Featured Al Mohler's response to SBC Statement

Wow! I just watched the youtube video and didn't know that Dr. Mohler himself was so tribalistic!

He said there are just no other options than New Calvinism (or being Reformed). Now his comment calling the statement apparently heretical semi-Pelagianism and his condescending remark that the signers were ignorant of what they were signing make more sense.

 

:thumbs::applause::thumbs::applause:

 

I agree with this 100%.

However, it is true that some people can highjack a great term and drag it through the mud and force other people to reject it- not based on the merit of what it ACTUALLY means, but rather based on what the highjackers have made it mean in that particular society.

Take the WONDERFUL word- Catholic.

1500 years ago or so it was a glorious word that reminded us that all true Christians were ONE in Christ.

But an apostate movement took control of the term and now it is anathema. I cannot now call myself a catholic Christian, which REALLY means a member of the universal body of Christ around the world. I cannot do this because Roman Catholics have highjacked the term and I do not wish to be associated with their doctrines.

It does seem that this has happened to a lesser degree with the word "fundamentalist."

At least down here in the Deep South it carries with it a connotation of King James Onlyism and legalism.

 

You have a habit of inviting sharp reponses on both sides of this issue. Why does Michael need decaf??? You need some common sense.

 

No one has been more "inviting (of) sharp re(s)ponces" than Michael Wren.

Wren stated, "I'll say that I despise all kinds of fundamentalism -- of the right and the left. ... I loathe them all...."​

Being fundamental in my beliefs and conservative in my political views, I found this post not only offensive generally, but highly inflammatory towards many on the BB who have fundamental and conservative views. He shows to Christlike Character in post(s) such as this - one post was edited by a moderator for excessive hostility.

Wren on another post stated, "His words and actions belie that he is my "brother".​

This is clearly questioning a person's salvation. Wren is stating either Mohler is not saved and therefore not his "brother" or that Wren is not a believer and therefore has no part being on the BB.

Wren on another post states, "The "Conservative Resurgence" hates that last sentence of Item 4; it goes against their popery."​

This would take all those of Conservative and fundamental thinking on the BB and align us with the anti-Christ. That is certainly volatile.

He was rebuked by the moderator, and by multiple threads.

Icon and I have had our disagreements, but one thing that Icon does is clearly state not only what he believes but his rational and Scriptural support of the view.

Wren has offered little to the BB to edify and encourage the believers who might read the threads.

 

I understand that the Calvin debates naturally evoke strong emotion. That is to be expected. I have never understood why it could not be talked about in a civil way, but is seems next to impossible.

Given that, the leadership that formed the letter that has been the subject of all of these threads did more harm than good. On the other side, entertainers who use inflammatory mass media like Mr. White, to counter the letter also do a great disservice to the local churches. Spreading the Gospel is not a circus or side show.

As the examples on both sides above that started this mess, there is enough emotion back and forth on its own without people from both sides throwing fire bombs into the situation.

Maybe it is not fair to point out one over the other, but advancing the doctrines of grace are not served well by such tactics. I pay very little attention to what the other side says.

 

1- no it doesn't.

2- even if it did it does not change the fact that this is what the sbc has chosen to adopt as our statement of faith. Those who wish to be consistent with what they wrongly think are traditional baptist standards of no confessionalism should leave the sbc and start their own movement.

Like it or not this is our confession. This is what is expected of any church that wishes to identify itsel as southern baptist.

 

Well said Dr. Bob!

 

S/N and others:
The following was not posted by Iconoclast but by Wrenn. See post # 34.

Post #34

 

The BF & M 2000 is not a "confession" of beliefs as in what is considered a confession such as Apostle's Creed---so forth and so on