Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Jul 6, 2011.
And is he trying tio getthe "official" SBC position to be that in Sotierology?
Pastor Mohler is mainstream and as he would look to support truth, he would be in favor of it...
so that would mean < yes, that he is a strict calvinist?
Yes, strict Calvinist. Trying to SBC to be Calvinist....not too sure about that one.
No that would create big rift in the convention
Just was asking as read a Chrsitianity Today from last yera while at the Hospital, that referenced he is a big believer in 'reformed" theology, especially that from princeton college, like the Hodges of the World..
That he eventually wants to have higher institutions in SBC adhere to something similiar to those doctrines...
At least article espoused!
He is a strict Calvinist, but I don't think he's trying make the SBC into a Calvinist only group.
The ripples have long since started.
I've not seen it.
The SBC isn't "officially" anything.
That said, the anti-Calvinists are trying to make good on the long ago stated position of Paige Patterson that "Once the liberals go, the Calvinists have to be next." For the record, Paige says he did not say or mean that and at one time did work with Mohler on key issues. You can definitely see a resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC but you see an even stronger backlash against what is wrongly perceived as Calvinism, as seen at this year's Conference of SB Evangelists, and the comments by (I believe) Morris Chapman at the convention in Louisville, for which Danny Akin apologized (I don't think Chapman did, but I may be wrong).
I am a "refugee" of such.
I agree on you initial statement. I do not agree that the "anti-calvinists" are trying to make good on some Patterson promise (which I was never aware of).
If anything, Baptists are autonomous.
Isn't it though "baptist" practice to allow for each assembly to "allow/forbid" what happens in their ranks...
As it regards theology and doctrines...
As long as they hold to "essentials" of the Christian Faith...
Some baptists groups KJVO, others all valid translations
Some say Spiritual Gifts veaseed, others operate under Biblical guidelines.
Some say pre Mill pre trib/some "historical" pre mill
Some say young craetion/old creation etc
Some hold to Cal/some to Arm
Isn't all of this really under "preferences and convictions/discussion among the family?"
In theory, yes. But let me ask you: can you be a SB church, ordain a homosexual or allow homosexual members, and still send messengers to the convention? Of course not. I'm not saying it will ever get to that point. However, I have seen people who are friendly to Reformed thought and thinkers who have been absolutely blasted out of their churches and shunned by DOMs and the like. I know several DOMS who will not accept any resume from a graduate of SBTS under the Mohler presidency since Mohler is Reformed, and therefore the student must be Reformed. There is a concerted effort in KY and TN (especially Middle and West TN) that is well financed, where churches are being sent instructions by a ministry on how to sniff out a Reformed baptist pastoral candidate and how to smoke one out if you actually have unknowingly called one. It even contains a list of "Shibboleths" that Deacons are to question the pastor about. State papers are getting in on the act, starting with the KY Western Recorder. Others have followed suit.
I'm not saying that some titular head has arisen to battle the evil Calvinists, ala Paul Pressler/Paige vs the moderate/liberals. But to say there isn't a reaction against the renewed interest in Reformed theology is ignoring very real developments.
While these are in the VAST minority, I agree there are a few. However, let us turn this around and presume it is a reformed association. How many Non-Reformed pastors would they admit into those churches they aiding and helping grow both in people and spiritual growth?
While I know quite a few non-Cal pastors who will share and have even shared their pulpits with Calvinist pastors.. I have met none that are Calvinists who would 'permit' the same (non-cals preaching in their pulpits) in their churches. REMEMBER HERE - I'm saying that I have met.. and while that is a large number.. it by no means refers to the majority) Even on the BB a year or so back, the question was asked on here.. (even if the message was appropriate to the pastor), Many non-cals stated yes, NONE of the reformed guys stated they would ever allow it, but they would be happy to go preach at a non-cal if offered the opportunity.
My point is, you cry foul!! When, if the positions were reversed, and the SBC was Reformed in its doctrines and views, your group would do the same. How many non-Cal professors would be allowed to teach in SBC colleges, Universities, and Seminaries being under Reformed influence?
Again, think about the above, since it is a majority rule in the SBC.
And you are actually 'opposed' to this?!
If a church has to go to the lengths of needing to 'sniff out' a reformed minister, then that shows A LOT about the deceitfulness OF that minister who was not up front in the first place! In fact, he shouldn't be in the ministry in the first place. And if a church has already called 'unknowingly' a reformed pastor (one who understands their views and doctrines already or prior to acceptance).. again.. he aught to resign not only his pastorate but get out of the ministry altogether. He is a deceiver and therefore a liar. To 'not' say anything about it the search group/committee is no different than saying then stating upfront they don't believe/hold to Reformed view, when in fact they do! The only reason a reformed pastor would not say anything is if they already KNOW they would not get the position (be called to pastor that church) because his views are not consistent with the theological position of the church in question
[offensive remark edited]
Would you be so apposed to the reformed baptists doing the same thing to those non-cals who didn't state up front their theological position, knowing full well they would not be placed into position otherwise.
If we just went by what you gave above, I would not say it isn't a reaction against Reformed Theology but the methods of Reformed pastors to try to infiltrate churches through deception (which is the same as lying) for the purpose of changing, what the church officially holds.
Yet there is, and I agree it is there, some reaction (depending on the area - larger and smaller) against the Reformed doctrines in contrast to what is already held. But seriously, would not the Reformed have the same 'out' lashing but most likely in a more firm and across the board way to any not reformed coming up in it's ranks?
I'm not saying the way some are going about it is right either, but the fact is - both groups desire to propagate their views on what the see as biblical truth, thus both sides will strive to dominance of the SBC and have forgotten, it seems, why the SBC originally began.. to further the Kingdom of God through cooperation, not theology.
I have never met a reformed person who desired to sneak in as a "liar,and deceiver" to pastor a flock of goats. Unless a person is a missionary church planter, a pastor looks to preach to sheep.
What is more likely to have happened in some of these churches ,is the people were so theologically challenged they did not know enough doctrine to know what is the difference.
Look at all the mis-informed views expressed here on BB.
there is a Mixed multitude in most places now,
These persons do not like the hidden manna ,and openly reject portions of scripture as if they were man made poems to be kept or discarded on their own personal whim.
A pastor could come in and just use the scriptural verses without the theological terms and most would not even know the difference.
This past week on BB I had two people actually post that God did not elect anyone to salvation....???
Another thing that does happen is a man already in the ministry begins to re-examine what he was taught in seminary,and God changes his views gradually. He has been called to preach truth, so these new found truths will show up in his preaching.
If my pastor drifted off into error,and started teaching a man centered doctrine....I would confront him. Being in a confessional church makes it easier to do. There is a written down guide as to what we confess to hold as truth.
That is real bad, as it would give the Devila "foothold" intot he life of a local Church once infighting among the bethren starts like this!
What ever happened to be able to be friends like Whitefield and Wesley, both great men of God mightily used by the Holy Spirit, and agree to disagree in a Christ honoring fashion their theological differences?
Do we want to establish in baptist ranks a system where ONLY this or that will be allowed, IF either of them could fit into Biblical doctrines?
have we forgotten that our spiritual heritage IS to have agreement in essentials of Christian faith, and agree to allow others to have preferences/distinctions in 'disputed" areas?
Confessions of faith were made for this purpose. A non confessional church has more problems. be careful not to be too loose with what are essentials...
sort of like the bible answer man does.
What is amusing here is that ALL baptist Churches indeed have a "confession" of/for the Chrsitian faith...
Its called the Bible!
Actually, it was a deceiver coming into to pastor God's sheep. And yes, I HAVE had to deal with the after math of just such persons in helping broken churches try to heal (3 churches personally). I know other pastors who have had to do the same as well. These men come in intentionally not declaring their theological views because they KNEW they would not be called to that church otherwise.
Now this IS NOT always the case.. my point was if they will not declare their beliefs in the forefront, KNOWING that due to those beliefs they would not be called to that church.. is deceptive and makes them a liar.
Tom Ascol at Founders states the same thing back in 2007 here:
Which is precisely what I stated and that it was due to such reasons they need to get out of the ministry.. His is just more concise.
In the comment section there is a perfect example of my point:
Now what can we say when noted Reformed men of repute speak up on the issue as being done, AND examples that are given by Reformed brothers?
Interestingly enough, the problem is still the same because the pastor didn't convey to them his beliefs clearly KNOWING they didn't understand enough and if they knew 'what' views he held they would not call him. When a person does this in order to get hired, he is a deceiver, and that without question.. Calvinist or otherwise.
Uh.. not true. This is entirely your supposition when the truth is, they are saying the same thing about you.
Scripture is used by both sides (if we simply keep with non-Cal and Cals) and most often, the very same scriptures but seeing a difference in mechanics. So this wont and should not be enough.
This is something different that what I am speaking to.. this is someone who is 'already' a pastor but their understanding is changing over time, as you say. I'm speaking of those looking to be pastors of churches and are 'looking' for those non-cal churches they can get into and change it around. It is their purpose to try to 'get in' by most any means necessary. Again, I'm not saying this is an every day occurrence but it not only does happen but it happens enough that it is even addressed by other Reformed in positions of authority and as above attested to by a friend of just one such person. I happens often enough to be more than just an odd incident but not something I would call common place.
Remember, my case is against those who KNOWINGLY and purposely deceive to become a pastor of a church.