Featured A Statement from the Calvinism Advisory Committee

You are referencing SBC RIGHT ?

 

BTW (off topic). You have to change your location comment. Chris Christie has lost 40 lbs. in 13 weeks since he had lap band surgery.

 

I want to know why the committee is called the "Calvinism Advisory Committee?"

Certainly, the committee would need to be made up of all Calvinistic thinkers if they are to "advise" with any unbiased view of the Calvinistic thinking.

If the committee was made up of of a mix of non-cals and cals, then they would be as confused as a termite in a yo-yo.

Just as the arguments on the BB have raged for years over the issues with no one winning - and very little true understanding without a heap of name calling and bad attitude.

Rather I see the SBC doing what it has done from the mid 50's - compromise.

That has been historically the SBC way, and it always results in the ungodly being made to look Godly.

 

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

You may not call yourself a Calvinist, but we all know that is what you truly are.

 

My attitude?????

It was the SBC that became so modernist that I was FORCED to leave!!!!

Look at this documentation.

Note: Although I am not a supporter of this "ministry," the information given in the article can documented.

WHY I AM NOT SOUTHERN BAPTIST


(1) THE DENOMINATIONAL SYSTEM ITSELF IS UNSCRIPTURAL.


(2) THE SBC IS ECUMENICAL.


(3) THE SBC HAS REFUSED TO DISCIPLINE BILLY GRAHAM.


(4) SBC CHURCHES ARE NOT GOVERNED SCRIPTURALLY.


(5) WORLDLINESS IS RAMPANT IN SBC CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS.


(6) SHAMEFUL POLITICS IS PRACTICED BY SBC CONSERVATIVE LEADERS.



(7) WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO HOLD LEADERSHIP ROLES IN THE SBC.



(8) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT IS GROWING WITHIN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION.



(9) THE SBC IS PERMEATED WITH THEOLOGICAL MODERNISM.



(10) THE SBC IS FILLED WITH MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE YOKED WITH PAGAN ANTI-CHRIST ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE MASONIC LODGE AND THE EASTERN STAR.



(11) THE VAST MAJORITY OF SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONGREGATIONS REFUSE TO EXERCISE CHURCH DISCIPLINE, AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A BIBLICALLY PURE CHURCH WITHOUT DISCIPLINE.


(12) SOUTHERN BAPTISTS ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF PROMOTING THE CHURCH GROWTH PHILOSOPHIES THAT WEAKEN THE CHURCHES BY TURNING THE CHURCH’S MISSION AWAY FROM THE COMMITMENT TO THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD, WHICH IS THE MISSION AND PURPOSE THAT JESUS CHRIST DELIVERED TO THE CHURCH (MATT. 28:19-20), TO A CAPSULATED (encapsulated), WATERED-DOWN, MAN-MADE “PURPOSE.” THE CHURCH GROWTH MOVEMENT PROMOTES THE USE OF WORLDLY MUSIC AND DRESS TO ATTRACT LARGE CROWDS.



(13) THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION IS NEW EVANGELICAL AND REJECTS BIBLICAL SEPARATION.​

Major bold points copied fromhttp://www.wayoflife.org/database/whynotsbc.html where the complete article can be found.

 

that is why one must define what they mean by term "calivinism" , as I tend to see it broader than many seem to, as would hold BOTH Dr Macarthur and RC Sproul are cals, its just that Dr Sproul holds to the "whole 9 yards" of calvinism, while Dr mararthur holds to cal view on sotierology!

 

Can someone please share why Billy graham needs to be diciplined?

 

I take it that you all didn't read the link.

That is fine.

BTW, In case you don't know, B. Graham was mentored by John R. Rice who also mentored W. A. Criswell and others in the SBC.

Dr. Rice tried to warn and tried to keep Graham from the modernists, and finally after all that time still had to withdraw support and separate from the man. He didn't do it because Rice was a problem, it was the direction and the ministry of Graham that had become an alarming problem.


You all need to really do some honest and thorough research of the not so glossy underbelly of the SBC before you proclaim that I have posted false.

It is up to you.

I didn't believe it either when I first started encountering problems. I suppose one of the first indicators was the pattern of making preachers who had moral failures "home missionaries" to help them keep retirement benefits and cover up all manner of evil.

Of course, the typical person who goes through the SBC seminary and/or colleges in today's age has very little understanding of the vitriol leadership would spew behind the scenes.

For instance, one of the finest most Godly preachers and family man I ever met and knew was blackballed by the SBC hierarchy because he dared ask insightful questions about some mission work and missionaries.

In the 50's, 60's, 70's don't know a pulpit committee in a SB church that didn't seek the "convention wisdom" on the selection of a new pastor. And if someone was not willing to "lay in bed (as one leader said to me) with us, then your going no where and can sell insurance for all we care. We want someone who will stand up for us and back the programs we decide."

Please, do your own research. If you desire to stay in the convention, that is between you and your own conscience.

But for us who have been through the mess and have deep lasting scars, give at least a bit of heed to our warning.

 

I remember the first time I came into contact with a SBC pastor. When I gave the invitation at the close of the service, a lady came forward and told me she didn't know if she was saved or not. I turned to the pastor, told him what she had said. His words were, "What should I say to her?". :tonofbricks:

But the world of the SBC changed during the Conservative Resurgence. All of the seminaries are controlled and staffed by believers in a strong stand of inerrency. We still have plenty of problems but who we sleep to fill pulpit vacancies (conventionally speaking) really isn't the issue these days.

I am sorry for what you went through in those days of the convention. But it was the men who stayed in and brought about change did the convention proud. If you don't believe that, look at those who left the convention or claim the convention left them like the CBF.

 

Isn't the very heart of calvinism the aspect though of just HOW God is able to reconcile nack to Himself sinners? Sotierology?

For His views on infant Baptism dead wrong from a Baptist perspective!

 

I can't say with authority what the heart of John Calvin's Calvinism was, I am not a Calvin scholar, but his theology was so much broader and deeper than the five points debated at the Council of Dort. Some things I don't agree with, some elements of it make me think and reconsider things like the pre-Trib Dispensationalism of my youth. I find it unfortunate that the label Calvinism is limited in scope to the five points debated at the council of Dort. But, I understand the convenience of the term in Baptists circles were very very few can be considered truly Calvinistic. Within the context of a debate among Baptist there isn't much more than the TULIP that most would debate. For example I don't know any Baptist outside of the a few anonymous IDs on messages boards that hold to Covenant Theology, and that involved much more than infant baptism.

 

The pivotal point in this universal, ecumenical dialogue is still: baptismal regeneration/infant baptism. The majority of Christendom is pedobaptist. They baptize(?) their infants to wash away original sin. Adult converts are also baptized to wash their sins.

This is either a true doctrine or a false doctrine. It matters not how it is sugar coated and rationalized. It cannot be all of the above.

This is not a recent issue. The early churches had similar problems with circumcision.
Our best self righteousness is filthy rags. If there were something good we could do to gain heaven, Jesus died in vain.

Reformers have not a clue, Jon Chauvin included. They inherited from their mother.

Salvation is of the Lord, from before the foundation of the world.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

I think saying the reformers had not a clue is a bit harsh, but I completely agree that they inherited baggage from Rome. In my opinion some baggage was unavoidable, but the Five Solas was a very good start down the right path.

 

The basic problem with reforming is that it is not possible to reform apostasy. We are still dealing with reformed apostasy. The implication is that the Holy Spirit has been unable to maintain a purity of doctrine and practice since day one. The scripture plainly says He has maintained The Truth in every generation. You will not find this recorded at the World Council of Churches.

True Baptists have never been part of that which came out of Rome.

We are in the midst of an ecumenical, humanistic, universal apostasy foisted by the prince of the power of the air.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

that is why to me the heart and essential aspect of calvinism is justification, and the true Gospel, for to me they erred in keeping roman eschatology and infant baptism!

 

Are you saying that all or most Reformed denominations are apostate? You better choose your words carefully. I really think you type your keystrokes without really engaging in biblical thought and generous doses of reality.

Are you relegating the PRC,OPC,PCA,just to name a few, to the camp of the apostate?

 

This is a question about authority and who has the authority to reform the Pillar and ground of the Truth.

If Rome has the sole authority to govern the Churches of God, she has delegated the authority to none, not one. If the holy see has not the authority, she is an apostate usurper. Those who would reform her have no authority since Rome has none. Now what?

This is reforming apostasy. In some cases we have reformed the reformed apostasy. This is all still reformed apostasy. Infant baptism is a good example. This is a falling away from the true Gospel. This is a fatal error which permeates world of Christendom.

Jesus gave all authority to His Churches to carry out His orders. He gave the Holy Spirit to indwell and lead in all Truth. Jesus gave no permission to change anything. In other words: reforming is not authorized.

Now what?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James