SBC- Hatfields vs McCoys?

[Luke2427]

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.

Neither the Calvinist nor the non-calvinist should feel compelled to identify his particular soteriological viewpoint to a church that does not articulate a preference one way or the other.

This is especially true when that church is in a denomination that embraces both viewpoints freely.

Unless a pulpit committee expresses a desire for the church to only ever espouse one view point and not ever be taught the other, neither the Calvinist nor the non-calvinist should even bring it up in the meeting.

A dispensational premil trial pastor does not feel compelled to say, "Wait a minute! Before we close this pulpit committee meeting, it is incumbent upon me to notify you that I believe in this relatively new idea of a rapture before the tribulation. I thought you ought to know that before you present me for a vote."

An eternal securitist in the vein of Charles Stanely who believes a Muslim can go to heaven so long as at some point prior to his conversion to Islam he has been "saved" does not feel compelled to say to the committee, "Hold up now! Before you vote on me please understand that MY eternal security is more in line with Charles Stanely's view than with Adrian Rogers' view."

A non-calvinist does not feel compelled to say, "Before you vote on me, guys, please know that I do not ascribe to the soteriology that the vast majority of the founders of this denomination ascribed to. I am against the soteriology of W. A. Criswell, Charles Spurgeon, the Reformers, R. G. Lee, the instruments of the Great Awakening like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, the Pilgrims, the Puritans, etc..."

He does not feel compelled to identify himself that way- nor should he in a denomination that does not require its pastors and churches to ascribe to the soteriology of most of its founders.

Neither should the Calvinist feel compelled to say, "Hey, before you vote on me, just know that I believe what most of the founders of this denomination believed. I ascribe to what this denominations first and, still to this day, largest seminary teaches."

He should not feel compelled to say such things to a church that does not articulate a particular stand one way or the other.

 

[Winman]

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.

Well, there have been non-Cal and Cal Baptists from the very beginning, so neither side can really claim the title traditional.

And Calvinists today are not traditional, they do not believe in baptismal regeneration as Calvin did. So, this term gets misused by both sides.

I don't know what term they should have picked, but for modern times, say the last 100 years, then the non-Cal/Arminian view is the traditional view.

It's just a word, who cares? Folks should not believe something because it is a tradition, they should believe what is scriptural.

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Jesus didn't speak very approvingly of tradition. If folks believe something just because it is a tradition, they are open to error. Much tradition is error.

Folks will deflect and argue about this word, that is not the issue. These folks are trying to establish what they think should be the official doctrine of the SBC, and they are trying to force out Calvinsits.

It is a war whether anyone realizes it or not. This document is just like when the CSA fired on Fort Sumter. It is too late to go back now.

 

[TadQueasy]

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.

Doesn't sound very sneaky to me.

 

[humblethinker]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/10/controversy-over-calvinism-brewing-in-the-sbc/

Now, I don't know who this fellow is, or anything about him, I am just showing you the issue has been out there for a long time.

Winman, I think you would like Roger Olson. He has a great blog and this entry is spot on! Besides, who would want to disclose to the public that this has happened to thier church (or a church they once attended and left because it happened)? This would create division.

 

[Jerome]

How about the 'Founders' faction's cybersquatting that was exposed a while back?

The address southernbaptistconvention.org was unavailable for the Southern Baptist Convention to use, since someone else had registered the domain long ago. Turns out it was the 'Founders' who were behind it, using it solely to redirect traffic from legitimate "Southern Baptist Convention" searches to the Founders website.

Is that the type of thing you're looking for, Tom?

 

[Jkdbuck76]

BECAUSE I AM TELLING YOU THAT A WAR BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES IN THE DENOMINATION WILL END NO BETTER THAN IT DID FOR THE HATFIELDS AND MCCOYS.

Kevin Costner will be in a movie about it on The History Channel?

:tonofbricks:

 

[Ed B]

Kevin Costner will be in a movie about it on The History Channel?

