Should the SBC divide over Calvinism/non-Calvinism?

Nope, not a hybrid. You're pretty much a normal free-willer. One of the things free-willers (Arminians) believe is that God chooses those He foreknows will choose Him. That's not even close to what the Bible says, but that's how they explain away all the stuff in the Bible about "election". They figure, "God elects those who elect themselves". Sort of like the "God helps those who help themselves" that isn't in the Bible, either.

 

Don't mind him 'youngmom', he is just an angry beaver, and has not been worth listening to since his show was canceled :laugh:

 

Hybridizing Soteriology

Or: How many petals are on your TULIP?

We seem to have lost the significance of the "T" in the above acronym. A proper understanding of the totality of the depravity of mankind is pivotal in appreciating the Grace of God. The ULI--P can make no sense.

There seem to be three camps here: Grace, Works, and works/grace. Read Eph. 2:8-10 fifty times. Choose wisely. Also be ready to get enough Army Medium Tents for your congregation, as well as a place to pitch them(the tents).

Two basic thoughts: Man can do no good--he has no faith of himself. God does not need any help.

"Come out from among them, saith The Lord, touch not the unclean thing", goes all the way back to Eden. Why do we still want to debate the devil?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The subject of the thread is the SBC splitting because of the Calvin-free will debate. It is not about Calvinism. It is hard for me to understand the anger generated by Calvinism. It is just something else to discuss.

What I can understand generating strong feelings are those whose agenda is dividing, being exclusive, thinking their interpretation of Scripture is better than anyone else's.

 

The large majority of the founders of the SBC were in fact Calvinists, and they were in the majority at least into the 20th century.

I was careful to use the term "at least one." And you're correct, the Mohler-Patterson debate was civil, even friendly. My reference to their debate was in the context of Calvinism's getting more attention than ever before, not in the escalation of the rhetoric. I should have been less imprecise.

Agreed. But at the very least, today's seminary students are being exposed to Calvinism more than ever before--not just in the classroom.

But those few are well-known and influential. People pay attention when the speak or write. They command a hearing because of who they are.

I was pleased by the tone of the discussion. I'm sure some wanted blood in the streets.

Oh, I'm sure you are right. If Calvinists were in the majority, they would fight a downgrade (just as Spurgeon did in England) and would fight hard. But they are not a majority, and it is absolutely true that the Non-Cal SBCers leades are fighting back.

I think you're right about this.

 

I disagree historically with regard to the 'large majority of the founders...were in fact Calvinists' with emphasis on 'large' but it was a majority. But I understand your intent and it is agreed.

But you illistrated my point perfectly. Even if it was 99.9 % Calvinistic (which does not bother me in the least) they still brought under and into their tent the .01% Non-Cals, called us brothers and sisters, and worked hand in hand, side by side without tearing down (as we see today) the others views or trying to make them believe as they do. They didn't try to nor intended to make a strictly Calvinistic organization but desired a co-op.

So to go back to our roots is NOT to go back to Calvinism but an embracing of both doctrines while agreeing to disagree.

 

I think your last statement is the best in the thread. Those who want to divide do not want to agree to disagree. They want doctrinal purity (what they think it is) and divide based on non essential issues, which is just what the church does not need.

 

You made this type of comment on anther thread and it was something to the effect of (if you will allow me the liberty trying to remember):
Why does Calvinism cause some much anger if it isn't true. I KNOW that isn't it but something to that effect.

Let me take you back in my time machine; [opening the door].
oops, watch your step please. [closing door behind you] :laugh:

Going back in time (hearing the faint sound of the twilight zone from the air) to when Calvinism was the leading theology among Christians. And then - came the Non-Cals (dun-dun-duuuuun .
Seriously though, their was a great deal of anger and animosity against them as well. So much so many were removed from Pastoriates, run out town (or country), and a few (though not many and it was rare) were killed over it. Yet it began building a base in the churches and continued to grow and as did the anger and retaliation against it. So if you lived in that time, the same thing would have been said about the Non-Cal position as is said about the Cal today. But eventually they learned to live with each other, and Calvinists allowed the Non-Cals to come back and even set up churches of their own.

Well, we're back. And a good thing to - we are almost out of fuel

Both theologies, no matter how badly the purist want to deny it, have been around by God's grace since the early Church. God has kept each of them in His church (I believe) to keep a balance for either side to go to far one way or the other. It is God who has raised up Godly men on both sides, and it was God who brings them back into balance when one becomes the ruler of the other (as I see it). It was always thus and always thus will be.I have no problem with Calvinism become even the larger portion of the SBC. What I would have a problem with is them trying to eradicate what is not their view from school and pulpit (which some have avowed), and vise versa. Why can we not in our schools show both aspects and the men and women of God go where God leads? Like a manditory semester of each. If nothing else AT LEAST they will have a knowledge of the basics the other actually believes

 

Allan,
What issues do you think would justify a local church or an association to split over?

 

Agree to disagree?

Salvation by works or salvation by grace or salvation by some admixture is not debatable; and would certainly be a test of fellowship.

Ecumenism is alive and well.

The daughters are returning to the mother.

Praise the Lord--another sign the end is near. Even so, come Lord Jesus. Will He find "The Faith, once for all delivered to the saints" when He returns? YES.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

You mean if the GodFather makes you an offer you can't refuse, it's not really an offer? :laugh:

It makes you part of the majority who think most of this debate is unnecessary to the work God has called us too.

As has been said before both ideas have been around for a very long time. Personally I believe that God planned it that way, for each balances out the negatives of the other. Too much freewillism can lead to ideas about works salvation. Too much Calvinisn can lead to lazyness with the idea that if God chooses and His choices will come then we don't have to evangelize. (The stones will thrown now! )

<totally off subject> Bro. James is there a scripture that says something about "the daughters returning to their mothers"? </totally off subject>

 

...or maybe the non cal sees it as a false doctrine...and not from ignorance? (was that inflammatory word really necessary?)

 

Yes, I have noticed there seems that some try to make a vague connection between the sovreignty of God and exclusivity. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are two seperate arguments.

I stay out of them, but Calvinism makes more sense to me than free will choice, though I am still not sure Calvin has the sovreignty of God defined completely right. He was just a man with doctrines we do not agree with such as infant baptism.

What really pushes my button is taking this and turning it into an excuse for dividing and exclusivity. Dividing from what? There are thousands of people that think they have it right 100%. Funny thing is, only One has it right. He is called God.

Lately, I have been doing lots of reading on types of communion. There seems to be a pattern emerging. There are groups of Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcapalians, and Presbyterians that insist on closed communion. Of course, denominations like Catholic and Church of Christ are 100% closed. What is the common element of all these. It is called I am right and everyone else is wrong, therefore I will not fellowship or worship with them. It is the exact same mindset as the op of this thread.

Its ok to debate it here. Letting it infect a local congregation is quite another matter.

 

...well, having walked down that road, I can say that SOME may be ignorant, but I don't like being lumped in with the "some". Being called ignorant of the facts, when someone is not is inflammatory, IMO. These kinds of statements need to be qualified and not painted with such a wide brush, particularly in public forums.

 

This is an example of the response you get when you expose the silliness of free-will doctrine.