-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is it possible to be Southern Baptist and...
- Thread starter Rebel1
- Start date
- Status
I was called to the ministry in a small SBC church, married a SBC girl and attended a SBC seminary and worked with all the staff at the SBC seminary as manager of the printing department. Personally met many of the leaders of the SBC (Dr. Adrian Rogers, etc.) Still have fellowship with some of my SBC professors. So, I know a little bit about the SBC from personal experience.
The SBC has been so obsessed with easy believisim evangelism that nothing substantial is taught in the Sunday Services. While 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. The Seminary paper kept a total of the number of witnessing along with total number of those saying yes and by the time I left Seminary they had more evangelized by "yes" than actual citizens living in Memphis TN.
Although there has been a removal of outright heretics from leadership and professorships in SBC Seminaries there is more of an attitude of lets get along now and just emphasize easy believism evangelism. Anyway that was what I saw first hand in the 1980's.
The SBC has been so obsessed with easy believisim evangelism that nothing substantial is taught in the Sunday Services. While 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. The Seminary paper kept a total of the number of witnessing along with total number of those saying yes and by the time I left Seminary they had more evangelized by "yes" than actual citizens living in Memphis TN.
Although there has been a removal of outright heretics from leadership and professorships in SBC Seminaries there is more of an attitude of lets get along now and just emphasize easy believism evangelism. Anyway that was what I saw first hand in the 1980's.
What do you mean?
In what way do you think that is do?
To clarify - did you attend a SBC Seminary (that is governed by the SBC) or did you attend a seminary that is independent of the SBC but affirms the SBC faith and message (e.g., Liberty University, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, etc). In other words, out of the six SBC Seminaries, which one did you attend?
The reason I ask is your post seems to indicate that you attended a SBC seminary and worked with the staff at this SBC seminary (SBC staff). I am curious as to which one taught "easy believeism". This is foreign to my experience but I did not attend a SBC seminary (I attended Liberty). But there are all kinds of seminaries that are SBC in that they agree with and support the SBC mission.
Another reason I ask is I know a professor at the Dallas seminary who teaches missions. He certainly does not believe in "easy believeism".
Here is the problem with this comment and this type of comment:
The member who made this comment has no way of knowing if nothing substantial is taught in the Sunday Services of churches who are a part of the SBC denomination. Yet the comment broadly classifies my church as teaching nothing substantial in Sunday Services (which I can provide is false as the pastor taught of the Resurrection...which is VERY substantial). It broadly condemns Paul Washer’s church, Jonathan Falwell’s church, David Platt’s church as teaching nothing substantial in Sunday Service. It calls out members like @Revmitchell and the late @TCassidy for not teaching anything substantial in Sunday Services. (Sorry, Rev., you and TC were the first SBC pastors that came to mind).
My experience is that in every SBC church service, every IFB service, and every "non-denominational" service I've attended something substantial was taught because all have gathered around Scripture. That is not to say that something substantial was received because one must have ears to hear. But I can grant that in the experience of some nothing substantial was taught.
We have to stop categorizing denominations and people-groups according to our experiences. It is wrong. It is dishonest. And it is un-Christlike.
I am not responding to start a debate or argument - there is no argument to be had as there is no room for this kind of prejudice on a Christian forum. I am responding to encourage members (myself included) to PRAYERFULLY THINK about what you are going to post before you post it. Ask yourself if it is true of the whole or is it merely your experience.
Jon c,
People need to be able to express what they have seen and read and give their view on it.
Have you been in a Sunday service that RM. Has offered to know what is taught?
To suggest that someone has to attend every Sbc church to offer an opinion is not realistic.
There is a night and day difference between founders churches and the others.
It seems as though you think every comment has to be filtered through your eyes, and point of view.
What if it is your view that is not quite up to it?
Reading the statement of the traditionalists exposes much man centered easy believism ideas in their statement
Tom Ascols book did a good job of showing this based on their own document.
