New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby KeithE » Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:43 pm

Haruo wrote:In an SBC context, the word "Founders" suggests to me the need to ensure the appointability of slaveholders as missionaries. I'm sure this is not what they mean by it (though it may be hinted at), but I'm not sure what they do mean.

The Founders Ministries was “founded” as a Calvinistic advocacy group within the SBC in 1982. Nothing about "the appointability of slaveholders as missionaries” {although that was a concern at the founding of the SBC. Source: SBC Wiki. I do not think that was motivation of the Founders Ministries in 1982 according to their statements } .

{added at 6:008 pm CDT}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founders_Ministries

Their claim is that the founding Baptists were Calvinistic in theology. But that is not true. The first Baptists (Smyth and Helwys) 1608-1609 were non-Calvinistic “general Baptists”. The “particular” Calvinistic Baptists 1633 started a “generation later”.

Source: Baptist Beginnings from the Baptist History and Heritage Society.

Now some people say Anabaptists were the first Baptists. And they certainly were not Calvinistic. In fact Calvin killed many Anapbaptists.
Source: Burned at the stake, racked and drowned: Why did everyone hate the Anabaptists?

Few take seriously the claim the John the Baptist was the first Baptist.

This may be well known to readers here but I thought I settle record straight.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby William Thornton » Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:03 pm

The founders refers to the founding of the SBC, not antecedents. Like i said, this outfit is not going much farther in our Grand Old Convention.

The problem with the rabid Cals is that once people get to know them and their theology, they don't like them very much.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12423
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Sandy » Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:53 pm

William Thornton wrote:The founders refers to the founding of the SBC, not antecedents. Like i said, this outfit is not going much farther in our Grand Old Convention.

The problem with the rabid Cals is that once people get to know them and their theology, they don't like them very much.


I don't believe there is a liberal drift in the SBC in accordance with what they are promoting. Things are changing in the Grand Old Convention, however, and it does look like it is adopting a more open minded approach to some issues that don't set well with hard line conservatives. Past habit is to holler "liberal" and point fingers so the reactions that come out have to be considered in light of that kind of atmosphere.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9507
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:32 am

I remember a quote from Tony Campolo to the old SBC Forum in the early 1970's: "You're so busy down here in Dixie building a pure denomination that you will one day be able to hold your meetings in the front seat of a car." There may yet be some truth to that.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7587
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:46 am

William Thornton wrote:The founders refers to the founding of the SBC, not antecedents. Like i said, this outfit is not going much farther in our Grand Old Convention.

The problem with the rabid Cals is that once people get to know them and their theology, they don't like them very much.


The only semi-calvinist theology I ever got from my SBC upbringing was "once saved, always saved." I never knew any serious 5 pointers. From outside of the SBC, it looks like doctrine imported into SBC life from the outside. It doesn't feel native to Southern Baptists.

I particularly get that feeling when the same Calvinists want to get churches to elect "boards of elders." It just looks like a move to turn the SBC into Baptist styled conservative Presbyterians.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:43 pm

Haruo wrote:In an SBC context, the word "Founders" suggests to me the need to ensure the appointability of slaveholders as missionaries. I'm sure this is not what they mean by it (though it may be hinted at), but I'm not sure what they do mean.
They mean they believe that the founders of the SBC were Calvinists in soteriology, and that the SBC needs to return to those roots.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:44 pm

Interestingly, the two strands that fed Southern Baptists, the Charlestonian and the Sandy Creek traditions, were on opposite sides of the Calvinism question. The most Calvinist among early Baptist theologians was probably James Pettigrew Boyce from Charleston and later the first president of SBTS. The tension has always been there in Baptist history. The Founders claim Boyce while the revivalists were all in the Sandy Creek tradition.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7587
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Haruo » Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:19 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Haruo wrote:In an SBC context, the word "Founders" suggests to me the need to ensure the appointability of slaveholders as missionaries. I'm sure this is not what they mean by it (though it may be hinted at), but I'm not sure what they do mean.
They mean they believe that the founders of the SBC were Calvinists in soteriology, and that the SBC needs to return to those roots.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the Founders group wanted to go back to hiring Native American slaveholders as missionaries (the test case back in the 1840s, after all, didn't involve a white slaveholder), but only that from my Northern Baptist POV that's what looks to me like, and what I was taught was, the motivation for the withdrawal of the southern state conventions from the Triennials, and the almost immediate formation of the SBC. In the north I don't think the Calvinism vs not issue had much currency until the formation of the Northern Baptist Convention (1908, I think), followed shortly by the admission of a bunch of Freewill Baptists (which suggests that the Calvinist-Light strain had been predominant in at least parts of the north). As a Universalist, I acknowledge the Calvinist heritage of the doctrine; universalism is after all mainly a Calvinist heresy.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12874
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Sandy » Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:18 pm

