SBC- Hatfields vs McCoys?

[Benjamin]

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.

No, if we followed my line of reasoning to provide full transparency by using a document like the Articles of Affirmation and Denial in the last 100 years, which would allow for informed decisions, the Calvinist would headed toward extinction. Exactly, why they are opposed to full discloser now. We should have done this long ago, but I understand your fear, be very afraid, because the writting just might be on the wall and your time at hand.

 

[Luke2427]

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

You missed the point.

The point has nothing at all to do with whether the traditional view was good or bad.

The point is that you don't get to say your view is the traditional view when it is not and be considered by thinking people to be an honest person.

 

[Luke2427]

No, if we followed my line of reasoning to provide full transparency by using a document like the Articles of Affirmation and Denial in the last 100 years, which would allow for informed decisions, the Calvinist would headed toward extinction. Exactly, why they are opposed to full discloser now. We should have done this long ago, but I understand your fear, be very afraid, because the writting just might be on the wall and your time at hand.

You have a very dark and wicked spirit it seems to me.

The writing is on the wall??

My time is at hand??

Weird.

Just one more time. The SBC was largely a Calvinistic denomination in its origins.

If our SBC forefathers had treated "non-cals" the way you want non-cals to treat Calvinists today, then you would be largely unwelcomed in the SBC today.

The fact is that the SBC has no official position on this issue.

It didn't under the rule of Calvinists and it doesn't under the rule of "non-cals".

Churches that do not have an official position do not require Calvinists or non-calvinists to articulate their soteriological position any more than they require them to disclose their eschatalogical position or pneumatological position or harmatialogical position, etc, etc etc...

PS- For the record Calvinism is once again on the rise in the SBC by leaps and bounds. The largest seminary ON EARTH is the THOROUGHLY Calvinistic Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and it is pumping out fiery preachers and missionaries into the SBC by the droves.

There is no writing on the wall for Calvinists in the SBC. Its forward and upward.

 

[Benjamin]

You have a very dark and wicked spirit it seems to me.

The writing is on the wall??

My time is at hand??

It seems to me you consider my desire for truth and transparency to be darkness and you have resorted to a personal attack on my spirit to defend you position. Got not much left, I understand.

The "writing on the wall" was a metaphor symbolizing the Articles of Affirmation and Denial are here in front of all to see and could spell doom for Calvinism because of its bringing transparency to the forefront. I think you are intelligent to see that relationship, don't pretend so you can support the use of your personal attack. You revealed you got the meaning at the end of your post. You guys never change, but on the issue of the Articles you may have no where to hide.

 

[Luke2427]

It seems to me you consider my desire for truth and transparency to be darkness and you have resorted to a personal attack on my spirit to defend you position. Got not much left, I understand.

The "writing on the wall" was a metaphor symbolizing the Articles of Affirmation and Denial are here in front of all to see and could spell doom for Calvinism because of its bringing transparency to the forefront. I think you are intelligent to see that relationship, don't pretend so you can support the use of your personal attack. You revealed you got the meaning at the end of your post. You guys never change, but on the issue of the Articles you may have no where to hide.

I refer you to my previous post which you in no way rebutted.

 

[jonathan.borland]

You have a very dark and wicked spirit it seems to me.

The writing is on the wall??

My time is at hand??

Weird.

Just one more time. The SBC was largely a Calvinistic denomination in its origins.

If our SBC forefathers had treated "non-cals" the way you want non-cals to treat Calvinists today, then you would be largely unwelcomed in the SBC today.

The fact is that the SBC has no official position on this issue.

It didn't under the rule of Calvinists and it doesn't under the rule of "non-cals".

Churches that do not have an official position do not require Calvinists or non-calvinists to articulate their soteriological position any more than they require them to disclose their eschatalogical position or pneumatological position or harmatialogical position, etc, etc etc...

PS- For the record Calvinism is once again on the rise in the SBC by leaps and bounds. The largest seminary ON EARTH is the THOROUGHLY Calvinistic Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and it is pumping out fiery preachers and missionaries into the SBC by the droves.

There is no writing on the wall for Calvinists in the SBC. Its forward and upward.

So does the SBTS prefer professors on the basis of this doctrine? They have to sign the abstract of principles, right? So if they reject people on the basis of this tenet (not saying they do, but for the sake of argument), why should it not be a litmus test on the other side?

 

[Tom Butler]

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

Yes, just today, as a matter of fact. Fred Malone, who came to North Pompano shortly after Ernest Reisinger became pastor, served as assistant pastor. He succeeded Reisinger as pastor when Reisinger retired in 1978. Malone wrote about what happened:

In the years that followed, however, the church faced a difficult situation that eventually led to its decline. A co-pastor, who was added to serve with Ernie, decided he could no longer stay in the SBC. He resigned and took many of the active young couples with him and formed Emmanuel Baptist Church, a Reformed Baptist congregation. North Pompano never recovered from the split and finally was handed over to the local Baptist association for oversight

Doesn't sound like Founders reformitude to me. Reisinger had retired in 1978, but came back as pastor in 1980 when Malone moved on to work on his Ph.D.

The story here: http://biblicalspirituality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Reforming-the-Local-Church.pdf

 

[preachinjesus]

Just one more time. The SBC was largely a Calvinistic denomination in its origins.

This is 100% false.

We've been over this before. You know this is a dramatic overstatement and not at all representative of the origins of the SBC. Please stop saying this.

 

[agedman]

As typical, your whole argument is dependent on avoiding transparency that allows for informed decisions.

How is investigating the local assembly's statements of faith, and other founding documents that were established at the formation of that assembly, and then having a canidate sift through every item in seeking agreement of disagreement AVOIDING TRANSPARENCY?

Your statement is totally inaccurate with what I posted.

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.

An assembly gathers around a basic core of doctrinal beliefs labeled the statement of faith, articles of faith, or some such. It is the part of the foundational system of documents in which the assembly is supposed to be adhered to and find unity. Those foundational documents serve as the assembly's views of what the Scriptures support and they have placed as priority in faith and fellowship.

You apparently would discard these documents as unimportant, and no longer authoritative. If that is the case, then the local assembly should review the documents for needed revision. Until then, the documents are the final authority over the fellowship of that assembly. It is denial of a statement contained in the statement of faith and constitution that allow for the legal separation of a member from the assembly.

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.

On the contrary, it is the historical case that most church members have no understanding nor do they even occasionally read what they have agreed holds the assembled in unity. It is not me or some view of mine that prevents or covers, it is those who don't want to adhere to the founding assembly documents.

If those documents are non-cal, then the folks need to recognize that a cal pastor is not going to agree to the foundational assemblies statement of faith. That needs to be brought up in the pulpit committee meetings and sorted through. A cal pastor has no business being the pastor of a church that has as a statement of faith a non-cal position, just as a non-cal has no business being the pastor of a cal church.

The Statement of faith (articles of faith) are THE documents of unity for the local assembly of believers.

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.

How am I displaying any fear of exposure and denying transparency with my post?

Rather, just the opposite.

If a non-cal pastor cannot agree with the foundational documents in which the assembly is built then frankly that person doesn't have any measure of membership qualifications.

The same would be for the cal pastor.

If there is not agreement upon the document that unifies the assembly, the pastor should not be allowed membership. That goes with any other person who comes for church membership, too.


THAT is transparency.

I don't know what you call what your view would be--- non-transparency?

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'm sorry, but you are just not making sense.

What they don't know does hurt them, for they do not know what they are unified - what agreement that they have gathered with what Scriptural applications to the set of agreements. THAT is the total point of the post I made.

It is obvious that you don't support churches looking at their original statements of faith (articles of faith) and doctrinal documents. So, you would view that a pastor that is called to a church could in fact come and preach in opposing doctrine to those documents and it be called righteous?

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!

What is so very comical is that YOU would place some fanciful "articles of affirmation" above the local assemblies original foundational documents.

So much for the SBC proclaiming that they have no authority over the local assemblies. That is so laughable because it is just this (articles of affirmation) that shows the lies behind such "autonomous" statements.

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.

What did I state needed left "stuffed in the closet?" The foundational documents of the local assembly?

Just in case you missed it, I will repeat.

IF the founding documents are NON-Cal, then every candidate for the pastorate must be NON-Cal, and that goes for all members of that assembly. That or the assembly must meet together and change their foundational documents.

IF the founding documents are Cal, then every candidate for the pastorate must be Cal, and that goes for all members of that assembly. That or the assembly must meet together and change their foundational documents.

It is the foundational documents in which the assembly is formed and held together. It is in violation of those documents in which someone is legally separated from the congregation.

Nearly ALL older Baptist congregational statements of faith, articles of faith, and other such documents ARE Calvinistic.

IT IS the non-cal teaching and preaching that was sneaky and deceitful in the last 50 or more years.

FOR TRUE TRANSPARENCY the local assembly must start with what they really hold as foundational views in every area and those are in the foundational documents of the local assembly.

If a preacher is in agreement with those foundational views - that is transparency.

By opposing this view what you want is something other.

 

[kyredneck]

Those of you whose livilhoods are derived from the SBC may be wise in preparing yourselves for the split that's coming, judging from this thread (and from what I've observed first hand in my little world here in KY).