People need to be able to express what they have seen and read and give their view on it.
Have you been in a Sunday service that RM. Has offered to know what is taught?
To suggest that someone has to attend every Sbc church to offer an opinion is not realistic.
There is a night and day difference between founders churches and the others.
It seems as though you think every comment has to be filtered through your eyes, and point of view.
What if it is your view that is not quite up to it?
Reading the statement of the traditionalists exposes much man centered easy believism ideas in their statement
Tom Ascols book did a good job of showing this based on their own document.
I attended Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis TN. My experience included the Seminary and the many SBC churches that supported this seminary. I fully understand that my general statement is not true of every single SBC church but what I saw was a general push in that direction. I don't think anyone can dispute the inner struggle within SBC at that time with liberals controlling the major SBC Seminaries - again generally speaking as there is always professors who are exceptions.
Please put a check on your extreme accusations and learn to respond with a more evenly tempered manner. You are being very provocative when its is not called for. It seems to me that you are intentionally trying to be provocative in order to get a response out of me that would justify banning me as that seems to be your MO. Take note, that I made no personal attack on any specific church or professor but merely made a general statement as I do have lots of personal experience with SBC churches and the interaction between Mid-America and SBC Seminaries. Mid-America was offered to be accepted as a SBC Seminary but declined (as I understood it).
Last edited:
I don't see him doing that. You might check yourself.
Thank you for your clarification. I suspected it was not a SBC seminary but an independent seminary that associated itself with the Convention in some form from previous conversations.
I am not sure what you believe to be “extreme accusations” (or “accusations” at all). You said that the “SBC has been so obsessed with easy believism evangelism that nothing substantial is taught in the Sunday Services”. I offered no accusation, just the observation that the comment as stated is an error (and a fallacy). You have no way of knowing what is taught in the Sunday Services of SBC churches as a whole or in general.
I am pleased you have come off that sweeping generalization but am not sure why you find it difficult to own the comment. It was in post#82
And then you continued by explaining how this seminary you attended (this “SBC seminary”) required you to force unbelievers to make a decision and kept a total number of results. BUT this was an INDEPENDENT seminary that supported the SBC – NOT a SBC seminary.
Do you understand why your experiences there do not apply to actual SBC seminaries (the six that are governed by and accountable to the SBC and the SBC churches)?
Are you able to see why it is objectionable to say, even generally, that the SBC does not teach anything substantial in the Sunday Services?
I am not accusing you of anything. I am asking you to evaluate your own comments. If you do not think that they were in error, then that is perfectly fine with me. I am not the one who generally condemned 47,544 churches that worship Jesus Christ. That, friend, is between you and God.
My comment is that we need to be careful when we start generalizing the whole based on our experiences. My experience with Landmark Baptist churches is that most I’ve met are not well educated and have “paper-mill” diplomas. But I cannot apply that to the whole. My experience with Pentecostals is that they yield reason to emotion. But I cannot apply that to the whole (Gordon Fee is a good example of how I would be wrong).
Christians need to stop generalizing and attacking other Christian groups.
I am not sure what you believe to be “extreme accusations” (or “accusations” at all). You said that the “SBC has been so obsessed with easy believism evangelism that nothing substantial is taught in the Sunday Services”. I offered no accusation, just the observation that the comment as stated is an error (and a fallacy). You have no way of knowing what is taught in the Sunday Services of SBC churches as a whole or in general.
I am pleased you have come off that sweeping generalization but am not sure why you find it difficult to own the comment. It was in post#82
And then you continued by explaining how this seminary you attended (this “SBC seminary”) required you to force unbelievers to make a decision and kept a total number of results. BUT this was an INDEPENDENT seminary that supported the SBC – NOT a SBC seminary.
Do you understand why your experiences there do not apply to actual SBC seminaries (the six that are governed by and accountable to the SBC and the SBC churches)?
