Must the new Baptist Calvinism divide churches, denominations?

I agree brother. One of the problems is that many are not willing to devote the required amount of time to study, to fully understand either side.

 

Allan, I'd like to discuss this privately with you as I'd like to get more info on this particular church in ND. I think we need to compare notes.

 

So what would you have us do? Be content with being a silent minority within the SBC?

How does this leave you out? You are a part of the establishment! You are a part of the Majority! Why do you feel threatened?

Supposed heritage? Have you not read and studied the history of the SBC? Do you not know that even W.A. Criswell said he was a Calvinist?

 

Just because every Baptist in the past was a Calvinist doesn't make it have to be that way now. And, it's alright for you to be a Calvinist but it appears that there is an effort to force the convention in this direction. Again, why have a Founder's movement to begin with. Why not have your belief and let the non-Calvinists have theirs and us work together bringing people to faith in Christ Jesus?

 

"He decieved them on purpose by not saying his true beliefs in order to be their pastor and try to change them."

Hate to say it but this is rather common. I'm not saying that the other side doesn't do the same, but I have not heard of it.

I know of a couple churches that it happened to and have read that others have. Usually the pastor will come in and wait a few months before starting to preach/teach and slowly move the congregation toward the the pastor's goal.

I'm sure the pastor views it as teaching the congregation proper doctrine, but it is still unethical to be under the table about it.

There is also the side that the church might not be doing its due dilligence to find out what the candidate believes.

 

So let me see what you seem to be saying:

If the SBC Founders (those guys who met in Augusta in 1845) were here today they should not be vocal about their doctrinal beliefs because that would be seen as an effort to move the convention in their direction??

Question: How did we get away from those commonly held beliefs of 1845?

Observation: My SBC Church was organized in 1826 with a Calvinistic Articles of Faith. When I got here in 2000 they didn't even know what the words meant! Somebody moved them over the years away from their original doctrine. If somebody moved them why is it wrong for me to move them back?

I haven't heard any Calvinist in the SBC saying that non-Calvinists needed to become Calvinists. There is no political movement. There is no Take-Over Agenda. We are working together for the Gospel. We have a Founder's Movement for Fellowship with Reform minded Southern Baptists. All of our meetings are open to the public - you are more than welcome to attend. We'd be glad to have you.

 

................................:applause:

 

If I might interject something on this discussion. I would not consider myself Cal or non-Cal I am proably low-cal and fully intend to stay that way. I spent the first 45 years of my life as SBC, my Dad was an SBC pastor and I was also a Southern Baptist Pastor. I now Pastor an Independant Baptist Church. I also trade pulpits with a Southern Baptist pastor for revivals. I believe the SBC heritage is something to be proud of but I also believe our Lord corrects as He sees fit if man does not get in the way. Most of us tend to feel personally threatened when our belief system is challenged and we resort to attacks on one another. I believe Paul and Peter were a good example of what we need to do. When a brother drifts from the teachings of Christ we need to lovingly call his attention to the truth of Gospel not persoanlly attack his character. Politics is what causes division not dis-agreeement. if we can leave the politics of what we have been taught behind and deal with what we have learned then we can share and grow together.

 

You haven't been to Oklahoma in a while have you? :tongue3:

 

I actually grew up in Oklahoma, and I do understand where you are coming from but the tornados scared me away and not just the ones from weather.

 

Cavlinism may have been a Baptist distinctive in the past. That I'll concede. But, it wasn't a defining distinctive. They didn't show up at a meeting and say, "Hey, my names' Bob, and I'm a Calvinist." Today it seems that many pradade the fact that they are "reformed" as if it is a badge of honor. Why can't we show up and say, "Hey, my name's Joe, and I'm a Christian." Whether I'm a five pointer or not should have no bearing on whether someone is called to pastor a church or not. It shouldn't even be brought up. Like a deacon in my congregation, who happens to be a staunch five pointer says, "We have bigger fish to fry."

 

You are right. The founders didn't show up at a meeting and say, "Hey, my name's Bob and I'm a Calvinist!"

They didn't have to! IT was assumed.

Dr. P.H. Mell was President of the SBC for 14 Terms in the late 1800's. He was also Chancellor of the University of Georgia and was also thoroughly Calvinistic. Now how did a Calvinist get elected as President of the SBC if Calvinism wasn't a defining distinctive?

You are right - we do have bigger fish to fry but some of the big shots in the SBC keep serving us up as a side dish at every fish fry they throw!

Instead of Hush Puppies - the favorite side dish has become "Hush Calvinists."

 

And, if you don't hush your going to cause a split.

 

Almost thou persuadest us to seriously attempt a take-over!:laugh:

 

Yea I know. And reformed folks never hold fish fry's:laugh:

 

Dr. P.H. Mell was President of the SBC for 14 Terms in the late 1800's. He was also Chancellor of the University of Georgia and was also thoroughly anti-abolitionist. Now how did an anti-abolitionist get elected as President of the SBC if anti-abolitionism wasn't a defining distinctive?

 

I don't recall anyone saying slavery wasn't a defining cultural distinctive of a lot of Southern Baptists.

So what's your point?

If you are saying because Southern Baptists were wrong about slavery therefore they were also wrong about soteriology then I would point out to you that it would make just as much sense to say that the organizing of the SBC in 1845 was also outside of the will of God.

 

This is exactly the mindset of many non calvinist in the SBC. If you are Calvinist just keep your mouth shut. Its as if we should be ashamed of what we view as solid biblical doctrine. Think about it.

 

And if a split is necessary, then I say "God willing, let it happen."

 

Somebody moved them over the years away from their original beliefs about slavery. If somebody moved them why is it wrong for me to move them back?