SBC- Hatfields vs McCoys?

[saturneptune]

They might think that ,unless the Spirit of God opened their eyes to welcome the truth:thumbs:

The Spirit of God does not open eyes based on your opinion. He opens eyes depending on the will of the Lord.

This whole problem has little to do with Cal/non-cal. I was being taught doctrines of grace before you were born. This has to do with civility, edification, and a willingness to learn from the Lord beyond the depths of opinion that extends to about the length of one's nose. One is either part of the problem or part of the solution.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are a perfect example of why non-Cals and Cals could not get along in the SBC. You have fellows like yourself who say folks who do not agree with you are heretics, apostates, and do not know the truth. You think you are superior to non-Cal Baptists.

Your accuasations do not change the facts.Read from their first confession.
You do not want truth,you want to resist.Looks like you have what you want.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Spirit of God does not open eyes based on your opinion. He opens eyes depending on the will of the Lord.

This whole problem has little to do with Cal/non-cal. I was being taught doctrines of grace before you were born. This has to do with civility, edification, and a willingness to learn from the Lord beyond the depths of opinion that extends to about the length of one's nose. One is either part of the problem or part of the solution.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[saturneptune]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Imagine that.

 

[Luke2427]

Yep, you don't have non-Cals going into Reformed churches trying to reform them. but you have plenty of Calvinists who sneak into non-Cal Baptist churches and try to change what folks have always believed.

If a Calvinist tried to come into my church and change what we believe, I not only would give him a map to the nearest Reformed church, I would give him $10 for gas too.

I don't blame these fellas for making a stand at all, it was WAY overdue.

You Calvinists may want the SBC, but they don't want you.

This is what I am talking about in the OP.

#1. It is not true that "non-calvinists" do not go in and try to convert Calvinist churches in the SBC. If they never did this, then the SBC would still be largely reformed as it was in its moorings. No, the SBC was not exclusively Calvinistic, but the great majority of the SBC was. No one disputes this just like no one disputes that by the 1950's or so the SBC was largely "non-calvinistic".

#2. It does not matter if Arminians seek Arminianize churches or if Calvinists seek to Calvinize churches. As long as either side is forthright in their endeavor, it is perfectly fine.

The problem is when either group tries to define or redefine the denomination by means outside of ordinary ministry. For example, preaching, praying, singing and teaching are ordinary means. If Arminians, in a forthright manner, introduce their sincere soteriological convictions into churches by these means and the churches embrace them- fine. That's called playing fair.

If Arminians can build Great Commission, Christ-honoring churches and seminaries BETTER than Calvinists- then the SBC OUGHT to become largely Arminian.

And the reverse is equally true. If Calvinists can build Great Commission, Christ-honoring churches and seminaries BETTER than Arminians- then the SBC OUGHT to become largely Calvinistic.

What is NOT acceptable is when one tries to control the denomination by means other than preaching, praying, singing and teaching.

THAT'S what this letter is. It tries to stem the rising tide of Calvinism in the denomination by attacking other good, Great Commission, Christ honoring ministries.

The only way Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, etc... should attempt to stem the tide of Calvinism is by building churches through ordinary means of the Gospel which embrace their particular soteriological convictions.

 

[Iconoclast]

Imagine that.

Imagine what?

 

[saturneptune]

Imagine what?

You can figure out most of it, but notice your posts draw sharp responses from both Cals and non-cals.

 

[Luke2427]

Tom at one time I had a list of a few, maybe 30 or so, but off hand I believe Jerry Vines old church in Al. was one and what little brain I have left isn't working to well right now to bring up any. Their are a few I know of down here but won't list them they are on their way to healing from their past splits.
The problem was pushed by,Founders leader, the late Ernest C. Reisinger, who employed and promoted in order to "reform" the Southern Baptist Convention one church at a time.
We have Dr. Hargrave right down the road, who I believe has one of the largest Calvinists Churches in the SBC and he is well like by both sides, he had Riverbend listed out front as a Reformed Church.