Are you able to see why it is objectionable to say, even generally, that the SBC does not teach anything substantial in the Sunday Services?
I am not accusing you of anything. I am asking you to evaluate your own comments. If you do not think that they were in error, then that is perfectly fine with me. I am not the one who generally condemned 47,544 churches that worship Jesus Christ. That, friend, is between you and God.
My comment is that we need to be careful when we start generalizing the whole based on our experiences. My experience with Landmark Baptist churches is that most I’ve met are not well educated and have “paper-mill” diplomas. But I cannot apply that to the whole. My experience with Pentecostals is that they yield reason to emotion. But I cannot apply that to the whole (Gordon Fee is a good example of how I would be wrong).
Christians need to stop generalizing and attacking other Christian groups.
"It is wrong. It is dishonest. And it is un-Christlike." - Jon C
Just a little bit overkill don't you think?
All the professors were doctoral graduates and many professors at other SBC Seminaries. To say this is not a SBC seminary simply because it is not owned and operated by the SBC is false. All the churches supporting it were SBC churches, the President of the SBC (Adrian Rogers) fully supported it, many of the professors taught at other owned and operated SBC Seminaries and the SBC wanted control of the Seminary. The very reason Mid-America refused to be owned by the Seminary was because of GENERAL corruption within the other SBC seminaries.
So, no, I don't agree with you at all.
This is simply immature tat for tat as you have never been a member of such a church have you, but I have SBC churches, you never attended an SBC seminary but I have. Many of the graduates of Mid-America are now professors in other SBC seminaries.
I really don't care to discuss anything with you because you just don't have a very good attitude (in my humble opinion).
Iconoclast,
You are almost right. If @The Biblicist attended 23,778 SBC churches at some length then at least he would be able to give an honest opinion about what most SBC churches teach on Sunday Morning. But the problem is that he should never have tried to condemn or critique the whole based on his experiences.
We are not talking about people expressing what they have seen and read, or their views on it. We are talking about prejudices and generalizations made about other Christians, churches, or Christian groups.
Let me give you a personal example – I have been here since 2001. My experience with Reformed Baptists is that most are arrogant, indoctrinated but uneducated, hateful people. I have met exceptions (and I’ve met exceptions here on the BB). But even here on the BB I do not know that I’ve met “most” Reformed Baptists. It would be wrong of me to generalize the whole based on my personal experience. All I can say is that I’ve met some Reformed Baptists who are hateful (which really is not saying anything). Prejudiced generalizations are wrong because they are not honest statements (they rely on limited experience and unfounded ideas).
As Christians we are called to support one another. We are to be careful how we walk, not as unwise men but as wise men. We are to make the most of our time, because the days are evil. We do not need to be foolish, but to understand what the will of the Lord is.
We cannot do this if we are occupying ourselves in generalizations about other Christians based on our very limited experience.
If the problem is “easy believeism” then that problem should be addressed – not ascribed to over 47,500 churches in ignorance of whether or not they adhere to an “easy believeism”.
As Christians we need to be honest in our discourse – to go the extra mile to make sure what we say and post is not false. We have to stop making generalizations about other Christians as this is not only a slander of those faithful believers but it is slandering Christ.
Not at all - that was not my response to you (it was actually what I said in post # 85 about the types of posts that categorize denominations and people-groups according to their experiences).
AND I still maintain that characterizing Christians based on our limited experience is wrong, dishonest, and un-Christlike. It makes us the judge of other Christians without even knowing what they believe or teach. This is wrong. We cannot justify this type of prejudice.
(Reference: Exodus 23:1; Leviticus 19:16; Ephesians 4:29; Romans 14; Ephesians 5, 2 Timothy 2; Philippians 2).
no one asked you.
JonC,
I already said it is unrealistic to suggest that anyone person attend all SBC. Churches, so why would you suggest this is a must?
