Should the SBC divide over Calvinism/non-Calvinism?

Uh, if I remember correctly, the OP was WILL the SBC split over Calvinism, not SHOULD it split.

So, I won't answer StephanM's question in this thread because it has nothing to do with the OP. I'll be glad to deal with it in a separate thread.

I know, I was the one who said that a split over Calvinism is not likely, at least any time soon. But it is already showing signs of stress over baptism and Landmarkism. I should have known that somebody would jump on that and pursue it. Fine with me, but not in this thread.

 

1) It is agreed for those who adhere to the doctrine. Those who do not are not so inclined. Not all Baptists believe in OSAS.

2) I complete disagree with dividing over the finer points of eschatology.

 

Whether or not the OP references it, the title of the thread says "should."

The concept of landmarkism goes hand-in-hand with the issue of Calvinism.

IMO, the issue of election is infinitely more important than questions over the validity of free-will baptist baptisms. If we are willing to split over the latter, then we should be willing to split over the former.

I do not believe that we should split over either of the questions.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
Again, Calvinism and Arminianism aren't secondary issues. They're absolutely foundational. They can't be reconciled and they can't peacefully coexist.

That may be because our area of Western Kentucky and West Tennessee were hotbeds of both Calvinism and Landmarkism within the last century. Both have waned somewhat, but enough of them has rubbed off that parts of those two movements still reside in the churches. So neither of them is a hot-button issue in our church.

In the church saturneptune and I serve, I count fewer than a half-dozen openly-avowed Calvinists. All of them are actively involved in the life of the church. Four are teachers. Most of our members would subscribe to some Landmark tendencies, but if you called them Landmarkers to their face, they wouldn't know what you were talking about. So conflict over that issue is a non-starter.

Maybe Calvinism and non-Calvinism are foundational issues we ought to debate. They are on ths forum, obviously. But our church went through a time of conflict 25 years ago. And many of us vowed that we'd never be part of another church fight unless it involved heresy. So we're not having any of it. We've agreed to disagree and love on each other at every opportunity.

 

Sorry StephanM, my brain is not working well tonight, nor is my eyesight. You are correct. The OP question is "should."

I'd still be open to pursuing your questions on OSAS or eternal security as a criterion to define a New Testament church. You start the thread and I'll join in.

 

I wouldn't say they go hand-in-hand. One deals with soteriology, the other, ecclesiology. But there's no question they both hot-button issues.

Just an observation. I think the decline of Landmarkism in this area of Kentucky probably runs parallel to the rise in dispensationalism. Sorry, that's for the other thread, too.

 

What I highlighted is the real problem. Many consider anything NOT their particular view TO BE a heresy, being either the Cal or Non-Cal view.

It is absolutists for doctrinal purity on either side that believe both can not co-exist in brotherly love and edification. As I said earlier, the SBC was founded by BOTH groups doing exactly what these are saying is impossible.

You are correct however in that they ARE secondary issues, important but still secondary.

 

I'm not sure they should be secondary. But in the case of my church we have made them so. To pick a fight over them, knowing you'd lose, and knowing it would destroy the harmony we have, is dumb.