Brother Bob, both sides have tried to do this at various points in the denomination's history. I contend there is nothing wrong with this as long as it is done through forthright and ordinary means of ministry.

If Arminianism produces stronger churches and more preachers for the pulpits of SBC churches then it SHOULD- I repeat SHOULD take over the SBC. The FACTS are that at one point Arminians DID unreform the SBC.

But churches like Belvue Baptist prospered and grew and won people to Christ- more power to Dr. Rogers for that.

But yo keep in mind, Brother Bob, that Dr. R. G. Lee, who pastored Belvue before Dr. Adrian Rogers, was a Calvinist. Dr. Rogers simply came in preaching his particular soteriological convictions and the church embraced them.

Good for him. As long as he is building the church, exalting the King and expanding the Kingdom- BRAVO!

But the SAME is true of Calvinists who build great churches and turn out of their seminaries great preachers.

As long as they are reforming the SBC through ordinary means of ministry while exalting the King and expanding the Kingdom- BRAVO!

What is NOT OK is when one side or the other tries to marginalize, ostracize and attack the other side who are, with their soteriological view point, expanding the Kingdom.

THAT is what this letter does and it is not good.

 

[Iconoclast]

You can figure out most of it, but notice your posts draw sharp responses from both Cals and non-cals.

SN,
I cut to the chase.There are few innocent lambs in here. When there are open attacks,they get dealt with, If a person is sincere,they get a sincere answer.
I get sharp responses because I get close to the target either way.No one likes being opposed,or corrected and yet both happen here.
If you stay on the topic....it does not get personal.Issues can be discussed civilly. Winman offering gas money to cals so they can leave his church does not qualify,nor does saying a line is drawn in the sand and shots will be fired help out.
Some of the response is a reaction to being called on smug, sanctimonious comments. Because someone tries to dress up their critcal comments, by saying, peace, or bless you, or claiming they are taking the high road does not follow that it is so. Polite insults do not cut it.
Open rebuke is better than secret love.

 

[Winman]

This is what I am talking about in the OP.

#1. It is not true that "non-calvinists" do not go in and try to convert Calvinist churches in the SBC. If they never did this, then the SBC would still be largely reformed as it was in its moorings. No, the SBC was not exclusively Calvinistic, but the great majority of the SBC was. No one disputes this just like no one disputes that by the 1950's or so the SBC was largely "non-calvinistic".

You assume all Baptists were Calvinists to begin with. Non-Cal or Arminian Baptists go all the way back to Thomas Helwys and John Smyth. John Smyth is often credited with starting the first "Baptist" church, and he was not Calvinistic.

#2. It does not matter if Arminians seek Arminianize churches or if Calvinists seek to Calvinize churches. As long as either side is forthright in their endeavor, it is perfectly fine.

I could agree with this, but this is not what is happening. Non-Cal churches have complained for years of Calvinists "sneaking" into their churches and then attempting to force their views on a non-Cal congregation. You almost NEVER hear of an non-Cal pastor doing this.

The problem is when either group tries to define or redefine the denomination by means outside of ordinary ministry. For example, preaching, praying, singing and teaching are ordinary means. If Arminians, in a forthright manner, introduce their sincere soteriological convictions into churches by these means and the churches embrace them- fine. That's called playing fair.

Show me any examples of a Calvinist church complaining of an non-Cal pastor infiltrating their church and trying to "reform" them.

If Arminians can build Great Commission, Christ-honoring churches and seminaries BETTER than Calvinists- then the SBC OUGHT to become largely Arminian.

And who determines that, you?

And the reverse is equally true. If Calvinists can build Great Commission, Christ-honoring churches and seminaries BETTER than Arminians- then the SBC OUGHT to become largely Calvinistic.

I don't have a problem with Calvinists building churches, but don't infiltrate a church that is known to be non-Cal and attempt to reform them.

What is NOT acceptable is when one tries to control the denomination by means other than preaching, praying, singing and teaching.