He has some first-hand experience that is more than most have. he has a right to express his view. You can agree or disagree, and present your ideas, to which he can agree or disagree. looks as if we are not all in agreement.
You are welcome to express that view, if that is how you feel, say so, and stand by it. I do not share that view at all.
In a local church we are called to support one another. On this board and others I see people who are quite willing to attack believers and twist the word to do so. I do not feel any obligation to support them or their error.
Yet, I do not believe in censorship, I defend their right to attack what they believe is error, as long as i can give a defense for what I understand truth to be.
This is your opinion and you are again welcome to hold it and post it. we are all welcome not to agree with your point of view, faulty logic, and suggested massive sins taking place.
For example; you mention 47,000 churches, you mention Paul Washer. The founders churches and Paul Washer are not going to preach easy believism, but in fact it is people like Paul Washer who have been invitied to speak at these other churches and has spoken against this problem, and he is not alone.
That might be your opinion and you are welcome to it, as I am to mine JonC. If I made the comment that it is watered down, why would you assume I had not looked at it? I do not agree with with your explanation of the facts.
I already said it is unrealistic to suggest that anyone person attend all SBC. Churches, so why would you suggest this is a must?
He has some first-hand experience that is more than most have. he has a right to express his view. You can agree or disagree, and present your ideas, to which he can agree or disagree. looks as if we are not all in agreement.
You are welcome to express that view, if that is how you feel, say so, and stand by it. I do not share that view at all.
In a local church we are called to support one another. On this board and others I see people who are quite willing to attack believers and twist the word to do so. I do not feel any obligation to support them or their error.
Yet, I do not believe in censorship, I defend their right to attack what they believe is error, as long as i can give a defense for what I understand truth to be.
This is your opinion and you are again welcome to hold it and post it. we are all welcome not to agree with your point of view, faulty logic, and suggested massive sins taking place.
For example; you mention 47,000 churches, you mention Paul Washer. The founders churches and Paul Washer are not going to preach easy believism, but in fact it is people like Paul Washer who have been invitied to speak at these other churches and has spoken against this problem, and he is not alone.
@Iconoclast ,
I did not give you an opinion about the SBC F&M. That is what the SBC explains on the link provided. I provided what the SBC says anout the F&M. It cannot be a "watered down" document by definition. It can only be too narrow or too broad, depending on opinion. That is why I asked if you had read the document (your opinion betrayed an ignorance about its nature).
There is a difference between an opinion and a logical fallacy (one of generalization).
An opinion would be that you belueve all the SBC churches you have visited have taught insufficient doctrine. This not only would be a legitimate opinion based on your experience but it would have to be accepted as true.
A logical fallacy would be concluding all SBC churches teach insufficient doctrine based on your limited experience and the opinions you have read.
The statement is false because it relies on falacy. It generalizes a small segment and applies it to the whole. Also - If SBC teaching is wrong then it is illogical to rely on a SBC preacher's opinion (Paul Washer) as evidence.
That is the diffrrence between an opinion and an unsubstantiated assertion. You are entitled to the first - not the latter.
Predjudice is NEVER an acceptable mode of argument.
For example. Because of this board my wife and I made the decision not to consider Reformed Baptist churches. This was based on my opinion of the people from my limited experience on an online forum. But I cannot condemn all Reformed Baptist churches based on my experience.
Opinions are important to our decision making process. But they do not justify prejudice. They do not justify generalization and false statements.
Christians are called to "walk in the light". We do not always do this. We cannot allow our opinions and limited experience to be the cause of slandering other Christians or other churches. There may be reasons people do this, but there are no excuses fot the behavior.
I did not give you an opinion about the SBC F&M. That is what the SBC explains on the link provided. I provided what the SBC says anout the F&M. It cannot be a "watered down" document by definition. It can only be too narrow or too broad, depending on opinion. That is why I asked if you had read the document (your opinion betrayed an ignorance about its nature).
There is a difference between an opinion and a logical fallacy (one of generalization).