:tonofbricks:

And that would be just recompense for the wicked.....

/shiver

 

[Benjamin]

Neither the Calvinist nor the non-calvinist should feel compelled to identify his particular soteriological viewpoint to a church that does not articulate a preference one way or the other.

This is especially true when that church is in a denomination that embraces both viewpoints freely.

Unless a pulpit committee expresses a desire for the church to only ever espouse one view point and not ever be taught the other, neither the Calvinist nor the non-calvinist should even bring it up in the meeting.

A dispensational premil trial pastor does not feel compelled to say, "Wait a minute! Before we close this pulpit committee meeting, it is incumbent upon me to notify you that I believe in this relatively new idea of a rapture before the tribulation. I thought you ought to know that before you present me for a vote."

An eternal securitist in the vein of Charles Stanely who believes a Muslim can go to heaven so long as at some point prior to his conversion to Islam he has been "saved" does not feel compelled to say to the committee, "Hold up now! Before you vote on me please understand that MY eternal security is more in line with Charles Stanely's view than with Adrian Rogers' view."

A non-calvinist does not feel compelled to say, "Before you vote on me, guys, please know that I do not ascribe to the soteriology that the vast majority of the founders of this denomination ascribed to. I am against the soteriology of W. A. Criswell, Charles Spurgeon, the Reformers, R. G. Lee, the instruments of the Great Awakening like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, the Pilgrims, the Puritans, etc..."

He does not feel compelled to identify himself that way- nor should he in a denomination that does not require its pastors and churches to ascribe to the soteriology of most of its founders.

Neither should the Calvinist feel compelled to say, "Hey, before you vote on me, just know that I believe what most of the founders of this denomination believed. I ascribe to what this denominations first and, still to this day, largest seminary teaches."

He should not feel compelled to say such things to a church that does not articulate a particular stand one way or the other.

Listen to this boloney out this attitude how “we shouldn’t feel compelled to articulate our stand” and we “shouldn’t be compelled to identify with one group or another” when they are looking for a job and the pulpit committee doesn’t seem interested in asking about it - and compare that to their attitude about shoving it dow…err teaching it and the ASSERTIVENESS in how they are going to MAKE it an issue AFTER they get their foot in door and their hands on the keys!

Where do you get this stuff?!? Straight out of the “How to Avoid Being Detected Beforehand Handbook for Calvinists”?

No Pal! If you are living and breathing Calvinism and you can’t wait to start shovi…err teaching to the congregation and this is going to be a priority of great importance for you – YOU NEED to get ALL YOUR cards on the table and SHOW your HAND!!! Know what I mean?

Something else “if” a document like the “Articles of Affirmation and Denial” were to be brought out in front of a pulpit committee and questions to be asked concerning its contents it would be far and few between that a Calvinist would get the job after AND you Calvinist know this! That is EXACTLY the REAL REASON why so many are opposed and up in arms to stop it – because it brings transparency and allows for informed decisions on the issue! You guys got something to hide and bringing these issues to light hurts your agenda!

The non-Calvinists have NO problem laying these cards on the table like the Calvinists do and that FACT is VERY telling in and of itself! You guys are fully aware that many are unaware...

 

[Tom Butler]

How about the 'Founders' faction's cybersquatting that was exposed a while back?

The address southernbaptistconvention.org was unavailable for the Southern Baptist Convention to use, since someone else had registered the domain long ago. Turns out it was the 'Founders' who were behind it, using it solely to redirect traffic from legitimate "Southern Baptist Convention" searches to the Founders website.

Is that the type of thing you're looking for, Tom?

I'm not familiar with that story.

I did try to go to the URL but got a 404 page.
On that same page was a link to click with the same URL, and it took me to SBCNet, the official website of the SBC. If it was the way you described it, it's not now.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

Bob, thanks. So far you are the only one to provide some specifics.

I have read Ernest Reisinger's account of his experience at Pompano Beach. That church was a mess when he came there as pastor. His efforts to put it on the right track are not the sinister conspiracy some would have us believe.

 

[agedman]

Listen to this boloney out this attitude how “we shouldn’t feel compelled to articulate our stand” and we “shouldn’t be compelled to identify with one group or another” when they are looking for a job and the pulpit committee doesn’t seem interested in asking about it - and compare that to their attitude about shoving it dow…err teaching it and the ASSERTIVENESS in how they are going to MAKE it an issue AFTER they get their foot in door and their hands on the keys!

Where do you get this stuff?!? Straight out of the “How to Avoid Being Detected Beforehand Handbook for Calvinists”?

No Pal! If you are living and breathing Calvinism and you can’t wait to start shovi…err teaching to the congregation and this is going to be a priority of great importance for you – YOU NEED to get ALL YOUR cards on the table and SHOW your HAND!!! Know what I mean?

Something else “if” a document like the “Articles of Affirmation and Denial” were to be brought out in front of a pulpit committee and questions to be asked concerning its contents it would be far and few between that a Calvinist would get the job after AND you Calvinist know this! That is EXACTLY the REAL REASON why so many are opposed and up in arms to stop it – because it brings transparency and allows for informed decisions on the issue! You guys got something to hide and bringing these issues to light hurts your agenda!

The non-Calvinists have NO problem laying these cards on the table like the Calvinists do and that FACT is VERY telling in and of itself! You guys are fully aware that many are unaware...

I don't know of a Baptist church that does not have a statement of faith and a constitution.

It is THOSE TWO documents that should be shown to the prospective pastor and a great amount of time going through EACH item; significant difference in views being hammered out.

It should NEVER be the soteriological view of the pulpit committee, because most that I have ever been associated with didn't have a clue as to what the word even meant, much less understood the turmoil.

If the prospective pastor looks at the two documents and ascends to them, he has met the qualifications of being a member of the church and the folks can assess if the Holy Spirit would impress upon their hearts the man.

If that prospective pastor looks at the two documents and does not ascend to them, then sorry, but he is not the man for that church.

Btw, most statements of faith and doctrinal views of long standing First Baptist church types are rather Calvinistic in reading. The folks haven't been through their own statements of doctrinal beliefs in so long, most couldn't find them without looking into the original papers in locked bank vaults.

Some years ago, I met as an adviser to a pulpit committee; one of the first things we did was go through the doctrinal statements of the church. There was a huge and heated discussion on the documents. Some on the committee said that if the church called a pastor that agreed with the documents, they and their family would leave. The previous pastor was a non-cal, and the original documents were Calvinistic in thinking.

So, who was the one who deceived?

The former pastor, who hadn't looked at the documents and the people liked because he was so good to listen too?

The former pulpit committee, who rather than looking at the documents and selecting candidates that were in agreement with the documents, spent more time on appearance, education, and "speach-ify-cation" ability?

The members of the church, who listened to one sermon, had a short Q/A session and then voted?

The documents themselves, that lay dormant in the drawers, long forgotten and when discovered created controversy?

 

[Jerome]

I have read Ernest Reisinger's account of his experience at Pompano Beach.

Have you read anything recently about what's happened to that church—the exemplar of Founders reformitude?

 

[Jerome]

I'm not familiar with that story.

I did try to go to the URL but got a 404 page.
On that same page was a link to click with the same URL, and it took me to SBCNet, the official website of the SBC. If it was the way you described it, it's not now.

Because their scheme was exposed and Founders was shamed into turning over the domain to its rightful holder late last year. So it now forwards to sbc.net rather than founders.org.

http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2011/01/sbc-cybersquatting.html

I performed a WHOIS search on the domain southernbaptistconvention.org. What did I find? Look for yourself. The domain southernbaptistconvention.org was apparently registered by Tom Ascol, or perhaps by the Reisingers, since barbreisinger@mac.com is the contact email for the registrant. And the page that you land on over at Founders does appear to be designed for people coming from this particular domain name.