Rvaughn wrote:They mean they believe that the founders of the SBC were Calvinists in soteriology, and that the SBC needs to return to those roots.


They think the SBC needs to return to its roots as they have defined what they think those roots are. They are less interested in a position that reflects unity in the essentials and liberty in the non-essentials because they tend to define non-essentials in their own interpretation and by their own terms. There's also a bit of denominational politicking in their perspective, if you read through their website. They have their preferences for who should be in the inner circle of exclusive SBC leaders and who shouldn't be, and its not always based solely on their theological perspective.

My college and seminary training rested pretty heavily on scriptural authority and inerrancy, but it had a progressive element to it in that most of my professors interpreted some of the passages related to Biblical authority, and spiritual illumination, in a more progressive manner. While they look back to the various nuances of Christianity that developed in the Reformation, most of my professors would say that as time passes, we have the opportunity to seek the Lord and continue to develop our theology and practice built on the things the reformers revealed, but also based on what we sense the Holy Spirit is teaching and how he is leading. That's not a subjective perspective, but those who hold to more conservative theology think that the Reformation represents God's final say on doctrine and there can't be any further development because the reformation settled it. I believe the Reformation was just one step forward and that development of theology and practice, under the illumination and revelation of the holy spirit, helps us come to increasingly improved stances. The Founders Ministries would say that's not correct. But it is consistent to interpret Paul's words in the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians that way.
Last edited by Sandy on Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9507
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:28 am

Sandy wrote:
They think the SBC needs to return to its roots as they have defined what they think those roots are.


In truth I wonder, do they really believe those are the SBC's roots? Didn't they take the same Baptist history classes the rest of us took in seminary? David already mentioned the Charleston and the Sandy Creek strains of Baptist thinking. That isn't new information. I honestly wonder if acting as if the early SBC was Calvinist is a tactic. It is easier to sell someone on going back to your roots than admit you are importing a new way of being Baptist into the denomination.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Rvaughn » Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:49 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:Interestingly, the two strands that fed Southern Baptists, the Charlestonian and the Sandy Creek traditions, were on opposite sides of the Calvinism question...The Founders claim Boyce while the revivalists were all in the Sandy Creek tradition.
Tim Bonney wrote:In truth I wonder, do they really believe those are the SBC's roots? Didn't they take the same Baptist history classes the rest of us took in seminary? David already mentioned the Charleston and the Sandy Creek strains of Baptist thinking. That isn't new information.
To think of the Charleston and Sandy Creek traditions as on opposite sides of the Calvinism question misses the important fact of the diversity of soteriology in the Sandy Creek tradition. It was big enough, at least for a time, to harbor staunch 5-point Calvinists such as Silas Mercer and "falling-from-gracer" Jeremiah Walker.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:00 pm

Rvaughn wrote: To think of the Charleston and Sandy Creek traditions as on opposite sides of the Calvinism question misses the important fact of the diversity of soteriology in the Sandy Creek tradition. It was big enough, at least for a time, to harbor staunch 5-point Calvinists such as Silas Mercer and "falling-from-gracer" Jeremiah Walker.


I didn't mean to imply the were opposite sides. But, that there have nearly always been both Calvinist Baptist (Particular Baptist) and Arminian Baptist (General Baptist) in the US before and into the formation of the Triennial Convention and the later split of by what would become the SBC from the American Baptist Missionary Union which later morphed into the NBC and then the ABC. At this point there are very very few Calvinists in the ABC/USA.

