One more reason why I can't be Southern Baptist

[Reynolds]

Here is how the SBC governs the churches: They don't! Each and every SBC church is autonomous.

The only thing the Convention can do is disfellowhip a church that proves to be heterodox. And that is extremely rare.

I can only think of it happening once in my area. Church in a neighboring town ordained women deacons about 30 years ago.

 

[Jerome]

Thankfully, the SBC went back to its roots.

Before the fundamentalist takeover, more than one view of the atonement was allowed

Praise God for restoring a seminary.

TB, please educate yourself. From SBTS's official history, Southern Baptist Seminary 1859-2009, the first chapter dealing with the formulation of the seminary's Abstract of Principles:

[bolded for your instruction]

Some SBC Founders disagreed that "Christ's death was a penal substitution in which Jesus bore the penalty required of sinners in their place. They held instead a moral government theory of the atonement....most prominently William B. Johnson"

[Johnson was the first President of the SBC!]

continuing, "The committee, Boyce, Broadus, Williams, Winkler, and Manly, met at Boyce's residence at the end of April 1858. They invited A. M. Poindexter to join them in their deliberations....differences were confined almost entirely within the doctrine of the atonement. Many held to particular redemption, the traditional view of English speaking Calvinists that Christ's death on the cross satisfied God's wrath and made propitiation for the sins of the elect only. Others understood the atonement as a 'general provision'...A.M. Poindexter...held to a general atonement."

[Poindexter was co-Secretary of the SBC's Foreign Mission Board with SBC Founder J.B. Taylor who stated in the 1850s that "the view now generally adopted by the Baptists [is] that the atonement is general in its nature."]

"But there was one other view prevailing among Southern Baptists...based on a “moral government” view of Christ's death....Two prominent Southern Baptists held this view, William B. Johnson and Edwin Mims, Boyce's predecessor at Furman."

"The article on justification, both in the two drafts and in its final form, spoke of 'the satisfaction that Christ has made,' which could comprehend either a penal substitution view or a satisfaction view of the atonement. Proponents of the moral government theory held that the atonement was in some sense a satisfaction rendering sufficient honor to God's holy law so that he could forgive sins without any punishment. There is no evidence of objection to the term, and it was broad enough to encompass the several theories prevailing among Southern Baptists."

 

[FollowTheWay]

Thanks. That's what I'll do. Although around here, the churches are mostly the same, from what I know of them.

The major thing I take issue with is the enfo9rced "doctrine" of Once Saved Always Saved." This was NOT a Baptist belief according to the 1925 BF&M but was intro0duced in the 1963 BF&M due to the influence of Herschel Hobbs who was the chairman of the committee. This is not a Biblical doctrine. In 1925 the same statement was used that was in the 1833 New Hampshire Confession, the bedrock of Baptist doctrine:
"Only those who persevere until the end are saved."
This change has resulted in a doctrine of "Cheap Grace" which is a false gospel statement.

 

[JonC]

The major thing I take issue with is the enfo9rced "doctrine" of Once Saved Always Saved." This was NOT a Baptist belief according to the 1925 BF&M but was intro0duced in the 1963

It was the belief of the first two SBC presidents (W.B. Johnson and R.B.C. Howell), who were both moderate Calvinists. Howell viewed the belief of Christian apostasy as an effect of the Methodist belief (which was, at that time, the most prominent denomination). J.R. Graves believed in the "security of the believer". If we go outside of SBC belief and into "Baptist belief", I doubt any here would deny that C.H. Spurgeon believed in the eternal security of the believer.

 

[TCassidy]

JonC, I think the issue is going beyond the preservation, by Grace, of the believer in Christ to the unscriptural (anti-scriptural) teachings of so-called "Lordship Salvation."

 

[JonC]

JonC, I think the issue is going beyond the preservation, by Grace, of the believer in Christ to the unscriptural (anti-scriptural) teachings of so-called "Lordship Salvation."

In terms of a works based salvation?

 

[TCassidy]

In terms of a works based salvation?

At least bordering on that heresy.

 

[Rebel1]

Unless you intend on becoming an elder there, I would not worry about it.

I used to attend a Reformed church in which about 3/4 of the congregation were not Reformed. No one cared.

A few more thoughts: At one time, I wanted to be a minister. I have been a member in a couple of other non-Baptist denominations and explored ministry there. But in the end, I could not state that I agreed with their polity or with infant baptism. As much as I felt called, I could not fulfill that calling in a denomination where I could not affirm their polity and some of their doctrines. That's when I realized how deeply I was attached to the Baptist principle of freedom. And yet I also realized I could not be a Baptist minister in the area where I live.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks. That's what I'll do. Although around here, the churches are mostly the same, from what I know of them.

Oh I understand ... family ties, but things change... not so much these churches, but you, as you will find as you start your search.

 

[Rebel1]

Oh I understand ... family ties, but things change... not so much these churches, but you, as you will find as you start your search.

Did you find a Baptist church you could attend, or did you start one?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Did you find a Baptist church you could attend, or did you start one?

Yes, a flawed one. I’m still searching for one that’s more to my scriptural understanding... probably a Primitive Baptist one but they are not available in the cold north where I live. But there is no such thing as Southern Baptist either.

 

[robycop3]

I was SB when first saved; now I'm indie fundy, free of all man-made doctrines of faith & worship.

 

[thatbrian]

I was SB when first saved; now I'm indie fundy, free of all man-made doctrines of faith & worship.

So, your church has no men or no doctrine?

 

[FollowTheWay]

It was the belief of the first two SBC presidents (W.B. Johnson and R.B.C. Howell), who were both moderate Calvinists. Howell viewed the belief of Christian apostasy as an effect of the Methodist belief (which was, at that time, the most prominent denomination). J.R. Graves believed in the "security of the believer". If we go outside of SBC belief and into "Baptist belief", I doubt any here would deny that C.H. Spurgeon believed in the eternal security of the believer.