 

[agedman]

Those of you whose livilhoods are derived from the SBC may be wise in preparing yourselves for the split that's coming, judging from this thread (and from what I've observed first hand in my little world here in KY).

I remember when churches would regularly post portions of their Articles or Statements of Faith, for the members to discuss on a series of Sunday Evenings. It was a great exercise of unity of the believers around core doctrinal statements and supporting Scriptures.

Had such continued over the last 50 or more years, it would have made the OP totally unnecessary, and the coming SBC split unimaginable.

The typical pew sitting believer who has no real understanding of the issues will be open for any political persuasion and itching ear feel good fluff.

 

[mandym]

Those of you whose livilhoods are derived from the SBC may be wise in preparing yourselves for the split that's coming, judging from this thread (and from what I've observed first hand in my little world here in KY).

I am sorry for your misinformation. No pastor who oversees a church affiliated with the SBC derives their livelihood from the SBC.

 

[agedman]

I am sorry for your misinformation. No pastor who oversees a church affiliated with the SBC derives their livelihood from the SBC.

Livelihood isn't just in weekly salaries and remunerations.

 

[mandym]

Livelihood isn't just in weekly salaries and remunerations.

It matters not. However one wants to twist "livelihood" pastors who oversee churches associated with the SBC do not derive their "livelihood" from the SBC.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Those of you whose livilhoods are derived from the SBC may be wise in preparing yourselves for the split that's coming, judging from this thread (and from what I've observed first hand in my little world here in KY).

We wouldn't be Baptists if we didn't have a split every now and then. I've survived plenty of them in the IFB world and have no fear of another one.

 

[Iconoclast]

You have a very dark and wicked spirit it seems to me.

The writing is on the wall??

My time is at hand??

Weird.

Just one more time. The SBC was largely a Calvinistic denomination in its origins.

If our SBC forefathers had treated "non-cals" the way you want non-cals to treat Calvinists today, then you would be largely unwelcomed in the SBC today.

The fact is that the SBC has no official position on this issue.

It didn't under the rule of Calvinists and it doesn't under the rule of "non-cals".

Churches that do not have an official position do not require Calvinists or non-calvinists to articulate their soteriological position any more than they require them to disclose their eschatalogical position or pneumatological position or harmatialogical position, etc, etc etc...

PS- For the record Calvinism is once again on the rise in the SBC by leaps and bounds. The largest seminary ON EARTH is the THOROUGHLY Calvinistic Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and it is pumping out fiery preachers and missionaries into the SBC by the droves.

There is no writing on the wall for Calvinists in the SBC. Its forward and upward.

Of course you are seeing things correctly.....despite the dark and gloomy prophecy offered toward all who believe in God's grace.

Remember that not all men are allowed to come to truth,it is not given to them. They would rather have religion based on carnal reasoning.
This accounts for many of these reports of conspiracy to sneak into churches with a secret agenda. The people do not know one teaching from another.
A man opens the word and they are offended. They want to TELL the hierling they pick what to preach and how to preach.They cannot bear-up many times to a true gospel ministry.
Thankfully there are many ,many good SBC brothers who will prevail over these errors and fantisies being suggested.:thumbs::thumbs::applause:

 

[Iconoclast]

I remember when churches would regularly post portions of their Articles or Statements of Faith, for the members to discuss on a series of Sunday Evenings. It was a great exercise of unity of the believers around core doctrinal statements and supporting Scriptures.

Had such continued over the last 50 or more years, it would have made the OP totally unnecessary, and the coming SBC split unimaginable.

The typical pew sitting believer who has no real understanding of the issues will be open for any political persuasion and itching ear feel good fluff.

Yes. Judgement begins at the house of God. He will prune off unfruitful vines and all who say....we will not have this man to reign over us.:type:

 

[Iconoclast]

So does the SBTS prefer professors on the basis of this doctrine? They have to sign the abstract of principles, right? So if they reject people on the basis of this tenet (not saying they do, but for the sake of argument), why should it not be a litmus test on the other side?

Jonathan,
If some have moved away from the basic tenents, it is they who need to go,and start their own work based on what they want to.I do not go into a presbyterian church, say I want to be a member, then try to overturn everything they believe. That is what is taking place here.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Winman.....this could be gossip and talebearing by dis-affected persons.

You cannot suggest this as fact, that would be talebearing.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Willis,
What happens is some have not spent time with those who believe different. Hiding behind a keyboard some turn into cyber-rambo.
If we were in public dealing with sinners , we would focus on the sin and the blood. Here we dig deeper and see it as we do,all with different levels of understanding. It becomes a problem sometime.:type: