Call for a little more honesty

[rlvaughn]

In general, Calvinists shy away from any evangelistic formula that culminates with...

Just using your post as an opportunity to clarify what I meant about Calvinism making "an easy foil" (someone or something that serves as a contrast to another). Both JonC and RevMitchell brought up Calvinism in contrast to easy believism -- and certainly there is a contrast. Nevertheless, I am aware of a good bit of objection to easy believism from Baptists who are not Calvinists. This is not just a Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist disagreement.

 

[loDebar]

When JM came out with the Gospel According to Jesus in 1988, he was blacklisted by many in the SBC as well as IFB's, GARB's, Bible Colleges, seminaries, and Christian radio stations. My Bible college disinvited him from being an annual visiting professor. In fact, I was in the final class he taught at my school before he became persona non grata. Not that it mattered to JM. Withering in the face of unrelenting attacks is not one of his weaknesses.

What is your college?

 

[Rob_BW]

Just using your post as an opportunity to clarify what I meant about Calvinism making "an easy foil" (someone or something that serves as a contrast to another). Both JonC and RevMitchell brought up Calvinism in contrast to easy believism -- and certainly there is a contrast. Nevertheless, I am aware of a good bit of objection to easy believism from Baptists who are not Calvinists. This is not just a Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist disagreement.

It's been a while since the last multi-page thread on LS v. FG.

The split on that issue did not line up with the usual Cal v Arm (or whatever) split. It was very interesting.

 

[Reformed]

Just using your post as an opportunity to clarify what I meant about Calvinism making "an easy foil" (someone or something that serves as a contrast to another). Both JonC and RevMitchell brought up Calvinism in contrast to easy believism -- and certainly there is a contrast. Nevertheless, I am aware of a good bit of objection to easy believism from Baptists who are not Calvinists. This is not just a Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist disagreement.

Brother, I understood what you were saying. It is all good.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks. I wasn't sure I understood what I said (as I wrote it)!

 

[JonC]

If you think bashing of Pentecostals and lumping into groups of them does not happen regularly on here, well........

Why would you think that I believe such things do not happen regularly here????? That was the whole purpose of this thread - that it should not happen.

I am not sure why the fixation on the SBC - I mentioned them but I also mentioned Calvinists and Free-will theologians.

Basically, it is wrong to "bash" any Christian or Christian church.

 

[JonC]

With the election of J.D. Greear, is there any doubt in your mind that the majority of delegates had, at least for a day, a few screws loose? Either it's the majority view, or it's the fault of churches who were too lazy to go vote. I feel it was majority view.
This is kind of like being a Democrat. There might be a few good ones, but the bad in the party is so big, it completely swallows the good ones.

This is the first time I have ever been ashamed to be SBC.

I think that the SBC has outgrown its purpose in many areas.

 

[Reynolds]

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.

You see Calvinists behind every corner. You are majority paranoid that the "Calvies" are coming.

 

[Reynolds]

Basically, it is wrong to "bash" any Christian or Christian church.

I agree. My point is we should do much better at showing love outside our little group. I have no problem railing on SBC because I am SBC. I kind of see it as duty to sweep around my own door step. I am much more reserved when dealing with someone else's faults. It's their business, not mine. The SBC is my business. I wouldn't talk about it if I didn't care about it.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Strangely enough you have never showed such doctrine to be in error.
Show us your best post on that to remind us.

 

[JonC]

I agree. My point is we should do much better at showing love outside our little group. I have no problem railing on SBC because I am SBC. I kind of see it as duty to sweep around my own door step. I am much more reserved when dealing with someone else's faults. It's their business, not mine. The SBC is my business. I wouldn't talk about it if I didn't care about it.

I agree.

I have a bit of an issue when those outside a group rails on a group because this is contrary to what we are taught in Scripture (judging the servant of Another). This is what I often see on the board. And many times it is based on past experience that does not relate to present realities.

I have been critical of the SBC because I am Southern Baptist. Outside of my group the discussion goes to doctrine - not Christian associations to which I have no ties.

The problem is when Christians condemn other Christians or denominations beyond addressing doctrine (whether southern Baptist, Reformed, Arminianistc, Pentecostal, ect.).

 

[Reformed]

I believe that some people are here only to stir up divisiveness. Christians should have nothing to do with these people (Titus 3:10). Do not answer a fool according to their folly.

I agree with this statement. These types are usually outed quickly and make their way onto my special list. But even if there are BB members who are only here to cause trouble, we decide whether or not to engage with them. Unfortunately, trolls know exactly what to say to garner a response and their bait is difficult to resist. I can only speak for myself. Resistance is not futile! I am not saying you have to use the block/ignore feature on every divisive poster, but if you can stop responding to them they usually go away of their own accord.

 

[rlvaughn]

This is a Christian forum. The posts are read by more people than are active on any given thread. The posts and responses should reflect a Christ-like character...

I think "responses" is part of the flip side of the issue being discussed. Based on observation and the general characteristics of our shared nature, I suspect most of us respond differently to different members. For example, if the one posting is someone with whom we have a close theological affinity -- or just someone we like -- we tend to read that person's post with much more graciousness and understanding. Our "love" for the person or the theology covers a multitude of the "sins" that person commits in writing. On the other hand, if the one posting is someone with whom we have a wide theological divergence -- or just someone we don't like, or who grates our nerves -- we tend to put the worst construction on what that person writes. Perhaps one check and balance for this is to not respond in haste (James 1:19).

 

[PastoralMusings]

I’m just quickly weighing in as more of a lurker who rarely posts. I enjoy reading here, but simply despise how things turn into ad hominem mudfests at times. It turns me off. The last thread I posted in had someone talking about another in a slanderous way. Thankfully it was eventually subject to moderation, but it was very distasteful to me.
I grew up amidst contentious and uncharitable folks. I have pastored such and been members with such. I only engage with such when necessary, and it is not usually necessary that I do so online.
Sticking to facts and doctrine goes far in making any discussion profitable.
Please pardon my long-winded Baptist pastor rant

 

[loDebar]

I’m just quickly weighing in as more of a lurker who rarely posts. I enjoy reading here, but simply despise how things turn into ad hominem mudfests at times. It turns me off. The last thread I posted in had someone talking about another in a slanderous way. Thankfully it was eventually subject to moderation, but it was very distasteful to me.
I grew up amidst contentious and uncharitable folks. I have pastored such and been members with such. I only engage with such when necessary, and it is not usually necessary that I do so online.
Sticking to facts and doctrine goes far in making any discussion profitable.
Please pardon my long-winded Baptist pastor rant

this is a short post, these guys place pages just to begin a conversation


please enlighten us as to the Missionary Baptist name and why it is used

 

[PastoralMusings]

this is a short post, these guys place pages just to begin a conversation


please enlighten us as to the Missionary Baptist name and why it is used

I'm unsure of what you mean by your last sentence.

 

[loDebar]

I'm unsure of what you mean by your last sentence.

Why do you use the name of Missionary Baptist or why is it used?

 

[PastoralMusings]

Why do you use the name of Missionary Baptist or why is it used?

I wasn't sure if that was what you were asking, as it was not germane to the topic(I'm a bit slow on the uptake.).
I'm thinking the name Missionary Baptist goes back to the time of the anti-missions movement, so that those who supported missions would be distinguished from those who were opposed. RLVaughn could speak much more specifically to that than I can, as his historical acumen is great.

 

[rlvaughn]

Why do you use the name of Missionary Baptist or why is it used?

I'll not speak for PastoralMusings, but to the general subject of the use of the name Missionary Baptist.

Broadly, it goes back to a controversy over mission boards, auxiliaries, etc. that divided Baptists in the United States in the early part of the 19th century (roughly 1820-1840). Those who favored missionary societies or mission boards were classed as "Missionary Baptists," while they usually called the other side "anti-missionary" (but those groups called themselves Regular Baptists, Old School, Primitive, etc.). The name still falls generally in that realm, though it is often used by groups and/or churches that are not in favor missionary societies or mission boards like in the SBC or ABCUSA. The "Missionary Baptists" split over the way to do missions -- societies, board missions, Gospel missions, direct missions, etc. You usually just have to just figure out how it is used the geographical area where you see it. In our area "Missionary Baptist" means churches that are pro-missionary but not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. When they split here in the early 1900s, the non-SBC side was usually in the majority in the local associations and took the name "Missionary Baptist." If you visit East Texas you will quickly find that a church with the name "Missionary Baptist" is either a predominantly white church that is not in the SBC, or a predominantly African-American church that is affiliated with one of the National Baptist Conventions. I think, but don't hold me to it exactly, that this will generally be true in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi -- and probably Tennessee and Missouri. In my visits to northern Alabama and northern Georgia, I have found that if a church had "Missionary Baptist" in the name it was usually Southern Baptist.

Hope this helps.

 

[Reformed]

I'll not speak for PastoralMusings, but to the general subject of the use of the name Missionary Baptist.

Broadly, it goes back to a controversy over mission boards, auxiliaries, etc. that divided Baptists in the United States in the early part of the 19th century (roughly 1820-1840). Those who favored missionary societies or mission boards were classed as "Missionary Baptists," while they usually called the other side "anti-missionary" (but those groups called themselves Regular Baptists, Old School, Primitive, etc.). The name still falls generally in that realm, though it is often used by groups and/or churches that are not in favor missionary societies or mission boards like in the SBC or ABCUSA. The "Missionary Baptists" split over the way to do missions -- societies, board missions, Gospel missions, direct missions, etc. You usually just have to just figure out how it is used the geographical area where you see it. In our area "Missionary Baptist" means churches that are pro-missionary but not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. When they split here in the early 1900s, the non-SBC side was usually in the majority in the local associations and took the name "Missionary Baptist." If you visit East Texas you will quickly find that a church with the name "Missionary Baptist" is either a predominantly white church that is not in the SBC, or a predominantly African-American church that is affiliated with one of the National Baptist Conventions. I think, but don't hold me to it exactly, that this will generally be true in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi -- and probably Tennessee and Missouri. In my visits to northern Alabama and northern Georgia, I have found that if a church had "Missionary Baptist" in the name it was usually Southern Baptist.

Hope this helps.

I am typing this while laughing but I am afraid there may actually be a church with this name. How about Political Baptists? There is no shortage of politics among out Baptist brethren. They might as well self-identity.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk