Featured About to hit the fan in the SBC

See this is exactly what I was talking about. There's zero reason to call the other side "apostates."

 

On this board it doesn't matter. The powers that be do not care. It is acceptable behavior.

 

I was very pleased when I read this. The new calvinist movement within the SBC has advanced without challenge for many years now. This was mostly out of a desire to seem non-confrontational on the part of non-Calvinists. I am glad to see leadership within the SBC begin to push back on this issue. I think it is high time that this issue "hit the fan". It is the elephant in the room at every conference, seminar, and convention I attend within the SBC these days so let's get it out in the open.

 

Exactly, and this is why this kind of rhetoric is so dumb. It seems more and more that in the SBC there are a group of power players that just are not happy unless they fighting over something. Stop fighting over silly things and get to the work of the kingdom. This stuff is what makes the SBC on a collision course with irrelevancy.

 

If everyone of you theological geniuses who have an insight to the inner workings of the Lord want to worry about what a higher level of church government thinks about this or that issue, why don't all of you Calvinists become Presbyterians and all of you Arminians become Methodists. I am sure the bishops and presbyters will set you on the right path.

Does anyone here know what the word autonomous means?

 

Here is an excellent response to this statement by Jonathan Akin:

 

To deny men are sinners in Adam is a denial of romans 5.
There is not two sides on that issue. To say you are a bible believer implies you believe Romans 5,and do not deny the historic faith.

 

Why should anyone care what James White says?

 

Maybe because he stays in the bible:thumbs::thumbs:

 

Yes....he knows his history enough to understand how bogus this article is.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

I am quite sure he does. Maybe he will get it right some time down the road.

 

Maybe tomorrow:



http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5094

Theological Fire Safety: Let's Put Out a Few Flaming Straw Men!
05/31/2012 - James White
Smell that smoke? It's coming from the theological straw men lit up by the likes of Emir Caner, Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, Malcolm Yarnell, and David Allen. The smoke is thick, but the fire is hardly hot. I refer to a newly released statement titled "A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation." I began seeing reference to it yesterday, and today I took a few moments to look it over. The sheer number of category errors, misrepresentations, and, at times, complete face-palming theological mistakes is mind-boggling. It seems the entire doctrine of original sin has been jettisoned as well, given language such as this: "We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned." Seems like Pelagius has returned from the dead! So why do infants die again? Well, anyway. Here is another example: "We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell." These are theologians, yet, they are theologians of tradition, for they clearly continue to refuse to even hear what the other side has said for, well, all of church history. No one has ever argued, to my knowledge, that the elect have a capacity in and of themselves that the non-elect do not. We are all children of wrath outside of grace. The elect are no more "capable" of responding to the Gospel than anyone else. Dead men lack the capacity to respond to anything. Hence the necessity of saving grace. And on it goes.

So tomorrow afternoon, starting at 5pm EDT, we will do a Radio Free Geneva examining this new "statement" and exposing its contradictions, category errors, and simple false teachings. Join us, and invite any confused Southern Baptists to listen in as well!*

 

Why do the Calvinists care about this? They want to be part of the SBC, but the SBC doesn't want to be part of them.

Why don't all the Calvinists just start their own association?

I don't know about you, but I don't stay where I am not wanted.

You don't hear of non-Calvinist pastors trying to get inside a Reformed Church and change it, but it is very common to hear of Calvinists who come into previously non-Calvinistic churches and try to introduce Calvinism. Why?

Why do Calvinists need the SBC anyway?

 

And often under cover and sneaky.

 

Not likely

 

Well, here you go. If James White believes that so many leaders in the SBC are heretics, then why does he want to remain in the SBC? I would have thought he would have called all the "true' believers to "come out of her" long ago.

It is almost like Calvinists are insecure, they most belong to this big organization to prove to themselves they are legitimate and orthodox. At the same time, they commonly sneak into previously non-Cal Baptist churches and try to introduce Calvinism.

Start your own association, and leave those who do not believe Calvinist doctrine alone.

 

I'm trying to digest this document but what concerns me is this part of the preamble. "This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation."

Has anyone seen this goal of the Calvinists being advanced in your church or association?

 

James White is not representative of all Calvinists. He is a hyper-calvinist like so many we see on this board. He is a joke and not to be taken seriously.

 

Maybe you could disquise yourself as a pastor and become a Calminian double agent.

 

Ok well I can see the maturity level just dropped.