 

[Luke2427]

Listen to this boloney out this attitude how “we shouldn’t feel compelled to articulate our stand” and we “shouldn’t be compelled to identify with one group or another” when they are looking for a job and the pulpit committee doesn’t seem interested in asking about it - and compare that to their attitude about shoving it dow…err teaching it and the ASSERTIVENESS in how they are going to MAKE it an issue AFTER they get their foot in door and their hands on the keys!

Where do you get this stuff?!? Straight out of the “How to Avoid Being Detected Beforehand Handbook for Calvinists”?

No Pal! If you are living and breathing Calvinism and you can’t wait to start shovi…err teaching to the congregation and this is going to be a priority of great importance for you – YOU NEED to get ALL YOUR cards on the table and SHOW your HAND!!! Know what I mean?

Something else “if” a document like the “Articles of Affirmation and Denial” were to be brought out in front of a pulpit committee and questions to be asked concerning its contents it would be far and few between that a Calvinist would get the job after AND you Calvinist know this! That is EXACTLY the REAL REASON why so many are opposed and up in arms to stop it – because it brings transparency and allows for informed decisions on the issue! You guys got something to hide and bringing these issues to light hurts your agenda!

The non-Calvinists have NO problem laying these cards on the table like the Calvinists do and that FACT is VERY telling in and of itself! You guys are fully aware that many are unaware...

If non-calvinists had followed your line of reasoning for the past 100 years then we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Nearly the whole denomination would still be Calvinist.

It is because non-calvinists came in and UNreformed the SBC that we are even talking about this to start with.

But I am saying that neither Calvinists nor non-calvinists should feel compelled to make an issue of it before a pulpit committee that expresses no preference.

Non-calvinists do not say that they do not adhere to the historical protestant doctrines of the reformation before a pulpit committee.

They have not been informing pulpit committees for the past 100 years that they are against the soteriological perspective of the vast majority of the denomination's founders and her first and to this day largest seminary- by far.

They do not divulge that their theology is opposed to the theology of the founders of this nation or the leaders of the Great Awakening.

If they had been doing this all along then non-calvinism would be a non-issue in this denomination.

But the fact is that the denomination, when led largely by Calvinists did not demand that the small percentage of non-calvinsts IDENTIFY THEMSELVES and be ostracized.

And I'm glad that my Southern Baptist forefathers did not do this.

But it is EXACTLY what you would do- and frankly, it is hypocritical to say the VERY least.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

Let's all go own some slaves since that was the traditional view of the sbc.

 

[jonathan.borland]

B H Carroll said that slavery was ok since God had cursed that race. Let's go propagate his view since it was so traditional at the time.

 

[Winman]

Winman, I think you would like Roger Olson. He has a great blog and this entry is spot on! Besides, who would want to disclose to the public that this has happened to thier church (or a church they once attended and left because it happened)? This would create division.

The information is out there. You can go to forums and see where many persons have posted that a Calvinist came into their non-Cal church undercover and caused a split.

Now, I didn't think I would have to record these posts to prove this later. Calvinists KNOW this is true.

And yes, from the little I read on Olson's blog he seems like a very reasonable person. I did see where he said a person can believe in Arminianism and still hold to Eternal Security.

But that is not my only issue with Arminianism, I do not believe that men are so depraved they cannot believe the gospel when it is preached, I believe the gospel is powerful enough to convict and convince any man to believe. Nevertheless, men can resist and reject the Holy Spirit and the gospel.

I also do not believe in Perseverance of the Saints, I believe in Preservation of the Saints which is quite different. We are not saved because we are faithful to Jesus (Thank God!), we are saved because Jesus will always be faithful to us.

