Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Greektim, Jun 12, 2012.
What are your opinions?
I say no.
I say no.....It wouldn't personally bother me if it did mainly because Amos 3:3 suggests to me that if honest conviction were to drive it, then we should not force unity merely for the sake of "unity". I am not saying I would like for it to happen, and I would be surprised if it did....But the differences are pretty serious IMO.....Calvinists (generally) perceive Arminianis or non-Cals as impugning God's Sovereignty with their doctrine, Similarly, non-Calvinists (generally) perceive Calvinism as impugning God's character. Those are serious differences. I am sort-of wondering why it has taken this long for a statement, such as the one signed recently to have been made. Churches are hurting and I think I would prefer for a Baptist Fellowship to part ways, (<---- not inherently critical for the gospel,) than for local Churches(<---- inherently critical for the gospel), to continue to.
I would say, yes it could, but it's not very likely, I hope it doesn't.
Most denominations hold an official position on the election issue. The SBC Does not. That is one thing that makes it unique, and a place where for 150 years cals and non-cals could work together for the advancement of world missions, Church planting, and theological training.
I look at it like I look at my own church, which has cals, non-cals, arminians, and those who probably don't even know much about such things...(and one deacon who accepts both unconditional election AND accepts that a true Christian can abandon the faith and so give up their salvation...I don't know what he is). I think it would be a shame if our church split over this issue. We have had some good sunday school classes and discussions on the topics of Election, whether you can resist the call to salvation, whether one can lose their salvation, and had people disagree within the class, then go worship together and eat lunch together, and work on haiti missions together. One of our older members will sometimes make jokes about our "calvinist" pastor...but it is all in good fun.
I'm not saying the issues are not important, I'm saying we should be able to state why we believe something and listen when others disagree, then continue to work to spread the Gospel and build up the church. My mostly non-cal church has been able to do this for the last 5 years under a calvinist pastor; and i hope the SBC can continue to do this for a long time in the future.
Think that the Apostle paul waould ask the SBC"who died for you?" Did jesus died so that Just cals would have eternal life, just non cals? Arms?
keep the Unity of the faith/body, admonition from the lord...
Think that NONE were saved by having proper theological system right at rebirth, as ALL God required was faith in jesus, acknowledging that you cannot save yourself, and totally availing upon him for that!
After that, we can discuss various models/ssyems, realising that those are ways to understand the biblical view, but that while one is superior to the others, not ONLY way to view it!
It should not, but IF those involved allow the Flesh and NOT the Spirit have his way, could very will!
Following your logic....Baptists should not remain a distict group of believers but should get over that "whole dunking obsession of theirs" and join with other denominations....ANY and all in fact, which merely preaches the operative gospel the same. Local Churches are being split over these issues.....a particular fellowshipping of Baptists is not critical...The SBC itself was created via a split in a former Fellowshipping...it wouldn't cease to exist...it was not originally sacro-sanct and it never will be...ditto BBF and GARB (I think).
This is somewhat of a violation of non-contradiction....two differing views cannot both "understand" a topic at the same time and in the same relationship...either 1 view is wrong....or possibly all of them....but they don't "understand" something differently.
No, bloggers don't (generally) vote in the convention.
just mindful that the Lord is really serious about keeping the unity of the bethren, as we can freely and at times adamently disagree on issues, but those would all be "in house" discussions!
I am curious as to where this question is hurting local churches? I don't see it in my area but maybe it is a problem in Florida and other areas.
There are any number of things that hurt SBC Churches in my area, and no limit to the dumb things that laymen, deacons and pastors do and say to cause the pain, but soteriology is very low on the list of things hurting local churches in my area.
If there is a split over this it will be completely unnecessary and the blame will be rightly laid at the feet of some denominational leaders on both sides of the argument. I do not see big problems with this question in the pews, the Sunday school class, small groups or when doing benevolence ministries outside the walls of the church. We have people who are openly 5-pointers teaching and serving right alongside others who are adamantly 4 point Arminian+ESOB. My experience is that the laity has found a way "to think and let think; to agree to disagree."
I know ministers tend to be very cynical of the laity, but every once in a while they can learn something from laymen if they are willing to observe.
Goes back to MOST in the pews believe that you must have faith in jesus to get saved, but do NOT go into depth worrying if 5 point cal or 5 point arm as we do here on the Board!
Look at my own church, non call pastor with cal elders, and laity in between!
No it won't. If it does then it deserves to fall apart.
I sincerely hope something transformitive comes out of it & if its God's will for it to happen, you will not be able to stop it. Praise God, I dont have any SBC in my area.