The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum SBC and Calvinism

Anyone interested in what seems to be the most pressing issue with in the SBC, I would recommend visiting the following blog .

I for one would be interested in your comments.

Tom

Woo-hoo! It sounds like the much maligned and misunderstood Calvinists are the ones, for the most part, building bridges and inviting their "opponents" to meet so as to understand one another. The others are doing what they've always done in all the other denominations - silence their opponents, rather than meet, compromise, or even try to understand.

In most of the other denominations, it's the "bad guys" who win and the good guys who have to leave and start from scratch all over again, starting a whole 'nother denomination. Let's hope it's the "bad guys" who have to leave and start over somewhere else this time (actually all they'd have to do is move to any one of the more liberal Baptist denominations) - or better yet, that no schism will be necessary and both sides can agree to remain in the SBC - and that the SBC will remain true to its founders' Calvinism.

-Robin

I cannot see the SBC turn toward Calvinism. Doctrines such as 'soul competency' are ingrained into the SBC mindset. They are truly democratic and the leaders stay ahead of the curve by gauging their congregation.

The question is what will eventually happen to Mohler and Southern seminary. If they remain underneath the radar they can coexist with the despisers of Calvinism, but a high-profile engagement will send the packing.

You know what I find strange is the fact that many in the SBC will not even acknowledge that the founders of the SBC were 5 point Calvinists. Many (such as Ergun Caner) have even stated that Calvinism is heresy.
Ergun has also stated that he is a Sandy Creek Baptist and yet according to the Sandy Creek organization, their statement of faith is Calvinist.
I find it very odd that educated men such as Ergun Caner wouldn't even know these things.

Tom

Have you ever heard Paul Washer, he preaches at SBC's and he is calvinistic in his Theology so perhaps there could be some change. D.v.

Washer sermons


William

.

I do not see Calvinism to be mutually exclusive of the democratic process;as our frame of government is predicated upon the Reformed governmental construct.Hence,I'm quite saddened to see the tactics employed by those in the SBC.Such a baseless, Biblically variant attack of Calvinism only invites the kind of ad hoc theology that has triggered the statistical hemorrhaging of mainline Protestantism. As iron sharpens iron (as per Proverbs 27:17),legitimate defenders of the faith eagerly engage in discourse. That being said,their "reluctance" to do wreaks of partisan acridity that, if left unchecked, undermines the belief in the inerrancy of God's Word. In short,the perpetuation of democracy is not the aim of this heterodoxical cabal within the SBC.
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 is among much that delineates the early Calvinistic influences in the Baptist Faith.Let us supplicate the Father's mercy that our brothers therein are drawn to put on the armor of God and quell this rebellion.

Since the SBC has always consisted of both particular and general baptists, and that the said Calvinists are for the most part the minority, it is unlikely that any "rebellion" will be quenched by those holding to the doctrines of grace.

Also dispensationalism is the preponderant system of theology in the SBC. I personally can not see a consistent type of Calvinism with this being the underlying theology. So for any break through to occur withing the SBC there must be a reformation that breaks if free from these influences and sets it straight to a denomination that again stands upon the sufficiency of scripture.

I've heard that many of the grads from Southern Seminary in Louisville are fired from their first pastorates for being Reformed. Basically, they are having to plant new churches in order to do ministry.

I wasn't thinking in terms of numerical superiority,but that is an excellent point.I'd hate to think that,by default,these leftist agents can automatically count on majority consensus.I'd also like to think that we have not become so lost in the fog of the "crypto-Guevarist blitz" that we've come to rely on schism as our only trump card.
Perhaps it is naivety on my part, but at some point those who maintain the absolute authority of Scripture will rally.Certainly not to combat venom with venom but as valiant soldiers of Christ alone.

PL its not a matter of which group holds to scriptural authority, each group Calvinist or Non-calvinist believes they are doing so on the basis of scripture. None would say that their view is without basis in scripture. However the fault lay in the hermeneutics that the Non-calvinist employs.

However, I would like to point out that the Calvinists in the conference have exhibited nothing but love toward their fellow SBCers that are not Calvinist. They admire them and care for them despite their differences. That sir is what will win the day in the long run. Many of the Calvinists relate how they came to Christ under the teaching of a Non-calvinist and that it was their love of scripture (Non-calvinists) and what it meant that lead to their (Calvinists)conversion because their pastor's love for God's word.

There is one non-Calvinist that was involved in the Building Bridges conference that I have gained a lot of respect for.
His name is Danny Akin, unlike many other non-Calvinists he seems to have a high regard for Calvinists. He also has defended Calvinists for their high regard of Scripture on more than one occasion.
Something tells me, that he is going to take it on the chin by his fellow non-Calvinists, though I have yet to see this happen.

Tom

Then you and I are in complete agreement.Even the most secularistic would never concede their views to be Scripturally wanting.And,of course,they would be reached out to by the more Scripturally minded-that's a sign of spiritual maturity.The fact that many Calvinists became the way they are due to Arminian influence is yet another example of how the Providence of God cannot be constricted by lined of ideological demarcation drawn by man.

Remember when I said this:
but at some point those who maintain the absolute authority of Scripture will rally.Certainly not to combat venom with venom but as valiant soldiers of Christ alone.-My point entirely

May I express my disagreement with your statement above and offer a correction? Many Calvinists, including myself, became they way they are IN SPITE OF (not due to) Arminian influence. A false gospel cannot save nor lead one to the truth. Falsehood always and forever leads to falsehood and damnation. It is by the secret, sovereign working of the Holy Spirit through the written Word of God that anyone, all come to know the truth and are brought to Christ with a living faith. There is indeed a "ideological demarcation". One leads to eternal life and the other to eternal punishment. The Truth is what sets men free, not the Devil's lies, aka: "another gospel". (cf. Gal 1:6-9; 2Cor 11:3, 4; Jh 8:32, 36)

In His grace,

Many of the Calvinists relate how they came to Christ under the teaching of a Non-calvinist and that it was their love of scripture (Non-calvinists) and what it meant that lead to their (Calvinists)conversion because their pastor's love for God's word.

Dear Pilgrim, I was merely echoing a sentiment expressed in the above statement by Boanerges.Point being that,irrespective of the position of whoever is reading the Bible,manifestation of the Father's discernment through Christ cannot be constricted,provided His discernment is your foreordained portion.It is conditional on the Father's sovereign will and nothing else.

That's the only point I was trying to make.

In His name