The Acts 29 is a doctrinally sound, Christ glorifying organization, with SBC leaders and affiliations such as Matt Chandler, David Platt, and many others.
Lets be careful not to smear Christ honoring brothers and sisters in Christ.
Church Denied into Local SBC Association
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Ruiz, Oct 18, 2011.
Page 3 of 4
-
The issue is that the church is reformed. There does not seem to be any other issue that the association felt disqualified the church from membership. -
Yes, you heard it here first... then you can read about it in the paper here. Again, my sources were valid, accurate, and appropriate.
BTW, I have had dealings with this association in the past. There is much background I could add but have not. This actually surprised me at the overwhelming vote, but it didn't surprise me from my dealings with this group. -
-
Yes, you were right and this ass'n was wrong.
A couple of quotes from the article just amazed me:
-
Can you show me where in their statement of belief that they should stand against reformed theology? Please cite the specific BF&M 2000 statement.
The fact is, the association does not have any statement on this issue. They voted in accordance to their beliefs, but it is not a part of their stated beliefs. -
-
I am not against kicking people out of the association or voting to keep people out. This association did just that a few months ago to another church. But in that case, which I applauded, was based on their doctrinal statement. This one was not thus inappropriate. -
-
From the link supplied this morning by Ruiz:
Isn't that what the OP is all about? -
-
That's the spin some are trying to push. Yet here we have the church's pastor denying that designation.
More from the state paper:
The vote was overwhelming (104 AGAINST, just 9 FOR)
"there were other contributing issues that emerged"
like haughtiness [now where have we heard that before?], for which the pastor is now apologizing -
Although I'm disappointed with the vote, I do recognize the right of a Baptist association to determine with whom it will associate and cooperate, and the right of autonomous Baptist churches to do the same.
It works both ways. A few years ago in a couple of associations in Western Kentucky, some churches bowed out because they wanted to accept non-Baptist baptism (what we would call Alien Immersion).
Another church I'm familiar with withdrew from an association in Western Kentucky because the association would not permit women to be messengers. The church thought it had a deal to resolve the issue, but it fell apart at the last minute. -
Let me clarify some issues here that are being bantied about. For the record, this is my hometown, I was born in Owensboro and much of my family is still in the area or in Evansville. As a result, we still have friends and family in the area.
First, the issue is about Calvinism. The article saying that the church does not identify with Calvinism, is meant only in the fact that they don't publicly advertise as Calvinists in official statements. In other words, they don't advertise it, but they are Calvinists. Everyone knows they are Calvinists and they are active with other reformed churches in the area. Yet, like other churches, they tend to focus on the Gospel and essential issues in their doctrinal statement.
As for the haughtiness. I think this was in response to "inquiries" and challenges from the Association or member churches. Being an Acts 29 church, there were many questions and tough lines of questioning. I don't doubt things got stressed during this time. Yet, the issue the night of the vote was not haughtiness, it was Calvinism as noted in the article, some may have made the haughtiness a secondary issue, but the discussion was over Calvinism. The article focused on Calvinism because that was the focus on the night of the vote. I have double checked this information. In my opinion, if haughtiness is a criteria, no SBC church in America would qualify, especially if you observe their business meetings. Yes, the church did apologize but overall it was the issue of reformed theology
Finally, I wrote one of the leaders in reformed circles a short note and said the following, " Knowing a little about the association, I was not surprised. I, also, do not think it helps that they have another great, reformed, missions minded, and scholarly focused church in their community who is very well known. To me (and this is only my speculation), I think they feel threatened.... For the most part, I think their fears are unfounded, but after a while these fears take on a life of their own."
I said a little more and sent other private notes to others giving my account. Yet, I think it is due to fear. One very solid Reformed Baptist Church is in the area. This church regularly has well known Southern Baptists and Southern Baptist Denominational Employees who frequent their church but the association seems to publicly avoid them even when these men are in town. The church is extremely involved in missions, starting mission works that have been recognized internationally for their effectiveness or has had a tremendous impact in various communities. Thus, with a church very engaged in missions and evangelism, with resident renowned scholars, top SBCers regularly involved at the church, and a reformed mindset, I think they may feel threatened or challenged.
Most of the issue with the association is fear, in my opinion. Fear of what? I don't know and wondered that even when I was living in Owensboro and talking with the Association and fellow churches. The church I belonged to inquired into joining the association, I opposed such a move but we did inquire. We didn't because it seemed like they were opposed to us joining because we were reformed. We decided to not even try to join in hopes that we could still support the association whenever we could but we didn't want to cause any division. That was several years ago, and I am saddened that there seems that things have gotten worse and not better. -
Different doctrines?
In my local church, we only fellowship with "like minded" churches. We only accept baptisms from "like minded" churches.
Reformed and non-Reformed are definately not like minded. I would have a problem worshiping with people that would deny that Jesus died for all of us.
Calvinists make me nervous, I am always wondering if they really believe that I am one of the elect.
Just my opinion.
John -
Also note the following quotations:
Again, I do not doubt haughtiness, but that came after the inquiry where things no doubt took a turn as this church was challenged on their doctrinal beliefs.
The reason they were denied is by such a margin is the people were voting in accordance to the credentials committee report, not merely an up and down vote on the church. I do doubt that they still would have been voted in.
The Bellevue Pastor said:
The Pastor of Pleasant Valley did apologize for any perceived impatience or haughtiness, but even noted the issue was reformed theology from the beginning of the inquiry stage:
So, I do not doubt anyone was lying in the article. Yet, I think mostly it was about reformed theology. -
I would hope those of us on both sides would have the attitude of John Wesley (Not a Calvinist at all!) and see the other side as Christians trying to make sense of difficult texts. Here are some of his words on the matter.
-
IF you are, you are one of the elect of God!
IF you were not one, you would not even have a desire to come toChrist and be saved!
And the Christians are all part of one body, one Lord, one Baptism, one Father etc
We are one in jesus, and we all have freedom in Him to disagree over issues like Cal/Arm, Gifts cease/still Modes of baptism etc
CANNOT have a different view though on non negotiables like Cross is outr atonement, jesus ONLY way to heaven, Second Coming, saved by grace/faith alone etc! -
Signed a Non Cal. -
There is an article about it at http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6881/53/
Page 3 of 4