Featured SBC- Hatfields vs McCoys?

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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:

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

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:

 

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.

 

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: