Will the SBC split over the doctrines of sovereign grace?

I am not fooled... nor do I feel the need to defend God or the Word. I allow the Word to do the dividing, not me.

Blessings

 

I agree that false doctrine is poison, but there will still be people who interpret the Bible differently than I do. I remember reading John Rice on Revelation and Jack Hyles on Revelation. There were areas they disagreed. But weither was involved in false doctrine, just an honest difference of opinion about what the inerrant Bible teaches.

Do believers differ between 4 point and 5 points? Yes, does that mean that either one is not a "born again keeper of God's Word"? No, it just means they interpret God's Word differently in an area.

The only real alternative is to establish some kind of Baptist Pope who will determine what is the "right" doctrine and what is heresy. Maybe you would want that. But I sure wouldn't. .... Unless of course, I got to be the Pope :tongue3: :tongue3: :tongue3: :tongue3:

 

Politics will split the SBC before doctrine does.

It is very hard for the SBC to "split." The way the denomination is organized, the autonomy of local churches, the various levels of organization and separation of ministries and institutions into associations, state or regional conventions and a national body with just two mission boards, a couple of "commissions" and six seminaries, gives a lot of latitude for churches to work with. It is a denomination united more around missions and theological education than around specfic doctrinal positions.

The idea that churches can cooperate in missions and ministry in certain areas without surrendering their own doctrinal integrity seems to work fairly well. Churches decide their own statements of faith and practices, and decide on their own whether the denominational standards of cooperation are compatible. Having churches within the denomination that are more Calvinist than others, or more Charismatic than others is not a reflection on the churches that do not practice those things, nor is their presence in the denomination an endorsement of their views by all of the other churches, or of the denomination, which is also independent and autonomous. It is only when Southern Baptists either attempt to use the denominational structure to force their view on others, or percieve that as a possibility, that difficulties seem to arise.

There have been some "splits" of sorts in the past history of the SBC. The landmark controversy caused some churches to leave and form their own denominations, but the actual number of churches that did leave was pretty small, fewer than 500, and many of them maintained some level of cooperation with the SBC or a related state body or association. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship formed recently after a controversy over the specifics of the Doctrine of Inerrancy, and even though more than 15,000 SBC churches supported what was called the "moderate" side of the debate, only about 2,500 churches actually formed another group, and many of those still have ties to the SBC or related state organizations. I find it kind of ironic that after all the fighting was over, the "inerrancy" group didn't change the Baptist Faith and Message to include the term, and the 1963 statement that moderates supported says virtually the same thing.

Within its ranks, the SBC has churches that run the doctrinal spectrum from extremely fundamentalist to landmarkist, to conservative, to moderate, and there are probably still a few "liberal" (by Baptist standards) churches in there as well. There are churches who support the 1963 BFM, the 2000 BFM, both, or neither. It is fairly diverse.

 

A Baptist running for the office of Pope . . . I woulda never believed it!

 

The SBC did not split over liberalism years ago. The evangelicals fought back and overcame. I remember that battle backin the early 60's...in the theological seminaries.

Why would they split to-day over what has been going on long before the liberal controversies?

Cheers,

Jim

 

People who are not willing to stand up and defend the Word of God are the reason our nation is going down the drain.

 

Actually, we are called to to defend the reason for the hope that we have, not the Word.

I will not even address the "nation going down the drain" at length, but I will say this. I am an American and for that, I am grateful, but my citizenship is in heaven and there is no such thing as "dual citizenship." I will not spend my life, wake breathe, or bleed for that which is temporary... only for that which is eternal. America is not eternal.

 

Actually, we are called to to defend the reason for the hope that we have, not the Word.

I will not even address the "nation going down the drain" at length, but I will say this. I am an American and for that, I am grateful, but my citizenship is in heaven and there is no such thing as "dual citizenship." I will not spend my life, wake breath, or bleed for that which is temporary... only for that which is eternal. America is not eternal, nor is it the Kingdom.

 

Great reply it reveals a lot about your intestinal fortitude.

 

Great response! I totally agree!

 

There are several issues that could very well result is substantial splits.


(1) Tongues maybe

(2) Election - Absolutely there will be a split.

To a non-Calvinist the inference that the doctrine of Grace is the issue it the Red flag.

In the end the TULIP’s position of Grace results in election of some and all the rest can not be saved.

So in the end its not so much what we use the word Grace and in doing so try to cloak it as being the same between TULIP believers and Non-Calvinist believers - that is not true. We all know that.

The general population of SBC churches are not Calvinist, in the way it is perceived - that being God picked some and everyone else absolutely will never have a chance to be saved.

We can debate terms, systems, theologies until we are blue in the face but when it all boils down to the real issue it is this one thing - Election. The majority of SBC member understands the implication of the word “Election” Did God pick only a few and all the rest flat out can not be saved regardless.

You may disagree with me but this is the simplest way to put it.

So in the end it is coming. Their is going to be a hug battle over this doctrine and the Calvinist will lose. It is in the making now. It will be stopped as was liberalism. There is always going to be a fringe group claiming this and that but the membership has proven to be stronger than these groups.

The majority of SBC pastors and even the greater membership are not Calvinist.

Yes the next be split will be over the Calvinist issue.

While that is brewing there is a small one on using wine instead of juice for the lords table and that won't last long - I'll give it about a year or less.

The membership will not tolerate it.

I will be the first to Prophecy on the issue of Calvinism - I will not stand a change. The wheels are already building steam. You will see a purging of Calvinist in leadership and all to take place within 5 years.

 

"Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"

 

Quote:

Pastor SBC

Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"
---------------------------------------------

Good question. This bloke wouldn't know Calvinism if it slapped him in the face. Just ignore his rants.

I would be glad to see the SBC take a stand and rid itself of these reprobates who deny the absolute sovereignty of God, Get back to some of the old saints who built the Southern Baptist Convention, at least the one I remember of old.

Cheers,

Jim

 

If you are only 10%, then it don't look too good for you.

 

I like that.

I am the a prophet. :saint:

I have prophesied. :sleeping_2: ( a vision in my head upon my bed )


It will come to pass.

 

In your dreams.



***Personal insults removed***

 

Hi Bob,


Only the pastors of the sample taken were 10 percent.

If the members knew what they believed there would be must less, much less than 10 percent. Members don't take to kindly to their teaching. A lot of them would be looking for another place to expound their__________________ I can't say it - someone else will have to fill it in.

I have to be kind, understanding, temperate, a :saint: and I can't show ness or the such.

 

Yea, they watching me too. I think one of them reported me. The riled me and when I responded then they notified Moderators. Didn't do them any good they shut down their own thread.

 

No the founders of the SBC were NOT calvinists. Some were calvinistic . . . but, that is a long way from being calvinist.

The claim that all (or even a majority) of Southern Baptists were calvinists is a recent claim. And it ain't supportable by history.

 

I don't get it.
Why don't the Tip toers thru the Tulips just resign and join the many OTHER Baptist fellowship who ARE Tulip tippers?