I would disagree that the SBC is for the most part Arminian. The general view in the church is that salvation is a gift, freely offered to all that would recieve it, but that's about as far as it goes. I would even argue that this is less Arminian that most would see it; the vast majority within the church would say those saved were responding to the calling of the Spirit. I think the difference is largely semantics. I still wouldn't call the mainline SBC Calvinist (as I am), but I think to label it Arminian goes too far. The heritage (Second London) is firmly reform, and by and large the mainline church holds to most of Calvin's TULIP.

I think it very hard to apply the term "Arminian" to a church that holds to salvation by faith alone and the eternal security of the believer. It's not as Calvinist as we may like, and certainly many of us feel she's slowly abandoning her heritage in favor of a seeker friendly (quasi-Arminian) agenda (Adrian Rogers, Rick Warren, Jerry Vines), but the core of her heritage does remain, and I cannot bear yet to call the SBC Arminian.

Take it for what it is. I may be biased <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />