Should Calvinists be permitted in the SBC?

[donnA]

I think since orignally the SBC was calvinist, then the question should really be, should armenians be allowed in the SBC?

 

[Rev. G]

Katie:

I like your question. My answer: yes, as long as they teach that Jesus Christ is both Savior AND Lord (none of this "easy-believism")!

Rev. G

 

[Rev. G]

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.

Siegfried:
The answer, as far as I know, is ZERO. Southern Seminary was quite unorthodox after it left its roots, and before Dr. Mohler returned it to its foundational beliefs. The same is true of Southwestern, although it was never nearly as liberal as Southern became. You could look at several other schools though. Yale and Princeton easily come to mind. Schools which depart from Protestant orthodoxy, even in the slightest degree, fall down the "slippery slope" into Liberalism.

Rev. G

 

[donnA]

Katie:

I like your question. My answer: yes, as long as they teach that Jesus Christ is both Savior AND Lord (none of this "easy-believism")!

Rev. G

Just letting you know I'm not particularly picking on either belief. Just something that occured to me the other day. Considering your answer, and not having every post on this topic, then it would have to be acceptable for arminianism to be accepted in the SBC as long as they meet the same qualifications, that Jesus is Savior and Lord. I don't believe I solidly fit into either group, but if I had to choose which I leaned more toward it would have to be calvinism.

 

[Siegfried]

BibleboyII,

I'm not running down SEBTS at all. As a student there I appreciate the diversity in the faculty and do not sense oppression towards my Calvinisic leanings.

I'm really just disagreeing with Dr. Patterson's characterization of Calvinists as non-evangelistic. I don't think that assertion is historically accurate. Even if Calvinists are more likely to fail in the area of evangelism, I certainly believe non-Calvinists are more likely to fail in the area of orthodox doctrine.

Although I don't want to fall into either of those failing camps, I have far more in common with disobedient Calvinists than I do with a bunch of infidels.

I guess what scares me for the SBC is that I see a lot of emphasis on "what works." Dr. Patterson suggested on that tape that pragmatism (as opposed to biblical mandate) was part of his decision-making process on 2 or 3 different issues, including Calvinism. My question is what happens in the SBC when new leaders arise who have a different idea of what works than he does.

 

[Bible-boy]

Siegfried,

Stop by the Security office in the Ledford Center and pay me a visit sometime! I did not realize that you were a fellow student. it may be hard for you to visit me though, I work 3rd shift (12:00 AM to 8:00 AM). I'd like to talk to you. I am trying to nail down where I stand on this issue. I think as am leaning toward the same views that you have expressed regarding evangelistic/reform theology.

 

[BeeBee]

I haven't read through all these posts but just looking at your question, I want to amen Katie,

I think since orignally the SBC was calvinist, then the question should really be, should armenians be allowed in the SBC?

In Christ,
Bobby

 

[Rev. G]

What do you think, Bobby? Please keep the previous posts in mind.

Rev. G

 

[Siegfried]

BB2, I'm trying to e-mail you, but the site won't let me. PM me your e-mail address or enable PMing on your account and I'll get in touch with you.

 

[Charlie T]

Originally posted by Rev. G:
Siegfried:
The answer, as far as I know, is ZERO. Southern Seminary was quite unorthodox after it left its roots, and before Dr. Mohler returned it to its foundational beliefs. The same is true of Southwestern, although it was never nearly as liberal as Southern became.
snip
Rev. G[/QB]

Rev. G,

I never considered SWBTS to be liberal. Who or what are you referring to? Even Dilday was not all that bad to my way of thinking.

Of course, coming from Baylor, maybe I have a different reference than you.

Charlie

p.s. sorry about not asking sooner, I am new here.

 

[Charlie T]

Isn't the BF&M still calvinistic? Granted most southern baptists do not recognize the significance, but it seems silly to speak ill of those who actually believe the traditional doctrines.

The truth is that most Baptists are more concerned with doing the gospel than with getting their systematic theology down pat. I kinda like that, but do think that we need to teach our folks the basic doctrines.

Charlie

 

[Rev. G]

I never considered SWBTS to be liberal. Who or what are you referring to? Even Dilday was not all that bad to my way of thinking. Of course, coming from Baylor, maybe I have a different reference than you.

