Will the SBC split over the doctrines of sovereign grace?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterM
SBC should be "big" enough for people of all views in this debate. Diversity is a good thing and debate is healthy, but division is not.

I think we need to be careful with this idea of diversity. The diversity movement celebrates differences. We shouldn't. We can recognize that diversity is a reality, witness some of the weird views on this board.

But let's don't wear it as a badge of honor. I plan to keep posting here until everybody agrees with me!

 

Split? No

The SBC is already divided like a huge pie sliced in many different shapes and size of wedges. The last "split" was over power and influence and nothing doctrinal. I do foresee a change in leadership one day soon, because some other person or persons will want to say they are in charge.

 

My comment was not intended to be a "broad brush" in essential matters of the faith, but was limited to the discussion on this thread, as in the rules of this forum. I am sure that you would agree that the doctrines of grace are not non-negotiables in orthodox Christian faith.

I wonder just how many of us are patterning our lives in reaction to what "outsiders" think and do. I agree that having diversity in some areas can be a problem, especially in matters of maintaining biblical centrality in the life of believers and the church. But the Kingdom is large and God has built into that Kingdom people from all walks of life. For that I am grateful.

Blessings,

 

Baptist Faith and Message

I thought that the Baptist Faith and Message was pretty cut and dry with Calvinist Doctrine. As well SBC churches have to agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, even if they don't teach it. It boils down to the local church and its responsibility to the local believers.

Discipleship is needed within the "church." Education and correct teaching to weed out the heretical views and false doctrines directly opposed to the doctrine of Election. Perhaps if the SBC churches had a new members discipleship class that was taught correctly ... the church would not be nearly as filled with apathetic believers on these issues of doctrine.

IMHO

 

This isn't true, send your money and you're a member. Some associations and state conventions are making it mandatory, but as of yet the SBC has not dictated to churches "sign or leave". That is coming mind you and is in place for employees, but not churches.

 

I see it as a reaction to the rise of post-modernism. Rooted soundly in modernism, Calvinism is attractive to those seeking a manner in which they can fight off the "evils" of post-modernism. Calvinism - clear, cut and dry; post-modernism - not so much!

NAMB just sent me a survey and seemingly half of the questions where dealing with Calvinism...think they aren't worried? BTW the survey was for grads of SBC seminaries 98-04 called the "New Millennium Minister's Survey" letter signed by Richie Stanley and Reggie Ogea.

 

You got a mighty long wait. :laugh:

 

Jeremiah

Right you are - it is not calvinist - it is baptist.

 

Blackbird

Great post!

It is scary to me that the more the denomination has focused on calvinism instead of evangelism the less we have focused on reaching the lost.

I could handle the swing towards more 'reformed' theology, but not at the loss of human souls to eternity in Hell. Those souls are too high of a price to pay for the move towards 'reformed theology' -IMHO.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Quote:
I plan to keep posting here until everybody agrees with me!

I figger if I live to be 170 I might make a dent.

 

The biggest problem facing the SBC is not a doctrinal controversy. Sure, the pro and con sides in the debate over the historical and present place of calvinism makes for some heated arguments and reveals the dark sides of some immature hotheads, but this debate is nowhere near as contentious as the decades long "Battle for the Bible" that essentially concluded in the early 90s. With all of that rancor, there have still be a relative few churches that have pulled out or or no longer supporting SBC work financially. The biggest events that have happened, institutionally have involved 2nd state convention groups, non-SBC aligned Baptist seminaries and several state Baptist schools breaking free of their former state convention bonds.

The debate over the "Doctrines of Grace" will never build up enough steam of this type of rancor.

But the biggest problem the SBC faces now concerns the real declining financial support coming from churches that are doing a poorer and poorer job of both evangelism and disciple work. I'm in my late 30's and I remember the old "Training Union" that was held on Sundays before evening service. We were trained in Baptist polity, SBC mission work, the Cooperative Program, etc... This assisted in building an "ownership" mentality among the average SBC church member.

Now, fewer and fewer churches do such training and at least 2 generations of church members have risen to adulthood without having any regard for these things.

Add to this the very public mismanagement of the NAMB (which revealed the real problem of institutional bloat and poor stewardship of CP funds), the drive to politicize the IMB board of trustees (a poorly veiled attempt to get rid of a non-goodoldboy president), the embarrassing debate over alcohol at the 2006 annual meeting (an even more poorly veiled attempt to smack down 1 or more IMB trustees), the incredibly low levels of CP support by many/most of the churches led by the biggest name preachers in the SBC, and the rise of of a information and data savy laity who can check the numbers reported by SBC agencies (check out the methodology of how the IMB counts oversees baptisms....scandalous!) and what you have is an increasingly tarnished face of the SBC. This all adds up to a quickly declining motivation by church members to see budget funds go to the CP.

By comparison, the intramurel squabbles over the full meaning of "Sovereignty" and "Grace" pales.

 

The sheer weight of numbers will move the calvinists out as time goes by.That is pretty much a given. Whether it is a split or the calvinists just move on down the road or just learn to be more tolerant of others it will all work out the same.

I used to be real impressed by the calvinists here on the board they seemed so sure of themselves and what they said,then I found out most of them had never even read the Institutes of Religion by John Calvin where they get thier theology from,you could have knocked me over with a feather. Then I find out by thier own words,"Well they just believe Calvin got his sotiriology right" .I felt challenged not being a Calvinist and not thinking of myself as an Arminean to read the "Institutes" which I am still reading and listening to a series of tapes explaining the "Institues"from a pro Calvinist view.Next just to be fair I plan to read Armineus so I can learn what an actual Arminean is supposed to be.I know this does'nt mean much but at least when I talk with someone about calvinism or armineanism, I will have read the material.I do know that Christians generally believe in the soveriegnty of God and they believe in grace in relation to salvation,we get into our arguements or discussions when we define these terms.

One of the persons on the board ask me to read Romans chapter 9 and tell him what I thougtht. Well I read Romans chapter 9 and I read what different commentaters had to say ,but what I found most interesting was what Barnes and Henry had to say, both being calvinists saw the passage from different eyes and came to different understandins of what was being said.

So far I find that there seems to be some kinship between the KJV only group and the calvinist insofar as they don't read the material that is available from the original authors or translators and what they themselves have to say about or in thier own work.

 

We are not all paedobaptists. Presbyterians are. I believe in baptism by immersion for believers. Almost all Prebyterians require you to believe in infant baptism.

 

It is incorrect to suggest that today's SBC "calvinists" get their theology from John Calvin. Perhaps this is why the phrase "doctrines of grace" is preferred among the brethren/sistren who hold to the particular Baptist point of view regarding salvation and God's sovereignty.

In any event, John Calvin (and the KJVO issue) makes for a very convenient whipping boy in the present discussion. FWIW, most of the particular Baptist types I know have read Calvin but rarely quote and disagree with him on many points. And most of us use the NASB, NKJV, or ESV.

 

POB, I don't think reading the works of Arminius will help you much. You should study Finney instead. Today's non-cals are much closer to Pelagius than to Arminius (such was the case with Finney).

 

I heartily agree. I don't think I have ever heard someone who, like me, believes the Doctrines of Grace claiming Calvin as the source of their belief. In the UK, terms like "Reformed Baptist", "Grace Baptist" and "Particular Baptist" are much more likely to be used in referring to churches and individual Christians who are both baptistic, and believe the Doctrines of Grace.

And of course, there are two sides to the coin. Are those of us who believe the Doctrines of Grace right to use the term "Arminian" when referring to churches and individuals who do not believe those doctrines? Would "General Baptist" be better?

By the way, I like the word "sistren" - I'd never seen it before

Every Blessing,

 

It you don't want to be called Calvinists, then say you believe in predestination or be called Predestinationists. The problem with "Doctrine of Grace" is that it implies others do not believe in God's Grace which of course we do.

 

Yep!!! As a lifetime SBCer --- I see this too!!! Nothing to do with Calvin vs Armenian ---- everything to do with CP funds to NAMB and IMB and the "Goodoleboy" network ---- those fellas could make a "killin'" off of Amway with that system in place!!!

 

The reference of calvinist and KJVO similarities has nothing to do with calvinists being KJVO, it has to do with the tenacity and dogmatic style with which they hold and present thier views.
Many who are not calvinist do believe in that God is soveriegn and it is He who gives us the choice so we may freely love Him.We also believe it is God the Holy Spirit who seeks us out and convicts us of sin.We take no credit for our salvation as we do not consider making a choice as a work.The pharisees used to rule if you took more than 50 steps(something near that) outside of your home it was considered work on the sabboth but 49 steps were not work.We can see that both of these took some work in thought and deed but I think you get my meaning.Our views are closer than what meets the eye, yet the cause for much strife.