Should the SBC divide over Calvinism/non-Calvinism?

They should. Free will is not the Gospel.

 

...neither is calvinism.

 

Where did you get your information on baptism?

 

drfuss: It was on a number of blogs over the past year. The SBC IMB is the agency that got the most attention.

 

But the SBC has already split once, with the formation of the CBF.

 

Statements like this are why thousands of young clergymen like myself are walking away from traditional denominational life. The arrogance of such statements pushes more people away from grace than does draw them closer.

 

Here's the thing, part of Baptist...particularly Southern Baptist...life is this whole idea of the local autonomy of the NT church. These guys aren't getting near my church and I don't want to get near them. Honestly, if we have this kind of stuff to argue over we probably need to spend more time reaching people who really need Christ.

This isn't a legitimate topic to dispute (I appreciate your desire to make us aware.) We are a BIG TENT denomination and anyone who wants to narrow that coverage needs to leave. (Of course one could make the point that this is the natural outcome of drawing fundamentalists into our denomination to win a cold war of theology.)

Anyhoo, the other issue this...my DOM hasn't visited the church where I get to serve ever and we don't need him to. I don't even know who our DoM is. The hyper-denominationalism of our state and national offices, the over-stafffing, has led to a glut of people who need to be in local churches doing the work of the Gospel and not staring out a window.

There are good DoMs out there and I appreciate their hard work. I'm sure our DoM works hard...I've just never met them. If this kind of issue takes someone down, shame on us. But I also don't have the time to waste arguing with someone over particular election versus general election.

 

I say this with honesty and genuine love for another brother...praise God we agree on something! :thumbs:

Let us celebrate our agreement! :1_grouphug:

 

I'm starting the Preterist-Calvinist-Old Earth-(possibly annihilationist) Denomination. Care to join?:laugh:

 

I like the SBC

 

The funny thing is, one of the only reasons I support the SBC is because I'm theologically baptist and I think the Cooperative Program is genius.

Otherwise I think the denom is doomed to eat its young, sling arrows across the battlefield of destoryed lives, and keep bombing the same rubble.

 

I think the wiser heads in the SBC on both sides are trying to prevent such a split.

A three-day conference, called "Building Bridges: Southern Baptist and Calvinism" will be held November 26-28 at Ridgecrest in North Carolina. Folks from both sides of the spectrum are on the program. It's co-sponsored by SBC Founders and Southeastern Seminary. SEBTS President Danny Akin is not a Calvinist, but has been quite charitable in his public statements on the subject.

Paige Patterson (non-Cal) and Albert Mohler (Cal) had a debate at a recent Southern Baptist Convention which was remarkable in its civil tone and mutual respect.

If the SBC splits, it won't be because the Calvinists want it. If they did, they would have pulled out a long time ago.

The issue that divides churches in this part of the country is not Calvinism. It's alien baptism. Keep and eye on this one. It's probably already in your back yard.

 

Since the fundamentalist takeover in 1979, the SBC strategy has been to draw a dividing line between Baptists. They are about doctrinal purity at all costs. They define "the facts". Dissent is not to be tolerated.

Tim Reynolds

 

Your comments about "narrowing parameters" are right on the mark. The SBC leadership has been doing that for almost 30 years. However, with Al Mohler at Southern Seminary pushing a Calvinist position, the Calvinists may be ascending instead of being in danger of being excluded.

Tim Reynolds

 

1. SBC began with Calvinists.

2. Dr. Mohler is a great man of God, and he continues to make the correct decisions. Look at what he's done at SBTS, since he's been there.

3. What if Dr. Mohler were president also of the SBC?

 

I agree with those who said this should be kept out of the church, the vast majority of subjects debated on this board. Unless there was something that compromises the Gospel, petty arguing and nonsense debates would not be allowed to destroy the unity of our church. To put it another way, I would do whatever is necessary to stop it.

No local church is beholding to the SBC. A 5 minute vote could end any association with the SBC if the discord ever became too much for a local church to handle.

 

Me too! :thumbs:

 

This is what the SBC is counting on. That is why the SBC is in the mess it is in. I think I have quoted the opening sentence of H. Richard Niebuhr's The Social Sources of Denominationalism (1929) before. In any case, here it is again along with the following sentence which I think is very pertinent to this thread.

Tim Reynolds