Featured Rethinking Our Southern Baptist Anti-Non-Calvinist Partnership

Interesting, but simply nit-picking, as I see it.

 

Anyone who follows the link should read the comments that follow, as there develops a discussion about the opposite situation...CP money going to support local associations that deny Calvinist church planters financial support...raising the opposite question: "Should Calvinists be concerned about supporting such things?"

 

Most DoG people that I know cooperate with and support non-DoG people. I personally do not ask the missionaries that I support if they believe in the DoG or not. I'm supporting their call and vision.

 

As I see it, the churches are at the top of the food chain... not the denominational entities, networks, or associations. Those things are outflows of our churches, not the other way around. If Acts 29 is exclusively Reformed, that's their decision. Those in the SBC who fit can be a part of Acts 29 if they so choose to do so. If an Acts 29 pastor/church plant wishes to be a part of the SBC, they should be able to do so without reservation.

I'm not seeing the dichotomy... SBC is and has never been an Arminian only association. Why should it be now? Acts 29, birthed from the heart of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church, is Reformed. OK great! If a church chooses to support the CP or Acts 29... or both, that's perfectly fine. If a local association chooses plant 1 or more Acts 29 churches, that's fine as well. From what I'm seeing, SBC might learn a thing or 2 from Acts 29... and yes, I'm sure the same is also true in reverse.

Seems as though we're looking for divisiveness rather than preserving unity.

 

I agree with PeterM. It seems as thought the article author is somehow operating under the mistaken premise that the SBC owns the church that is planting, and that if the SBC puts money into a church, then the church is obligated to then follow certain guideines indefinitely, or even to remain as a cooperating church. But it isn't. It's still an autonamous church, that could decide at its beginning to partner with SBC and Acts 29...then later decide not to partner with either one, or both.

Also, If any SBC entity or person, is looking at a church plant investment primarily as a way to have another CP contributing church in the future, then the motivation is all wrong. If every NAMB-sponsored church plant for the next 20 years decided after getting on its feet to cease supporting the Cooperative program, but continued in faithful Gospel ministry that saw people saved, missionaries sent, and lives changed, then SBC Baptists should REJOICE that God's mission is going forth! (and perhaps look inward as to why nobody wants to support the CP anymore).

Also, this kind of thing goes on in both directions all the time within the SBC...Calvinist churches contribute to CP, which goes to associations and Colleges where calvinists are not welcome.

 

Well said.

 

that begs the question...

Cana Christian freely chose not to associate with other Christians who hold differeing views?

 

As long as the other group not practicing or holding to doctrines that are outside what are seen as being within orthodox views, can a Christian group distance itself from another on biblical grounds?

just because another church/group holds to non cal views, does the bible condone distancing yourself?

 

Calvinism and Noncalvinism are mutually exclusive doctrines. Calvinists and Noncalvinists can be friends, but its foolish to think they can work together. It's time to fess up and just accept the reality of the situation and move on. Stop trying to mix them.

 

Si we keep the unity among the betren by dividing ourselves up?

 

I agree, it is rare when either one can be comfortable in the opposing situation. It takes a remarkably patient, wise, confident and mature person to be involved with a congregation that differs greatly from ones own theological proclivities.
But it is also problematic to practice theological apartheid.

 

I was referring to those who would see it being acceptable to practice distencing ourselves off from other betren who held differing beliefs from us!

Not a SBC, but question was if a group could even biblically practice exclusionof non cals just due to them being non cals in belief?

think we are in agreement on this, aren't you saying thats it is wrong for that group to exclude non cals just based upon that?

 

I agree with that!

 

why would be OK to have funding for a group that excludes non cals, as those who see that as being wrong should be able to NOT financially supporting the group doing that!