Church Denied into Local SBC Association

Let me say, i am merely trying to make a suggestion as to other reasons why. Since we honestly don't know

1. Here's what the BF&M says

I think the highlighted parts means congregational rule and that, usually means that at least the pastor and buying/selling property has to be voted on by the congregation.

2. I don't know much about Capitol Hill BC other than the fact that they are a great church and have a real ministry in my old hometown. Capitol hill has a mixture of congregational and elder rule. I would imagine that if Brother Dever left, the congregation would choose their next lead pastor.

3. I don't know and really have no interest in how Spurgeon's church was ruled. I am not saying that because it's unimportant, but he has long since gone to heaven. I don't really look at how other churches are governed. I have never really studied how Metropolitan was set up.

To be honest, there are almost NO churches that are entirely congregational ruled. FBC, Osprey doesn't vote on every expenditure and every part of the church ministry. We have empowered teams and ministry leaders to make those decisions. But the congregation CAN choose to change, amend or do away with any decision that is made. There is congregational oversight.

 

Is the church overly aggressive in their reformed stance? Are they joining with the "Founder's" mentality of changing the association to being reformed? These are questioned that need to be answered. If they are an overly aggressive church or big time into the Founder's organization I can see why they were rejected. If so, I would vote "no" too.

 

When you say reformed, do you mean that they are calvinist in soyierology, or buy into covenant theology/Church replace isreal/Infant baptism etc?

IF reformed in that sense, would NOT be really baptist!

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Sag, I think much regarding this should be answered. Truly, only those closely associated with the situation know all the facts. If this was simply "political agendas" at work, then I believe the decision to be a rash one. If there is some "history" at work, then they may have felt denying access to the association was the proper thing to do. In my view, much rides on the "why" and "what purpose" this church is requesting membership. If their desire is to attempt to "push" the positions of the association to more closely reflect their own, then I too would vote to deny access. If motives are purely for the fellowship and support of other churches and "brothers in Christ", then I would say yes.

 

I agree that the Founders are not trying to take over ass'ns. They believe that calvinism is Biblical, so they are going to support it. But trying to take it over, I don't think so. I am not a friend of Tom Ascol although we do know each other. The only time he has ever spoken with me about Calvinism is when I ask him about it.

 

I agree about democracy not being the Biblical model altho I do believe that congregationalism is.

If that is not the issue, and I believe you, then, altho they had the right to refuse them, it wasn't right.

My problem is that we really do not have many facts about it at all.

 

Real SBC Founder W. B. Johnson (first president of the SBC), The Gospel Developed Through the Government and Order of the Churches of Jesus Christ (1846):

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but when an organization states that they want to move churches back to their supposed calvinist roots I take that as meaning that they want the SBC to be reformed which would include associations.

From: www.founders.org

Founders Ministries is a ministry of teaching and encouragement promoting both doctrine and devotion expressed in the Doctrines of Grace and their experiential application to the local church, particularly in the areas of worship and witness. Founders Ministries takes as its theological framework the first recognized confession of faith that Southern Baptists produced, The Abstract of Principles. We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear.

Our Purpose
The purpose of Founders Ministries is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches. We believe intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace in their experiential application to the local church particularly in the areas of worship and witness. This is to be accomplished through a variety of means focusing on conferences and including publication, education, pastoral training and other opportunities consistent with the purpose. Each of the ministries will be developed with special attention to achieve a healthy integration of doctrine and devotion.

 

In other words they want to see non-reformed folks out of the picture but not in the political sense.

 

This goes way beyond the Founders faction.

Here is the website of the OP church.

It does not appear they are even affiliated with the so-called "Founders"; rather, they trumpet that they are an "Acts 29 Church".

The Acts 29 Network is a "transdenominational" Reformed/trendy outfit. Several years ago the Missouri Baptist Convention defunded quite a few church planters who had gotten themselves involved in the Acts 29 movement.

 

Just been asking, as know that reformed theology can mean different things to different people!

 

First, the issue is real and true. The church was not allowed admittance to the association, in particular, because of its theological stance. Reported by Hershael York.

Second, since when did Baptists make a particular view of soteriology a test for local association? And, if so, someone should have told all the other reformed Baptists out there through history that they were not really Baptists. Start with the London churches of the 1600s and work your way forward until today.

Sad day for that association. They likely just proved that they are dead.

 

Think that is one of the most valuable Baptist distinctives, in that we "pride" ourselves in allowing freedom to study and inteprete the Bible, as long as it is within 'sound biblical doctrines"...