 

[Jerome]

SBC Founder R. B. C. Howell, 1846:

"Neither can we submit to be classed with those who, after casting off some of the shackles of Catholicism, denominated themselves Reformed churches. We call not our churches reformed, because we believe them no better than their predecessors. . . .we are not Protestants, nor Dissenters, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, nor Reformers, but what we have been in all ages, the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dl0wAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[jonathan.borland]

SBC Founder R. B. C. Howell, 1846:

"Neither can we submit to be classed with those who, after casting off some of the shackles of Catholicism, denominated themselves Reformed churches. We call not our churches reformed, because we believe them no better than their predecessors. . . .we are not Protestants, nor Dissenters, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, nor Reformers, but what we have been in all ages, the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dl0wAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q&f=false

Amen! Nice quote.

 

[Benjamin]

I don't know of a Baptist church that does not have a statement of faith and a constitution.

It is THOSE TWO documents that should be shown to the prospective pastor and a great amount of time going through EACH item; significant difference in views being hammered out.

It should NEVER be the soteriological view of the pulpit committee, because most that I have ever been associated with didn't have a clue as to what the word even meant, much less understood the turmoil.

If the prospective pastor looks at the two documents and ascends to them, he has met the qualifications of being a member of the church and the folks can assess if the Holy Spirit would impress upon their hearts the man.

If that prospective pastor looks at the two documents and does not ascend to them, then sorry, but he is not the man for that church.

Btw, most statements of faith and doctrinal views of long standing First Baptist church types are rather Calvinistic in reading. The folks haven't been through their own statements of doctrinal beliefs in so long, most couldn't find them without looking into the original papers in locked bank vaults.

Some years ago, I met as an adviser to a pulpit committee; one of the first things we did was go through the doctrinal statements of the church. There was a huge and heated discussion on the documents. Some on the committee said that if the church called a pastor that agreed with the documents, they and their family would leave. The previous pastor was a non-cal, and the original documents were Calvinistic in thinking.

So, who was the one who deceived?

The former pastor, who hadn't looked at the documents and the people liked because he was so good to listen too?

The former pulpit committee, who rather than looking at the documents and selecting candidates that were in agreement with the documents, spent more time on appearance, education, and "speach-ify-cation" ability?

The members of the church, who listened to one sermon, had a short Q/A session and then voted?

The documents themselves, that lay dormant in the drawers, long forgotten and when discovered created controversy?

As typical, your whole argument is dependent on avoiding transparency that allows for informed decisions. It is laced with excuses that it wouldn’t be practical to bring light on such issues and is defended by such notions that the doctrinal statements of the church are rarely understood anyway by the unaware and there is a reason for that it is because those statements often have discreet Calvinist implications within them to begin with. You seem to think that is it the way things should managed…well! Of course you do! Would it cause disagreement if these things were brought to light? You bet it would! This all goes to prove my point that the Calvinist is lying in wait and waiting to prey on the unsuspecting and have been for some time.

Your argument goes to show the fear behind being exposed and toward the results that transparency would bring because you know the results would weigh heavily in favor of your doctrines being rejected. You claim you just want unity where there is none if the truth be known.

The articles of Affirmation and denial are threat to the Calvinist ways. Again, Yes, it is clear, “The Calvinist are fully aware that many are unaware…” And, now you will try to resort to convincing others that what the congregation doesn’t know won’t hurt them, but if they do know it will? I’m not buying it. I don’t buy the reasoning of others that conclude they are better equipped to make decisions on these types of issues for me while I am left uninformed. And you want to argue about who it is that is trying to operate on deceit?! While you worry about the results of uncovvering what is in those draws. Comical…here’s your chance to put your money where your mouth is Calvinist! Let the Articles of Affirmation and Denial reveal where you truly stand on such issues in front of all to see!

Yeah, I can see how your reasoning that these things are better left stuffed in the closet would work for you. But, I, a non-Calvinist have no fear about peaking in there to see what we can find and letting everybody else see it too…imagine that! I would rather the truth be known! I’m not opposed to the result of disunity coming about based on informed decisions and transparency, you know why? Because it is based on truth.