Why the SBC is no longer traditional Baptist

[church mouse guy]

In other words, they are all Marxist right Religious McCarthyism at its finest.

Cultural marxism--I saw your previous post. I think that all denominations are under attack from people such as the mayor of South Bend. Many denomination want cheap labor and open borders. Many denominations are anti-police. Many denominations are anti-Israel--still complaining about the US embassy in Jerusalem, a very minor thing. Many denominations try to tie jihadi psychopaths into Judaism and Christianity, which unlike Islam are connected to Sarah. Greear says that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, as you know. I don't want to pay for any of that stuff, do you?

 

[JonC]

No, you misunderstand. You’re begging the question—assuming the premise to be true. In this case you’re assuming Mohler and Moore espouse the “Social Gospel,” but you haven’t quoted them, for instance, to prove your claim. Without a proof, it is only an assertion—and a false one at that.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Were his comments speculation I'd agree with you, but as it stands @Revmitchell is not begging the question simply because this is a divisive topic within the SBC (and has been a public debate). He does not have to restate what has been made public (he is expressing his opinion about debates that have been publicized not only by the SBC but by other Christian outlets).

Personally, I do not see Mohler as espousing a social gospel. I think that this goes back to his refusal to sign the statement on social justice and the gospel. It does, however, seem that he may be walking a tight line (not wanting to appear too conservative).

How you view these SBC leaders depends on where you stand on the issue.

Anyway, I’m not getting into the debate of the thread - only pointing out that it is getting off topic by arguing about the existence of something that is (or should be) common knowledge within the SBC. If he wanted, @Revmitchell could have provided sources, or he could have expected you to know the issues before engaging him in the topic. If I were arguing about the SBC as a whole, I'd look at the trends of the SBC resolutions over the past three years. But I'm not arguing the issue .

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Cultural marxism--I saw your previous post. I think that all denominations are under attack from people such as the mayor of South Bend. Many denomination want cheap labor and open borders. Many denominations are anti-police. Many denominations are anti-Israel--still complaining about the US embassy in Jerusalem, a very minor thing. Many denominations try to tie jihadi psychopaths into Judaism and Christianity, which unlike Islam are connected to Sarah. Greear says that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, as you know. I don't want to pay for any of that stuff, do you?

If you quit the SBC you are commenting with your feet. Fortunately I have never been, not even close

 

[The Archangel]

Were his comments speculation I'd agree with you, but as it stands @Revmitchell is not begging the question simply because this is a divisive topic within the SBC (and has been a public debate). He does not have to restate what has been made public (he is expressing his opinion about debates that have been publicized not only by the SBC but by other Christian outlets).

Personally, I do not see Mohler as espousing a social gospel. I think that this goes back to his refusal to sign the statement on social justice and the gospel. It does, however, seem that he may be walking a tight line (not wanting to appear too conservative).

How you view these SBC leaders depends on where you stand on the issue.

Anyway, I’m not getting into the debate of the thread - only pointing out that it is getting off topic by arguing about the existence of something that is (or should be) common knowledge within the SBC. If he wanted, @Revmitchell could have provided sources, or he could have expected you to know the issues before engaging him in the topic. If I were arguing about the SBC as a whole, I'd look at the trends of the SBC resolutions over the past three years. But I'm not arguing the issue .

The existence of the debate does not prove the assertion of adherence to the social gospel, so—yes—it is begging the question.

Many things have been said about Moore and Mohler, but what has been said has been accepted as “truth” without any critical thinking, which belies an ignorance about the social gospel and biblical Christianity.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Archangel]

Oh, I am a low-tech guy in a high-tech world and right now I am on a cell phone and I have trouble linking. Both Moore and Mohler seem to think that there is such a thing as homosexual orientation. Moore called the police last year on a reporter trying to ask him about his accommodation of homosexual groups. Perhaps you remember that?

Moore attacked Trump repeatedly and Trump called Moore a nasty guy with no heart.

Moore wants immigration, maybe for cheap labor, and is a critic of white policemen.

The ERLC is the Washington DC lobby of the SBC and Moore has illustrayed that point very well. The SBC is too big for its britches with this expensive lobby and it is time to close it down. People don't need either Richard Land or Russell Moore to rell them how to vote and to launch their personal attacks against the American White House. That's a job for Greear.

So... what you’re saying is that your opposition to and characterization of these men is based on their adherence (or lack thereof) to your political views, and not Scripture.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The existence of the debate does not prove the assertion of adherence to the social gospel, so—yes—it is begging the question.

Many things have been said about Moore and Mohler, but what has been said has been accepted as “truth” without any critical thinking, which belies an ignorance about the social gospel and biblical Christianity.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are smart enough to understand this to be at the center a political issue.

Both Moore and Mohler have criticized Trump... this is merely retaliation. So my question to the SBC is can you project an air of professionalism to accept differences of opinion or will you eventually split.

 

[rlvaughn]

I posted the following two articles in another thread. I thought the topic important enough to start a new thread on it.

An Analysis of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000

Baptist Freedom and Conscience Series: An Unconscionable Confession

For many moderate to liberal SBC Baptists the traditional liberty of conscience morphed into the liberty to deny the truths God revealed in the Bible. For example, part of the crisis behind the 1963 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message were things such as Ralph Elliott's book on Genesis, which many Southern Baptists believed simply were or were approaching heretical.

The Making of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message by A. J. Smith gives some interesting looks behind the scenes of things that went into making the 1963 BF&M. For example, he writes:

Denominational leaders found it necessary to address the issue raised by Elliott's book by forming a Committee to revise the BFM. According to Garth Pybass, one of only three members of that Committee still living in 2004, the intention of the "criterion" statement in the article on Scripture was "to convey biblical infallibility based on Christ's testimony of it in the gospels." A footnote below comments "this interpretation of the 'criterion' statement would take on differing interpretations within the Convention." (p. 34)

When the Committee agreed to follow a shortened form of the "criterion" sentence they played into the hands of men such as Moody. To say that "the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" without qualification raised a host of questions. Marvin Tate, who taught Old Testament at Southern from the early 1960s until his retirement, commented: "Back in 1963 I asked, 'What does that mean?' It doesn't mean anything." (pp. 139-140)

Smith follows the above with a quote from Herschel Hobbs's Southern Baptists and Confessionalism. In it Hobbs pointed out Elliott in The Message of Genesis said Melchizedek was probably a priest of Baal, and that the "criterion" sentence would mean such nonsense would be interpreted correctly in the light of Jesus and the New Testament. See Smith, page 140.

Here are some interesting comments from Mercer University's Department of Christianity (yes, that Mercer University; a list of the faculty is on page 131).

This paragraph [on soul competency, in the preamble] ignores that for Baptists the object of "the individual's soul competency," "freedom of religion," and "the priesthood of the believer" is God and not "soul" itself, "freedom" itself, the "believer" himself. (p. 132).

The paragraph tends to undermine Article I, the Scriptures, by assuming man is free to select those "certain definite doctrines" which they "hold dear." (p. 132)

The term "criterion" unfortunately connotes the presence of a yardstick by which men can measure or judge Scripture, rather the Scripture measuring and judging man. (p. 172)

I wonder if the Mercer professors in the early 1960s were "traditional" Baptists?

Note: Best I have found, the original "criterion" statement out of committee was "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is the person, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ." The Mercer faculty was objecting to this, not just the shortened statement that left out "person, work, and teachings.".

 

[Revmitchell]

No, you misunderstand. You’re begging the question—assuming the premise to be true. In this case you’re assuming Mohler and Moore espouse the “Social Gospel,” but you haven’t quoted them, for instance, to prove your claim. Without a proof, it is only an assertion—and a false one at that.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you dont know what is going on in the SBC then you shouldnt get involved in this conversation. Since you are unaware it is you who misunderstands.

 

[The Archangel]

You are smart enough to understand this to be at the center a political issue.

Both Moore and Mohler have criticized Trump... this is merely retaliation. So my question to the SBC is can you project an air of professionalism to accept differences of opinion or will you eventually split.

Of course. It’s the SBC’s version of “Fake News.” Mohler and Moore don’t hold the traditionalist’s view, especially where scripture would contradict the traditionalism of the traditionalists, and so they term “Social Gospel” or “Liberal” is applied to discredit them in the eyes of the ignorant (which we have no shortage of in the SBC).

All of this proves my original point.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Archangel]

If you dont know what is going on in the SBC then you shouldnt get involved in this conversation. Since you are unaware it is you who misunderstands.

I’m quite aware of what’s happening. I’ve been reading the articles for the past several years. That you don’t know this to be a witch hunt demonstrates your misunderstanding.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jerome]

Actually, it's some fellow SBC (and other) Calvinists who are behind the 'Social Justice & the Gospel' critique that Mohler & Co. won't support:

statementonsocialjustice.com

Tom Ascol, Tom Nettles, Vesta Sproul, etc.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you dont know what is going on in the SBC then you shouldnt get involved in this conversation. Since you are unaware it is you who misunderstands.

Don’t you know, he was a seminarian in Louisville and a pastor of an SBC church

 

[The Archangel]

Actually, it's some fellow SBC (and other) Calvinists who are behind the 'Social Justice & the Gospel' critique that Mohler & Co. won't support:

statementonsocialjustice.com

Tom Ascol, Tom Nettles, Vesta Sproul, etc.

Several, such as Mohler, declined to sign it--though they seem to have broad agreement in principle. The sense Mohler expresses in several statements is that the statement itself is not "how" he would have said it. Anyone knowing Mohler knows he is very nuanced on purpose. There were some things in the statement that, while well intentioned, could have denied certain gospel realities.

Specifically, Mohler cites the statement on victims and oppressors. He rightly relates that entire discussion to what he calls "Cultural Marxism." And while decrying the industry of victimization, he does rightly say that there are legitimate victims--implying the statement doesn't take legitimate victims into account.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Don’t you know, he was a seminarian in Louisville and a pastor of an SBC church

Which could be taken several ways .

Many times it has been my experience that those involves in the SBC are often the most ignorant concerning the churches which comprise its membership. I wonder if this is true of other associations as well.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Which could be taken several ways .

Many times it has been my experience that those involves in the SBC are often the most ignorant concerning the churches which comprise its membership. I wonder if this is true of other associations as well.

Not this guy.... a very keen mind and may I say exceptional.

 

[JonC]

Not this guy.... a very keen mind and may I say exceptional.

Exceptional. I agree.

These two are a good example of the division. Both are seminary graduates. Both are SBC. Both think the other wrong.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I’m quite aware of what’s happening. I’ve been reading the articles for the past several years. That you don’t know this to be a witch hunt demonstrates your misunderstanding.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exceptional. I agree.

These two are a good example of the division. Both are seminary graduates. Both are SBC. Both think the other wrong.

I’m referring to Archangel... who are you referring to.

 

[JonC]

I’m referring to Archangel... who are you referring to.

Archangel and RevMitchell.

They are both seminary grads. Both SBC. Both ministers (at least I think Archangel is). Both think the other wrong.

RevMitchell is right that this is an ongoing issue within the SBC. Archangel is right that Mohler has not come out supporting a social gospel.

Have you ever watched those political talk shows where someone gives their answer but it does not really address the question? That is often how SBC politics work. To be fair, many in leadership would not be there if they were not politicians as well as Christians. (Forget the BF&M - read the resolutions)


As far as exceptional....

 

[Revmitchell]

Archangel and RevMitchell.

They are both seminary grads. Both SBC. Both ministers (at least I think Archangel is). Both think the other wrong.

RevMitchell is right that this is an ongoing issue within the SBC. Archangel is right that Mohler has not come out supporting a social gospel.

Have you ever watched those political talk shows where someone gives their answer but it does not really address the question? That is often how SBC politics work. To be fair, many in leadership would not be there if they were not politicians as well as Christians. (Forget the BF&M - read the resolutions)


As far as exceptional....

Mohler wasnt the only one listed

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Archangel and RevMitchell.

They are both seminary grads. Both SBC. Both ministers (at least I think Archangel is). Both think the other wrong.

RevMitchell is right that this is an ongoing issue within the SBC. Archangel is right that Mohler has not come out supporting a social gospel.

Have you ever watched those political talk shows where someone gives their answer but it does not really address the question? That is often how SBC politics work. To be fair, many in leadership would not be there if they were not politicians as well as Christians. (Forget the BF&M - read the resolutions)


As far as exceptional....

I wasn’t referring to Mitchell