Should Calvinists be permitted in the SBC?

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by rsr:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is such a pity because so many of our great pioneer missionaries were Scots.

Ach!

Why is it that the Scots never took to Baptist faith? They certainly have the fractiousness required.</font>[/QUOTE]I think it must have something to do with the hold that Presbyterianism has upon Scotland. Ya kin, John Knox an a. Then there is the the effect of the Solemn League and Covenant during the English Civil Wars of the mid-1600s. Nearly every person who was not a Roman Catholic or an Anglican ascribed to the National Covenant. Even Montrose and the majority of his Scottish followers who fought for King Charles I had signed the National Covenant and practiced Presbyterianism.

 

[Rev. G]

When I used term "good Calvinists" I was employing a bit of sarcasm. Trying to be funny.

I know....

Brother, we both have a common desire - to see the Lord touch Scotland with a fresh touch from His Spirit. To paraphrase that evangelistic Calvinist, John Knox, "Give us Scotland again, or we die!"

Rev. G

Rev. G

 

[go2church]

I don't think the SBC has ever been totally for anything, even Calvism. Wait, I take that back, they were all for slavery. Gladly times have changed.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by go2church:
I don't think the SBC has ever been totally for anything, even Calvism. Wait, I take that back, they were all for slavery. Gladly times have changed.

Hello go2church,

Times have changed indeed. We in the SBC repented of that sin regarding slavery in 1995. It took awhile but we acknowledged that our ancestors were wrong in their stance and publicly asked for forgivness at the SBC annual convention in 1995.

You are correct in that we have all kinds of various veiws represented in the SBC. That is because of our stance on local church autonomy and congregational rule.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Rev. G:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> When I used term "good Calvinists" I was employing a bit of sarcasm. Trying to be funny.

I know....

Brother, we both have a common desire - to see the Lord touch Scotland with a fresh touch from His Spirit. To paraphrase that evangelistic Calvinist, John Knox, "Give us Scotland again, or we die!"

Rev. G

Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]Amen! So, what do we do about it now? I have a friend who will be deploying to Scotland soon as a missionary. Likewise, there are a couple of professors here at SEBTS of Scottish descent and they share our common desire to see Scotland revived (re-evangelized). Let's agree to pray asking the Lord to show us how to proceed, for Him to ripen the harvest in Scotland, and for Him to send out His laborers.

 

[Rev. G]

Indeed!

Rev. G

 

[Rev. G]

Along with the headline topic - If Calvinists SHOULD be permitted in the SBC, should non-Calvinists (P. Patterson, A. Rogers, etc.) refrain from speaking against Calvinists / Calvinism so vehemently?

Rev. G

 

[Bible-boy]

Hey Rev.G,

I'm not quite sure exactly where Dr. Patterson stands on Calvinism. The next time I see him walking around campus I'll ask him. Then I'll be better able to answer the above question with respect to him anyway. Just as a thought, I can't see him being too dead set against reform theology becuase we have plenty of reform minded professors and PhD students here at SEBTS. I would think (this is my shooting from the hip), that he would be very much against hyper-calvinist. Anyaway, like I said I'll ask.

 

[Rev. G]

BibleBoyII:

It may depend which direction he is walking in that day...

One problem with Dr. Patterson is that he confuses (at least publicly) Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism, and he has made some rather ludicrous statements publicly regarding this issue.

Rev. G

P. S. (Hope your studies at SEBTS are going well!)

 

[Johnv]

Should calvinists be permitted? Calvinists, yes. Hypercalvinists, no.

 

[Rev. G]

Johnv:

Why not hyper-Calvinists, in your opinion?

Rev. G

 

[Johnv]

I think hypercalvinism puts the calvinist ideal above all else, while "generic" calvinism and arminianism are methods to understand and interpret the Bible more.

Just my $.02. I could be way off base.

 

[Rev. G]

Thanks for your $.02

 

[Rev. G]

Along with the headline topic - If Calvinists SHOULD be permitted in the SBC, should non-Calvinists (P. Patterson, A. Rogers, etc.) refrain from speaking against Calvinists / Calvinism so vehemently?

What do you all think?

 

[Johnv]

If there are Baptist pastors who speak against the earth going around the sun, pastors should certainly be allowed to speak out in favor of or against calvinism, or even arminianism.

 

[Rev. G]

If there are Baptist pastors who speak against the earth going around the sun...

Do you really know of such?

 

[Siegfried]

Rev. G,

I heard the tape from Dr. Patterson's forum which you referred to several weeks ago. I was stunned by his challenge to the Calvinistic students to name Calvinists besides Spurgeon who maintained a strong missions emphasis.

It was incredible to me that a man of his learning could be so misinformed about the history of missionaries and their theology. I won't recount all the names you and others have listed.

The question I ask in response is this: How many academic institutions have rejected Calvinism and remained theologically orthodox? My suspicion is that there are few.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Siegfried:
Rev. G,

I heard the tape from Dr. Patterson's forum which you referred to several weeks ago. I was stunned by his challenge to the Calvinistic students to name Calvinists besides Spurgeon who maintained a strong missions emphasis.

It was incredible to me that a man of his learning could be so misinformed about the history of missionaries and their theology. I won't recount all the names you and others have listed.

The question I ask in response is this: How many academic institutions have rejected Calvinism and remained theologically orthodox? My suspicion is that there are few.

Hello Siegfried,

I can't answer your final question regarding "how many academic institutions..." with any specific numbers. However, I do want to stress that SEBTS has not rejected Calvinism. We have plenty of professors who are whole heartedly Calvinistic. Some more so than others. Likewise, most of my friends (fellow students) hold to Reform Theology. What is interesting is that a great many of the students in our missions programs are Calvinistic (although not Hyper-Calvinistic). Anyway, there is a healthy mix of views on the subject coming from both the faculty and the student body. Finally, I'd like to say that at no time have I ever felt as if I am being "indoctrinated," meaning forced to accept one view as opposed to the other, here at SEBTS.

[ October 19, 2002, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[dwd]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ben W:
Why not admit Calvinists to the S.B.C? Freemasons are welcome within the denomination. Be it as a member or as part of the leadership.

Hello Ben,

No SBC Church that I have ever been involved with has supported Freemasons. I have heard Dr. Patterson preach in Chapel here at Southeastern Seminary against allowing them to be part of or to use your church facilities. He was speaking of a lawsuit brought against a SBC Church in Virginia by a group of Freemasons. Every Freemason that I personally have ever known has been a Methodist or a Presbyterian.

More to the topic at hand, I agree the "Hyper-Calvinism" is a concern. Perhaps that is why Dr. Patterson will not allow a "Founders" group here at Southeastern. However, I have never heard anyone here say that Calvinists are not welcome in the SBC. If fact we generally say that it is not something to part company over.

I am a conservative Calvimenian. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello dwd,

Did you have a point or something that you were trying to get across by posting a quote of one of my earlier posts on this thread? If you don't comment or add your thoughts to the conversation we don't know the purpose for your quoting of other's posts.

[ October 20, 2002, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]