Featured About to hit the fan in the SBC

Tom Butler did an excellent of connecting God's sovereignty to the Baptist Faith and Message. Tom believes strongly in doctrines of sovereignty and grace, but he is not a hyper or hard shell. Tom is as dedicated as much as anyone I know to missions and telling the Good News. At the same time, he is not a person who makes a hobby of arguing with people who do not agree with him and dividing a local church, which seems to be the expertise of several posters and the letter in question.

 

I grew up in Jacksonville, Florida, and you are telling me I don't know anything about Southern Baptists?? Now that's a laugh, there is a saying in Jacksonville that the SBC owns the town! While I do not belong to a SBC church now, I have in the past.

Look fellas, the SBC has made a stand here whether you like it or not. They know what they are doing, a line has been drawn in the sand. This document is just the first salvo, they know a war is ahead.

Just remember the word SARAH;

Shock- most of you are in shock now, that is to be expected.

Anger- this is already showing, it was to be expected.

Reflection- I have a feeling this is going to take a LONG time for Calvinists, it may never happen.

Acceptance- This is hard to see coming from a Calvinist.

Healing- If you get through the first four stages (doubtful), you will be alright.

 

War ahead? No. A few squeaky wheels are upset about something that that does not resonate in the pews.

 

Passive aggressive tendencies are forgiven, but not overlooked or forgotten, this is a debate baoard and hit and run tactics that project one's opinion on an issue are subject to that which may be rebutted whether or not the person wishes to continue with his argument after he has stated it.

 

I don't care where you grew up! I don't care what old sayings in Jacksonville were! You are ignorant of the SBC or you would not confuse the so called

with Southern Baptist Polity!

First: The statement is not about " The Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation". The traditional Southern Baptist understanding of salvation was the Doctrine of Grace. Read some history for a change.

Second: These people do not speak for the Southern Baptist Convention! The Convention may speak in its annual meeting but I doubt it!

The posting of the above statement is no longer on the referenced website but is available at the following:

http://sbcvoices.com/a-statement-of...tist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation/

 

After digesting all of this I have come to believe this just may be a good thing. I think it will get everyone to investigate what Calvinism is all about. It will get many to read and study scripture and hopefully all will learn the truths of God. I lean towards Calvinism and I plan on making an effort to understand scripture considering Soteriology. I pray we can all come away with a proper understanding.

 

Yes...a few malcontents and their friends cannot undo truth.The real solid SBC members can now see this infection and correct it.

 

Winman you are 100% correct the majority of southern Baptists are non-cals.

 

Benjamin, I've picked out a few things to talk about:

I'm still not sure what a New Calvinist is, and how he differs from us geezer Calvinists. I have yet to see anybody offer specifics about some New Calvinist agenda, and how they're going to pull this off. What is this secret strategy that even a lot of Calvinists don't know about?

I don't see any Calvinists calling for a stronger BF&M statement that might run off the non-Cals. Do you favor purging the SBC of all Calvinists in some way?

Those BF&M statements on regeneration and election are well-crafted, and achieve the desired result of being seen as true by both Cals and non-Cals, and broad enough that they don't get either side stirred up. They allow both sides to read their views into them. I really don't understand why you see them as a problem.

Again, I ask, where is the concrete evidence of such an agenda? And how are they going to pull this off? How come I, a Calvinist, don't know about any agenda; and you, a non-Calvinist, know about it?

Okay, how about writing out in detail the clarification you propose. If you want to run us off, I'd be interested on what you'll do to make that happen.

 

Tom,

If you google "New Calvinist Agenda" you will come up with a good many links that will most likely help with your questions. But here is a few:

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...-by-peter-lumpkins-trevin-wax-ed-stetzer.html

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/new-calvinism-classical-ed/

http://www.drchuckdegroat.com/2012/01/lesslie-newbigin-womens-ordination-and-the-new-calvinists/

 

Have you polled the Southern Baptists; has anyone polled the Southern Baptists on the issue of the Doctrine of Grace? Unless you have such information you are as ignorant on this issue as Winman. If you have polling information then you are obligated to present it.

 

There is a big difference between Regular Baptists and Old Regular Baptists!

 

Thanks, mandy. Interesting stuff.

 

Old Regular has already corrected this mis-statement. I'm not aware of any action by the SBC, its Executive Committee or any other SBC entity which has addressed this subject. In fact, two seminary presidents have already distanced themselves from the statement.

The SBC's position regarding election and regeneration is contained in its doctrinal statement The Baptist Faith and Message. The people who drafted the document and those who signed it have some obvious influence in the SBC. But this is their statement and only theirs.

 

Peter Lumpkins? Oy Vey!

 

Well, I guess burning at the stake never got anyone anywhere, but like I said I think the Articles of Affirmation and Denial does a “mighty fine job” as it clarifies necessary essential traditional values which if the Calvinists, whether they call themselves old school or consider themselves part of the new movement, where willing to agree with concerns could be put to rest. If not, irreconcilable disunity has been shown to exist and I believe a separation is justified. By what means? Don’t tempt me… :smilewinkgrin:

 

I know one difference. :wavey:

The Old Regular Baptists have just about the most awesome, and spiritual hymn singing you will find this side of heaven. :thumbs:

 

God bless you! I will give a hearty amen to that.

 

Well, burning at the stake would certainly get my attention!

Seriously, though, you know as well as I do that Calvinists will never agree to the Articles. And if it ever gets to the point of "irreconcilable disunity," the Articles will be exhibit One for showing who declared war.

That said, this could very well be a tempest in a teapot. This thing is going nowhere at the convention level. Local churches are not likely to change anything. And Calvinists and Non-Cals will continue to co-exist despite occasional rabble-rousing such as the Articles.

 

Most interesting that these "traditionalists" craft a statement that W.A. Criswell very likely could not affirm!