These pastors have every right to make a stand. What is unacceptable is Cal pastors applying for a pastorate at a non-Cal church and not telling them he is a Calvinist, and then later introducing Calvinism to that congregation. If Calvinism is so great, why don't they proudly tell the church they are a Calvinist when they apply for the job? This "stealth" tactic is very un-Christian like. It is deception.

THAT'S what this letter is. It tries to stem the rising tide of Calvinism in the denomination by attacking other good, Great Commission, Christ honoring ministries.

You are correct they are trying to stem the rising tide of Calvinism, but they do not consider your doctrine correct or scriptural.

The only way Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, etc... should attempt to stem the tide of Calvinism is by building churches through ordinary means of the Gospel which embrace their particular soteriological convictions.

They have. What they are complaining about is Calvinists sneaking into their churches and trying to take it away from them. Start your own churches.

 

[Iconoclast]

http://blog.founders.org/2012/05/response-to-statement-of-traditional.html


http://blog.founders.org/2012/05/statement-of-traditional-southern.html

http://blog.founders.org/2012/06/response-to-statement-of-traditional.html


http://blog.founders.org/2012/06/response-to-statement-of-traditional_04.html

some responses

 

[Bob Alkire]

Brother Bob, both sides have tried to do this at various points in the denomination's history. I contend there is nothing wrong with this as long as it is done through forthright and ordinary means of ministry.

Brother, I have no problem as long as a Free Grace, Calvinist, Arminianism or whatever view the preacher believes, as long as he is open about it from the opening talk on. So many churches search committee don't do a good job checking out the men they are looking at. I know when ever a church was calling me, I would let them know my soteriological views and the views I had on doctrinal issues which might be different than theirs.
If I knew the church was from a view I couldn't back, I would tell them and we would pray that they would find God's man for the work.
On Adrian Rogers, they knew what they were getting when they got him. R.G, Lee knew him well, if I recall correctly Dr. Lee had spoke at Adrian Rogers' church at Merritt Island, Fl. a few times before he went to Memphis.
I've been around long enough that men from different soteriological views have been used to teach me and I've been blessed by them. I like people to be above board.
As Tom said his church is about 30% Cal. and 70% noncal and they get along to the glory of God. Brother and sisters in Christ should be able to get along and Baptist added to it, there shouldn't be any reason for us not getting along but loving and praying for each other as well.

 

[Luke2427]

You assume all Baptists were Calvinists to begin with. Non-Cal or Arminian Baptists go all the way back to Thomas Helwys and John Smyth. John Smyth is often credited with starting the first "Baptist" church, and he was not Calvinistic.

Winman, you did not read what you are responding to very well at all.

Reread it, please. I said the SBC was LARGELY Calvinistic in her moorings.

No one disputes that.

So "non-calvinists" did UNreform the SBC at some point to get us to the place where the SBC majority is "non-calvinistic".

I could agree with this, but this is not what is happening. Non-Cal churches have complained for years of Calvinists "sneaking" into their churches and then attempting to force their views on a non-Cal congregation. You almost NEVER hear of an non-Cal pastor doing this.

Show me any examples of a Calvinist church complaining of an non-Cal pastor infiltrating their church and trying to "reform" them.

Why?

And who determines that, you?

Do you dispute that churches should grow and the Kingdom should expand by means of preaching, teaching, singing and praying?

I don't have a problem with Calvinists building churches, but don't infiltrate a church that is known to be non-Cal and attempt to reform them.

Why not?

If the church votes you in to be their pastor and teacher, why should you not teach the Word of God the way you understand it?

I said that both Calvinists and Arminians should be forthright when they take churches.

If the church has a particular soteriological viewpoint that they do not wish to be challenged, they simply ask the trial pastor what perspective he will promote. If he is forthright then he absolutely SHOULD promote what he said he would promote.

If the church, like the denomination, does not take a stand one way or the other and they hire a man because he is a gifted preacher and chuch builder then he has done nothing wrong by building that church the way he understands the Scripture to command it to be built.

Dr. Adrian Rogers took a Calvinistic church in Belvue and UNreformed it. I don't have a problem with it. I love and respect both Belvue and Dr. Rogers greatly. As long as he is exalting the King and expanding the Kingdom- great. But make no mistake, the great Dr. R. G. Lee who pastored directly before him was a Calvinist and taught the people the Doctrines of Grace while there.

This happens on both sides and which ever side is doing the best job winning souls, building churches, exalting the King and expanding the Kingdom SHOULD do so.

These pastors have every right to make a stand. What is unacceptable is Cal pastors applying for a pastorate at a non-Cal church and not telling them he is a Calvinist, and then later introducing Calvinism to that congregation.

This is not thought through very well, in my opinion. I have said repeatedly that both Calvinists and non-calvinists should be forthright.

But MOST SBC churches follow suit with the official position of the SBC denomination- which is that they do not have an official position.

Most churches hire pastors based on their God-giftedness to preach and build churches.

And that's how they SHOULD hire pastors.

That's how Belvue hired "non-cal" Dr. Rogers after being led for many years by thoroughly Calvinistic Dr. R. G. Lee.

The current pastor of the great First Baptist in Dallas is not a Calvinist. But the might man of God, Dr. W. A. Criswell who led the church to become the largest protestant church in the world at one point was absolutely a Calvinist.

Should the pastor who followed Dr. Criswell have said- "Look, before you hire me I want you to know that I intend to TOTALLY undermine Dr. Criswell's soteriological teaching?"

I honestly don't think so. The church asks, "Do you ascribe to the Baptist Faith and Message?" The pastor says, "Absolutely."

That's that.

If Calvinism is so great, why don't they proudly tell the church they are a Calvinist when they apply for the job? This "stealth" tactic is very un-Christian like. It is deception.

Non-calvinsts are not going around saying, "Hey, I am proudly opposed to the soteriological teachings that this denomination was largely founded upon. I am thoroughly against the doctrines of the Reformation and great Baptists like Charles Spurgeon. I just wanted you to know, before you hired me."

...nor SHOULD they.

You are correct they are trying to stem the rising tide of Calvinism, but they do not consider your doctrine correct or scriptural.

Then build churches that believe what you believe.

But asking the denomination and the churches of the denomination to totally undermine nearly two centuries of policy of not disallowing either viewpoint is reckless and idiotic.

They have. What they are complaining about is Calvinists sneaking into their churches and trying to take it away from them. Start your own churches.

If "non-cals" had adopted that policy and abode by it for the past 100 years the SBC would to this day still be largely reformed in their soteriology.

 

[Winman]

http://blog.founders.org/2012/05/response-to-statement-of-traditional.html

http://blog.founders.org/2012/05/statement-of-traditional-southern.html

http://blog.founders.org/2012/06/response-to-statement-of-traditional.html

http://blog.founders.org/2012/06/response-to-statement-of-traditional_04.html

some responses

This fellow being a Calvinist of course disagrees with this document, but he gets it, he knows what is going on.

It seems that behind this second charge there must be some underlying concern that perhaps is not fully articulated in the preamble. I am speculating here and am willing to be corrected, but if the concern is that Calvinists are acting sinfully or unethically in trying to promote their views then let that be clearly stated. If there is a plot or conspiracy to make Calvinism "the central Southern Baptist position," then the authors would help us by making that known. Otherwise, their assertion of such is gratuitous and and reveals that they are warring against a straw man of their own creation.

If this fellow is speculating (NOT), then he hit the nail right on the head. This is the issue.

But one of his posters is even more insightful;

Frankly, it doesn’t matter much to me what these guys say as long as they're not hatching some scheme to block funding to the hordes of young Calvinists who are lining up to take the gospel to the furthest ends of the earth.

This is exactly what they are doing. They resent giving money to Calvinist pastors who are planning the overthrow of what they consider the "traditional" Southern Baptist view.

Only time will tell, but this is what is REALLY going on. These fellows are attempting to force the SBC to take a stand on what they believe, and to control where the support will go.

Sure am glad I belong to an IFB church.

 

[Luke2427]

Brother, I have no problem as long as a Free Grace, Calvinist, Arminianism or whatever view the preacher believes, as long as he is open about it from the opening talk on. So many churches search committee don't do a good job checking out the men they are looking at.

I understand what you are saying Brother Bob. I really do.

But I think what you might not be considering yet is that neither the denomination NOR the vast majority of churches have ever taken a stand against either soteriology.

The denomination welcomes both "cals" and "non-cals" to preach their particular understanding of the Doctrines of Grace.

This denominational policy is reflected in the vast majority of the churches that make it up.

If the pulpit committee, representing the church that appointed it, does not express a preference one way or the other they are being consistent with the denominational policy.

The Calvinist pastor AS WELL as the non-calvinist pastor should feel welcome to pastor any church that does not specify one way or the other.

 

[Luke2427]

This is exactly what they are doing. They resent giving money to Calvinist pastors who are planning the overthrow of what they consider the "traditional" Southern Baptist view.

And that's part of the problem there. The dishonesty emanating from the use of the word "traditional".

The MOST "traditional" view of the SBC is that of the Doctrines of Grace.

The SBC was largely Calvinistic in her origins.

To insinuate that this is not the case is manipulative and dishonest.

 

[Winman]

Brother, I have no problem as long as a Free Grace, Calvinist, Arminianism or whatever view the preacher believes, as long as he is open about it from the opening talk on. So many churches search committee don't do a good job checking out the men they are looking at. I know when ever a church was calling me, I would let them know my soteriological views and the views I had on doctrinal issues which might be different than theirs.

You are correct, but this wasn't an issue say 10-15 years ago. I have been a Baptist nearly 50 years now, I had heard and read of Calvinism over the years, but I never knew of REAL Calvinists until recently. There just weren't that many around. I did know of John MacArthur back in the 80's, but he was an exception to the rule.

This is why they are calling it New Calvinism, Calvinism is of course 400 years old, but only recently has there been a resurgence in it. So, most Baptist churches are unsuspecting of a Calvinist pastor coming in. They just don't expect it, especially the older members who make the decisions. That is changing, and this document is part of the process. They are purposely calling the issue to light, they are taking a stand.

 

[Bob Alkire]

But I think what you might not be considering yet is that neither the denomination NOR the vast majority of churches have ever taken a stand against either soteriology.

The denomination welcomes both "cals" and "non-cals" to preach their particular understanding of the Doctrines of Grace.

This denominational policy is reflected in the vast majority of the churches that make it up.

Each church is independent and a member of a local and or state association so they are free on their soteriology, it is their call on their understanding. I have no problem as long as the man being called lays his cards on the table. Untill 20 to 25 years ago for the most part we got along with in the same church and from pastor to pastor.
For the most part I stay out of this cal, non cal debate, I believe at times it does more harm than good.

 

[convicted1]

The sad thing in all of this is this: we're on the same side. We both desire to see the lost saved. We both pray for God to draw the lost to Himself. We both preach Jesus as the Way, Truth, and the Life. We quarrell with/at each other, when we should be engaged in prayer, witnessing to the lost, visiting the widows, taking care of the less fortunate. It's not about us, but Him.

 

[Bob Alkire]

You are correct, but this wasn't an issue say 10-15 years ago. I have been a Baptist nearly 50 years now, I had heard and read of Calvinism over the years, but I never knew of REAL Calvinists until recently. There just weren't that many around. I did know of John MacArthur back in the 80's, but he was an exception to the rule.

I'm a little different than you. I was raised a Calvinist and went to a Presbyterian Church and Seminary. It was near the end of my final year of seminary that I changed. About a year later I became a Baptist, because most Baptist churches were not Cal. churches. I would say there was about 5 to 10% Calvinistic churches in Fl at that time.