An opinion would be that you belueve all the SBC churches you have visited have taught insufficient doctrine. This not only would be a legitimate opinion based on your experience but it would have to be accepted as true.
A logical fallacy would be concluding all SBC churches teach insufficient doctrine based on your limited experience and the opinions you have read.
The statement is false because it relies on falacy. It generalizes a small segment and applies it to the whole. Also - If SBC teaching is wrong then it is illogical to rely on a SBC preacher's opinion (Paul Washer) as evidence.
That is the diffrrence between an opinion and an unsubstantiated assertion. You are entitled to the first - not the latter.
Predjudice is NEVER an acceptable mode of argument.
For example. Because of this board my wife and I made the decision not to consider Reformed Baptist churches. This was based on my opinion of the people from my limited experience on an online forum. But I cannot condemn all Reformed Baptist churches based on my experience.
Opinions are important to our decision making process. But they do not justify prejudice. They do not justify generalization and false statements.
Christians are called to "walk in the light". We do not always do this. We cannot allow our opinions and limited experience to be the cause of slandering other Christians or other churches. There may be reasons people do this, but there are no excuses fot the behavior.
That's never stopped any one from chiming in.
Last edited:
To simplify:
Suppose you were robbed by a purple man, and you see reports about purple man robberies. You form an opinion anout why these robberies occur.
If you generalize the entire race based on this opinion then you hold a prejudice (or a prejudiced opinion) about the race.
If you act on this prejudice, you speak out against the entire race, then you are a racist.
The first sentence is a legitimate opinion. The second a prejudiced opinion. The third a sin.
Christians need to stop sinning against other Christians. There us no excuse for this - period. This is a Christian forum.
When Christians find this type of attitude in their hearts they need to prayerfully turn to God rather than act on it. This applies to SBC, IFB, Reformed, Free-Will, ect. There is NEVER an excuse to act on predjudiced opinions against other Christians.
Suppose you were robbed by a purple man, and you see reports about purple man robberies. You form an opinion anout why these robberies occur.
If you generalize the entire race based on this opinion then you hold a prejudice (or a prejudiced opinion) about the race.
If you act on this prejudice, you speak out against the entire race, then you are a racist.
The first sentence is a legitimate opinion. The second a prejudiced opinion. The third a sin.
Christians need to stop sinning against other Christians. There us no excuse for this - period. This is a Christian forum.
When Christians find this type of attitude in their hearts they need to prayerfully turn to God rather than act on it. This applies to SBC, IFB, Reformed, Free-Will, ect. There is NEVER an excuse to act on predjudiced opinions against other Christians.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Today, in contrast to when I was involved, there is now a resurrgence of Calvinism within the SBC, which I find refreshing. Also, there has been a deep cleansing and removal of liberals, for the most part, from the owned and operated SBC seminaries, which is also a good thing. Again, I am speaking in generalities without specifying any particular church or area of churches. I still have good friends among the SBC. When I was among them they tried hard to recruit me as a missionary to Africa. However, as a whole, the SBC was still too liberal and diverse for me.
="JonC, ]@Iconoclast[/USER] ,
Well let me see if that is what I said, or is it what you projected on me?
in post #52 I said;
The BF M is a watered down document which tells much about where some of the churches are.
Notice I said SOME OF THE CHURCH'S
In post#56 I said;
I know what it is. I do not share your perspective on it. I have been in some of the churches to see firsthand.
In both posts I used the term some, which means ,not all a few....Why did you extend it as if I said ALL?
Well let me see if that is what I said, or is it what you projected on me?
in post #52 I said;
The BF M is a watered down document which tells much about where some of the churches are.
Notice I said SOME OF THE CHURCH'S
In post#56 I said;
I know what it is. I do not share your perspective on it. I have been in some of the churches to see firsthand.
In both posts I used the term some, which means ,not all a few....Why did you extend it as if I said ALL?
- Status