So guilty by association?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Albert Mohler to be Nominated For SBC President
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
So guilty by association?
I can't help myself from laughing at your reply. It is so frustrating because there is so little that can be done. I am a so-called traditionalist. I liked the older generation but they are gone now. I personally think that Calvinism has lost the debate that more Calvinism will save the SBC or increase its membership. I don't think that Calvinism is that attractive. With all of his brains, Mohler seems like an underachiever. As for Greear, I agree with you that he is fuzzy, but I am not so polite and I call him a dumb dog. I agree with Trump that Russell Moore is a nasty man. Why does the SBC have a nasty man as head of their DC political lobby? Do the Calvinists want to continue the DC lobby?
Whatever you want to call it
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Why does everything have to be about Calvinism? I mean really. This thread is not about Calvinism.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Running buddies? They don't even live in the same state.
Neither do me and my best friend.
It became about Calvinism once Mohler said that he would fill Greear's shoes so it is a proper consideration. What are the reasons for voting for Mohler?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Because we have seen him tackle liberal trends in the SBC at Southern Seminary back in the 90's and he is theologically conservative.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
For the record, I would applaud if the trend was more towards Calvinism, but that isn't what this thread is about and I don't think that should be the hill to die on given the current trend of the SBC.
Moehler has made his reputation as one who regularly attacks all other beliefs but Calvinism.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Some would call that standing on Biblical Truth. But I would actually challenge you on that. I would hardly say he makes that his reputation. In fact, I only really hear him talk about it when asked directly or at Ligonier/Shepherd's conferences.
Calvinism is an issue. No one says why he would be a good choice. What will he do about the SBC and Washington DC politics? Will he sure to shut down Lifeway?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
If the fact that he is a Calvinist is your main issue with him I think you probably need to ask yourself some bigger questions that are bigger picture things. You keep bringing up Calvinism, yet I've already said some things that have nothing to do with Calvinism that he cleaned up at Southern back in the 90's.
Oh, that is just one of the issues. Why should he want to be president? What will he do about Lifeway and ERLC?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Again, you seem to think that he decided one day he wanted to be president and threw his name in the hat. That's not what is happening. He was asked if he would accept a nomination and he said yes if he is called upon he will answer that call.
As I have said, I don't have a problem with a Calvinism being SBC President. The point I am making is that his vocal stance on Calvinism makes it fair game for discussion and criticism. If you get you tube access, you will see how much he talks about Calvinism.
I'm not sure about the optics of having the President of one of the SBC Seminaries as the SBC President, but I have confidence that Dr. Mohler would do a fine job.
I agree with your point on Dr. Mohler's vocal support of Calvinism. I generally agree with Dr. Mohler, but he's definitely going to carry the "Calvinist" label because of his public stances. Also, in his reforming of the SBTS faculty, he has required adherence not only to the BF&M, to be sure, but also to the Abstract of Principles, the theological standard for the seminary that predated the BF&M. That standard is a pretty Calvinistic standard. He's not to blame for doing so. The seminary has always required adherence to the Abstract of Principles, but it was not enforced for a very long time. Dr. Mohler changed that.
Why?
The perception of elevating SBTS in stature relative to the other seminaries, for one. It already has the "flagship" concept tied to it, though, so maybe it's not an issue.
I could see some having an issue with the perception that the SBC president would be his own boss (of sorts), but in reality the SBC president doesn't have enough power for that to make a difference. He is involved in appointing people to the nominating committee, but it's not like the SBC president has any day-to-day authority over the seminaries. Mohler reports to his board of trustees, but if we are honest, I think by this point Mohler has more clout than his board. As long as he doesn't abuse his power or fall into sin, I think it will remain that way.
All this being said, it's only the question of optics--and I'm not even sure of that. I don't think it would be a substantive problem.