Well, at SWBTS I once had an ethics professor say that he didn't know whether or not the "native" in the far reaches of nowhere who had never heard the Gospel was lost or not.

I had a Hebrew prof. who said that Isaiah 7:14 was not a Messianic prophecy, or even foreshadowing, of the virgin birth.

I had a church history prof. who said that Pelagius was just a "good Christian man" who had different opinions than Augustine.

I had a Christian ministry prof. who said that the Bible "contains" God's Word, and quite a few other things along that vein of neo-orthodoxy.

Those are just a few things... Thank God that we are finally headed in the right direction since Dr. Blaising got here.

Isn't the BF&M still calvinistic?

In some respects. For example, it still speaks of regeneration preceding faith and still holds to the doctrine of unconditional election. That is ironic, in many respects.

Granted most southern baptists do not recognize the significance, but it seems silly to speak ill of those who actually believe the traditional doctrines.

I apologize if it seems I have spoken ill of anyone. My intention was to point out that Liberalism always follows, or at least historically it has always followed, on the heels of Arminianism.

The truth is that most Baptists are more concerned with doing the gospel than with getting their systematic theology down pat. I kinda like that, but do think that we need to teach our folks the basic doctrines.

You don't have to be a systematic theologian to love Christ. However, people should have a FIRM grasp on the Gospel and upon basic Christian doctrine. If we don't know what we believe, we won't know how we are to "do" (at least not biblically). When people leave the Scriptures they begin to think things about God that stem from their own imaginations, and they begin to act in ways that come from human wisdom rather than divine revelation.

By the way, welcome to the Baptist Board, friend!

Rev. G

 

[new man]

A couple of things. First, it was said:

Every Freemason that I personally have ever known has been a Methodist or a Presbyterian.

At First Baptist here in Perry, there are a good number of Free Masons in membership. One even sings in the choir.

Second, just where is the "dividing line" between Calvinism and Arminianism? What basic tenets of each particular theology would one need to adhere to to be branded either or?

God bless,

Russ <><

 

[Charlie T]

Rev. G,

I apologize if it seems I have spoken ill of anyone.

Sorry. Did not mean to imply that. I am speaking more about any who would want to exclude from the denomination those who are more in line with the BF&M. I just think it is ironic.

You don't have to be a systematic theologian to love Christ. However, people should have a FIRM grasp on the Gospel and upon basic Christian doctrine. If we don't know what we believe, we won't know how we are to "do" (at least not biblically). When people leave the Scriptures they begin to think things about God that stem from their own imaginations, and they begin to act in ways that come from human wisdom rather than divine revelation.

I agree. But, even those who have been blessed with a great education have difficulty understanding the calvinism vs arminianism. I do think that the church needs to teach this, but do not expect everyone to get it.

Charlie

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by new man:
A couple of things. First, it was said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Every Freemason that I personally have ever known has been a Methodist or a Presbyterian.

At First Baptist here in Perry, there are a good number of Free Masons in membership. One even sings in the choir.</font>[/QUOTE]It looks like the pastor and the music minister have their work cut out for them. Likewise, please note that I said, "Every Freemason that I personally have ever known...."

 

[Rev. G]

At First Baptist here in Perry, there are a good number of Free Masons in membership. One even sings in the choir.

It might be good to start a discussion regarding Freemasonry on another thread, but this one is not about that topic friends.

Second, just where is the "dividing line" between Calvinism and Arminianism? What basic tenets of each particular theology would one need to adhere to to be branded either or?

This is a very good question, especially since many in the SBC claim, "I'm a three-point Calvinist," or something similar. I think for matters of this discussion the issue is how one views the matter of election - is it God's free grace that is determinitive (unconditional election), or man's free will?

I agree. But, even those who have been blessed with a great education have difficulty understanding the calvinism vs arminianism. I do think that the church needs to teach this, but do not expect everyone to get it.

I think the difficulty comes for them in that we Southern Baptists, in general, have "dumbed-down" our preaching and teaching and have not expected our people to dig into the Scriptures. If you look at the catechisms, Sunday School materials, etc., of early Southern Baptists you will see that this was, for them, very "elementary."

Rev. G