Has Southern become closet Presbyterian?

Most likely: The SBC becoming known as a Calvinist denomination

Hopefully: Another reformation of the SBC, this time leading to a resolution on the correct understanding of God's soverignity and grace.

 

I never thought about it that way before. But it is my opinion that the SBC is headed down a road that is causing and will cause much damage. It is one thing to hold to sound doctrine but another to make their personal convictions scripture and expect evryone else to uphold some of their southern theology.

 

How about elaborating on some of that southern theology?

 

How about elaborating on some of that southern theology? </font>[/QUOTE]I'll give you a few examples of what I saw and heard when I lived in the south for ten years. I know not everyone believes these but many do.

Jesus never drank wine just grape juice. I actually heard a sermon on this from a trustee at SWBTS.


Every man ought to have a son and a dog to teach him leadership. You probably read this about what a seminary president said. Many children are killed each year by guns and the stupidity of their parents.

No woman ought to teach men at the seminary because no woman should teach a man. Well they have a woman teaching Hebrew at SWBTS and another teaching Baptist history.

It is against the Bible to drink wine. Jesus did. It is a prference or personal conviction and not scripture. Scripture says to not get drunk.

"Slavery is permitted in the Bible." It is not okay to steal people from another country and hold them hostage.

 

Believing, teaching & preaching the doctrines of grace doesn't make you a "closet Presbterian"!! The greatest preachers of Baptist history were Calvinists. Many of the Anabaptists embraced the doctrines of grace.
The SBC was established by men who subscribed to the doctrines of grace. While I'm not a member of an SBC, my prayer is that, among other cleansings, the SBC would be cleansed of it's doctrinal impurity--including wishy-washiness towards "members in good standing" like Billy Graham and Bill Clinton. But then, I pray for this cleansing for all of God's Church, not just the SBC!

 

I'm curious - what "doctrinal impurity" do you see in the SBC?

 

I'm curious - what "doctrinal impurity" do you see in the SBC? [/QB][/QUOTE]
The SBC has an enormous membership, and at least half of those members are only "paper members"; people who do not actually take part (attend worship, etc.) in the churches they are members of. Those members should be removed from the rolls if they aren't going to be there. You may ask if that is not really doctrinal. It is, when you consider that these people are professing to be members of the body of Christ, and never take part in that said part of the body! They do not avail themselves to the teaching (reproof & correction) of the Scriptures; or in the discipline of the church eldership. Their carelessness impacts not only their children, but the local church & the church at large.
The SBC has a high mixture of the politically-correct "tolerance" thinking & teaching. Rick Warren, well known SBC leader, sits at the feet of Robert Schuller, a man who teaches Christian Science in the guise of Christianity. Like his mentor, Warren uses "the right words", and attaches different, user-friendly meanings to them. He waters down the Gospel, while using the wording of the Gospel.
Along those lines are Billy Graham, who used to preach repentance & faith alone in Jesus Christ. Now he says he doesn't believe you have to trust in Christ alone to be saved; that people of other religions will be saved too. He denies the necessity of adherance to proper doctrine (the Virgin Birth, for example) to be a Christian. He too worships at the shrine of Robert Schuller; and his now-infamous comments to Schuller about "wide mercy" showed he does not preach salvation through Christ alone, anymore. Graham has also bowed the knee to the Baal of Rome; having kissed the ring of the Pope & promoting the RC as early as the 1960's.
Bill Clinton is a member in good standing of an SBC. Yet he's been shown to be a fornicator, adulterer, denies the essentials of the faith, etc. This man should be outed from the denomination; but his own pastor sees nothing wrong with Clinton. So where is this pastor who hides Clinton behind his robe? Why is he tolerated as an SBC pastor?
The SBC has embraced Charismaticism. Many SBC's are now Charismatic; and the madness that engulfed non-doctrinal "churches" now engulf many in the SBC.
The SBC promotes "Finney-ism"--altar calls that pressure the unsaved to "come forward." Finney was an apostate who was not a Baptist and did not believe in the atonement or other essentials of the faith, and most SBC pastors use his godless form of coersion to make false conversions, to tally up numbers! This fleshly practice is so much a part of the churches that believers in said SBC's feel like a preacher hasn't preached properly unless he gives an "altar call."
Yet Spurgeon, Gill and thousands aside from them saw countless souls saved under their ministry, without the aid of this fleshly device.
It goes on. I heartily recommend consideration of the works of Jim Eliff, on www.WaytoGod.org
He is an SBC pastor/evangelist; working on the reform of this denomination. May the Lord mightily use him to do so!