Surgeon was a strong Calvinist. Of course he would believe in "Perseverance of the Elect." I remember one day in church when I was growing up the pastor was preaching on Eternal Security. My mother leaned over and said "That's not what I was taught when I grew up in thew FBC." And indeed it wasn't.

 

[JonC]

Surgeon was a strong Calvinist. Of course he would believe in "Perseverance of the Elect." I remember one day in church when I was growing up the pastor was preaching on Eternal Security. My mother leaned over and said "That's not what I was taught when I grew up in thew FBC." And indeed it wasn't.

But that is what was taught historically, although perhaps not exclusively. Where I live this was the primary difference between SBC churches and Free-will Baptist churches (my grandmother was SBC and my wife's grandmother Free-will).

We don't have to guess whether or not the doctrine of eternal security was taught at the onset of the SBC. We know that J.R. Graves held to the doctrine of the security of the believer. We know that R.B. C. Howell (pastor of FBC in Nashville in 1830 and 2nd president of the SBC) taught the doctrine of eternal security.

 

[FollowTheWay]

JonC, I think the issue is going beyond the preservation, by Grace, of the believer in Christ to the unscriptural (anti-scriptural) teachings of so-called "Lordship Salvation."

When I came forward to accept Jesus Christ, the question was asked: "Do you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?" Yes, I believe that both of these beliefs are required for salvation. What does your church ask new converts or those who are about to be baptized?

Why did the rich young ruler turn away from Jesus' offer of eternal life? Because his money and not Jesus was lord of his life. This is only one thong that prevents people from becoming genuine Christians today. Their lord might be money, power, sexuality, a political party, etc. Anything that we put ahead of Christ will prevent us from having a "closer walk with Thee." You call call this by whatever you want to but it is the true gospel not the watered down version. Lots of proclaiming Christians in America are Christian in name only not true followers of Christ and therefore not genuine.

Here is the statement from the 1925 BF&M:

XI. Perseverance

All real believers endure to the end. Their continuance in well-doing is the mark which distinguishes them from mere professors. A special Providence cares for them, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

John 10:28-29; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 John 2:19; 1 Cor. 11:32; Rom. 8:30; 9:11,16; Rom. 5:9-10; Matt. 26:70-75.

 

[thatbrian]

When I came forward to accept Jesus Christ

I have a few questions about this.

What does that statement mean? Forward where? Accept Jesus how? Where do these concepts come from? Is this a ritual of some kind? What is the biblical basis for it?

the question was asked: "Do you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?"

Who asked this question, and why?

 

[FollowTheWay]

But that is what was taught historically, although perhaps not exclusively. Where I live this was the primary difference between SBC churches and Free-will Baptist churches (my grandmother was SBC and my wife's grandmother Free-will).

We don't have to guess whether or not the doctrine of eternal security was taught at the onset of the SBC. We know that J.R. Graves held to the doctrine of the security of the believer. We know that R.B. C. Howell (pastor of FBC in Nashville in 1830 and 2nd president of the SBC) taught the doctrine of eternal security.

In reality, I got a bit off-topic (not unusual). I really want to focus on what constitutes a genuine salvation experience. This is the statement in the 1925 BF&M:

XI. Perseverance

All real believers endure to the end. Their continuance in well-doing is the mark which distinguishes them from mere professors. A special Providence cares for them, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

John 10:28-29; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 John 2:19; 1 Cor. 11:32; Rom. 8:30; 9:11,16; Rom. 5:9-10; Matt. 26:70-75.

This is almost exactly the same as the belief stated in the 1833 New Hampshire Covenant:

1. Of the Perseverance of Saints

We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end John 8:31; 1 John 2:27-28; 3:9; 5:18; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors 1 John 2:19; John 13:18; Matt. 13:20-21; John 6:66-69; Job 17:9; that a special Providence watches over their welfare Rom. 8:28; Matt. 6:30-33; Jer. 32:40; Psa. 121:3; 91:11-12; and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation Phil. 1:6; 2:12-13; Jude 24-25; Heb. 1:14; 2 Kings 6:16; Heb. 13:5; 1 John 4:4.

Eternal Security states that believers will never fall from Grace and that is true IF they had a valid born-again salvation experience and a personal relationship with the Lord. Mere belief that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient. The demons believe that and tremble at His name. The doctrine of Eternal Security results in converts who think they can pray the sinner's prayer and then go back to their former lifestyle "in Adam" as if nothing has changed. In reality nothing has changed.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I have a few questions about this.

What does that statement mean? Forward where? Accept Jesus how? Where do these concepts come from? Is this a ritual of some kind? What is the biblical basis for it?



Who asked this question, and why?

This was what would be called an "altar call." Think of the Billy Graham Crusade with people streaming forward to accept Christ while "How Great Thou Art" is sung. This used to be standard for Baptist churches but in many churches today the Pastor would say something like "If you have made a decision in you heart to follow Jesus, come to the front after the service or at another time and speak to me or one of the Deacons." Personally, I believe that either approach is valid but there is a definite need to talk to the person and examine whether they understand what they are doing (especially for young children) and understand what their confession means. Most of those here would probably say an altar call is still standard practice in their church.
Actually, I believe that the best way to share the gospel is one-on-one. It's not either or, however, but rather all of the above.

 

[Rebel1]

Yes, a flawed one. I’m still searching for one that’s more to my scriptural understanding... probably a Primitive Baptist one but they are not available in the cold north where I live. But there is no such thing as Southern Baptist either.

Could you explain what you meant by your last sentence?