it was a process. Pastors met with me and my family. We all had to give our testimonies. We all had to be affirmed by the church. It was explained that we are accountable to each other. We are expected not to sin and when we do we are accountable to the congregation. We were explained that members of a congregation are in a covenant relationship with one another.

This was nothing new. It was the same in the last church we attended (before we moved here).

Perhaps that lets you know why I do not like generalizations applied to churches in ignorance. Condemn the SBC if you see fit. Condemn your church if you find it proper. But unless you have been a member of mine, you have no right to an opinion about the faithfulness of my church.

Did you miss me saying "most member churches"?

 

[JonC]

I removed my post because I was told that it was against forum rules to publicly rebuke a moderator. I did not know that, and so when informed I responded appropriately as i did not want to openly violate rules.

Oh, I meant to offer - if your statement is true I have no problem "un-deleting" your post. Perhaps it would be good for the BB to see. I promise no rebuttal from me. Just let me know.

 

[Reynolds]

Can someone define 'easy believism'?

Easy believerosm: Reynolds definition: Come to the alter, say a prayer, and enjoy your eternal security. No true emphasis on The Lordship of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Did you miss me saying "most member churches"?

No. I didn't. I just do not know if that is true. With over 47,500 churches what are the numbers of the ones who believe in "easy believeism".

Where are you getting your stats?

Your claim is that out of 47,544 churches at least 23,773 churches hold to "easy believism". This would be "most" by one church. I simply want to see the date you use to make the claim.

 

[kyredneck]

I believe ice cream is good. That was an easy belief for me.

Lol, you ever try it with aged balsamic vinegar drizzled over it? Gourmet!

I was raised SB, from my earliest memories it's always been easy to think of Jesus Christ as my hero.

 

[JonC]

Lol, you ever try it with aged balsamic vinegar drizzled over it? Gourmet!

OK. I took you up on the salt suggestion and you were right, but I do not think balsamic is a good idea.

 

[rlvaughn]

Can someone define 'easy believism'?

Probably not! It is sort of hard to put in terms of a dictionary definition. I'm not sure I've ever seen a clean one. We might consider some of the practices.

• Soulwinners promise that a person will go to heaven on the basis of a repeated prayer and professing faith in Jesus.
• Following a formula to get a profession of faith, such as the "Romans Road" method.
• "In Seminary I was required to force unbelievers to make a decision of yes or no or else it was not counted as a witness and two witnessing events were required of every student per week or no passing grade was obtained" (this is what the Biblicist mentioned in the other thread, that the seminary he attended practiced).

Probably the one thing that is the most common thread in what I understand as easy-believism is a preacher or "soulwinner" getting people (whether en masse or one-on-one) to repeat a prayer after them and then tell them if they repeated that prayer they are saved.

 

[kyredneck]

OK. I took you up on the salt suggestion and you were right, but I do not think balsamic is a good idea.

It's NOT just plain ol' ordinary balsamic, it's traditionally aged balsamic.

[add]

...delicious over strawberries, blueberries, yogurt, alone over salads, etc. Not the same critter as lower grade balsamic.

 

[JonC]

It's NOT just plain ol' ordinary balsamic, it's traditionally aged balsamic.

Serious?

 

[Revmitchell]

The soul-winning efforts get a bad rap and usually by calvies who have an ax to grind due to their false theology.

1. Using the Romans road is biblical. In fact using any set of scriptures to communicate the gospel is biblical. Romans 1:16
2. Helping someone to communicate through prayer is biblical. Romans 10:13

If you don't like it don't do it. However, in the end the sincerity of one's heart is not diminished by calvies poor doctrine.

 

[kyredneck]

Serious?

Peruse the reviews.

 

[rlvaughn]

I was a teenager in the 80's, so my experience may be different from many...

I was a teenager in the first half of the 70s, so there's that difference!

 

[kyredneck]

The soul-winning efforts get a bad rap and usually by calvies who have an ax to grind due to their false theology.

1. Using the Romans road is biblical. In fact using any set of scriptures to communicate the gospel is biblical. Romans 1:16
2. Helping someone to communicate through prayer is biblical. Romans 10:13

If you don't like it don't do it. However, in the end the sincerity of one's heart is not diminished by calvies poor doctrine.

...sheesh, it's 'easy' to see what's your ax to grind...