 

We are talking about Southern Seminary, the same seminary that began in 1859 with the same doctrinal statement that's still in place today?

The Change I've seen at Southern over the last 10 years have been positive. At least we have professors there now who can sign the school's doctrinal statement without lying!!!

 

The threads you moderates and mod-sympathizers keep coming up with truly are laughable. Surely you do not really believe that Calvinistic soteriology is synonymous with Presbyterianism? Try starting a thread like this when Southern starts denying believers' baptism.

Truth is, if there is anything in the SBC that is characteristic of Presbyterianism, it's the denominational hierarchy, not the soteriology.

 

I hope so. Even if it means I'm in the group that leaves.

 

Bro. Jeff,

Which Group are You in?

 

I'm not sure if that was directed to me or not. If it was - I don't see it as a conservative/liberal issue.

And to answer the other question - I'm non-calvinist.

 

I'm not sure if that was directed to me or not. If it was - I don't see it as a conservative/liberal issue.

And to answer the other question - I'm non-calvinist. </font>[/QUOTE]The Calvinistic/Non-Calvinistic debate in SBC is not a moderate/conservative issue but a conservative/conservative debate.

It is a Historical SBC/Modern SBC debate.

 

The conservative/moderate issue is not the soteriology, but rather this tired old campaign so many of you are on to smear Southern. If you want to debate the historical theology of the SBC, fine. That's a legitimate debate.

Implying that Southern is a closet Presbyterian institution is not. Provide some real evidence that Calvinistic soteriology is inherently Presbyterian or that Southern is teaching paedobaptism, or cut out the unfounded insinuations. Stop embarrassing yourselves.

 

I'm curious - what "doctrinal impurity" do you see in the SBC? </font>[/QUOTE]The SBC has a high mixture of the politically-correct "tolerance" thinking & teaching. Rick Warren, well known SBC leader, sits at the feet of Robert Schuller, a man who teaches Christian Science in the guise of Christianity. Like his mentor, Warren uses "the right words", and attaches different, user-friendly meanings to them. He waters down the Gospel, while using the wording of the Gospel.

Along those lines are Billy Graham, who used to preach repentance & faith alone in Jesus Christ. Now he says he doesn't believe you have to trust in Christ alone to be saved; that people of other religions will be saved too. He denies the necessity of adherance to proper doctrine (the Virgin Birth, for example) to be a Christian. He too worships at the shrine of Robert Schuller; and his now-infamous comments to Schuller about "wide mercy" showed he does not preach salvation through

Many SBC's are now Charismatic; and the madness that engulfed non-doctrinal "churches" now engulf many in the SBC.

This fleshly practice is so much a part of the churches that believers in said SBC's feel like a preacher hasn't preached properly unless he gives an "altar call."
Yet Spurgeon, Gill and thousands aside from them saw countless souls saved under their ministry, without the aid of this fleshly device.



I'm really curious where you got your information.

Rick Warren has stated that his mentor was W.A. Criswell. In fact Criswell prayed for him. I heard him say this myself and it has been written in Baptist publications as well.

Less and less SBC churches are actually charismatic today.

Spurgeon did give altar calls. He also met with seekers on one day during the week in the evening. He met with seekers two days each week. Once after the service and on an evening during the week.

It might help if you were to study Baptist history and some of the books written about the church Gill and Spurgeon pastored. Take a look at http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Pages/HISTORY.html

In the Bible in the book of Acts how would they have known how many were saved in one day? They came forward and someone counted them. Each number representing a soul saved that day.

 

Try reading the text:
#1-They received the word.
#2-They were baptized.
#3-They continually devoted themselves to apostolic doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer.

The evidence of 3,000 conversions was the fact that these were added to the church and progressed in the faith. You seem to be operating under the assumption that this account was written down on that very day and that there must have been some mechanism for counting noses at that very moment, but this assumption lacks biblical support, IMO. If you can find an altar call in that text, you're a more creative exegete than I am.