Sandy is correct to point out that General Baptists came first. But first by only a generation. After that both threads have basically always been there. To pretend that the Calvinist strain is the "original" when both were present is just non-historical malarkey.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:14 am

Tim Bonney wrote:
Rvaughn wrote: To think of the Charleston and Sandy Creek traditions as on opposite sides of the Calvinism question misses the important fact of the diversity of soteriology in the Sandy Creek tradition. It was big enough, at least for a time, to harbor staunch 5-point Calvinists such as Silas Mercer and "falling-from-gracer" Jeremiah Walker.


I didn't mean to imply the were opposite sides. But, that there have nearly always been both Calvinist Baptist (Particular Baptist) and Arminian Baptist (General Baptist) in the US before and into the formation of the Triennial Convention and the later split of by what would become the SBC from the American Baptist Missionary Union which later morphed into the NBC and then the ABC. At this point there are very very few Calvinists in the ABC/USA.

Sandy is correct to point out that General Baptists came first. But first by only a generation. After that both threads have basically always been there. To pretend that the Calvinist strain is the "original" when both were present is just non-historical malarkey.


That is exactly my point. The blended streams of both theologies produced the SBC. To deny one or the other is to engage in "fake history."
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7587
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby KeithE » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:47 am

Dave Roberts wrote:
Tim Bonney wrote:
Rvaughn wrote: To think of the Charleston and Sandy Creek traditions as on opposite sides of the Calvinism question misses the important fact of the diversity of soteriology in the Sandy Creek tradition. It was big enough, at least for a time, to harbor staunch 5-point Calvinists such as Silas Mercer and "falling-from-gracer" Jeremiah Walker.


I didn't mean to imply the were opposite sides. But, that there have nearly always been both Calvinist Baptist (Particular Baptist) and Arminian Baptist (General Baptist) in the US before and into the formation of the Triennial Convention and the later split of by what would become the SBC from the American Baptist Missionary Union which later morphed into the NBC and then the ABC. At this point there are very very few Calvinists in the ABC/USA.

Sandy is correct to point out that General Baptists came first. But first by only a generation. After that both threads have basically always been there. To pretend that the Calvinist strain is the "original" when both were present is just non-historical malarkey.


That is exactly my point. The blended streams of both theologies produced the SBC. To deny one or the other is to engage in "fake history."


In saying General Baptist came first, I was referring to the early 1600s in England/Netherlands. But the Particulars came about 30 years later in England.

I do not know wrt the SBC's beginning in 1845. Maybe the Founders Ministry can make the case for Particulars primacy in that era, but I have not seen it (and I have looked).

But I feel that this topic about the Founders Ministries's announcement/film trailer is more about being anti-social justice saying there is no biblical merit for it. It is a truism that the words “social justice” or “intersectionality” or “equal rights” are not biblical words. But Jesus’s many acts of helping the poor, sick, socially ostracized, visitors, marginalized, and “sinners” and Paul’s egalitarian words in Gal 3:28 certainly are akin to modern day social justice/equal rights/security nets/universal health-care/criminal justice reform/immigration-welcoming movements.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Haruo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:45 pm

Well, I look at it this way: 1) We know that John was the first Baptist, all the way back when Jesus was getting started, and we know John was a Calvinist, because hey, 2) Calvin himself was a John. Whatever happened in the 1600s is a day late and a dollar short.

I did have an aunt, Margie, my father's elder sister, who traced her Baptist roots all the way back to John. But she was a bit of a flake, religionwise. She even went Eddyite for a while. My Dad thought she was a loon, and sometimes said so. She was also responsible for getting Grandma convinced in 1960 that a vote for JFK (whom my dad supported) was a vote for the Catholics to take all the guns they were hoarding, that they bought with the Bingo rake-ins, out of their basements and take over the country.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12874
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:09 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:I didn't mean to imply the were opposite sides. But, that there have nearly always been both Calvinist Baptist (Particular Baptist) and Arminian Baptist (General Baptist) in the US before and into the formation of the Triennial Convention...
Dave did use the terminology "on opposite sides of the Calvinism question," and your comment seemed to agree with him. Separate Baptists were not consistently on opposite sides with the Regulars, for they made room for those who preached "Christ tasted death for every man." Some preached this, probably inconsistently, within the Calvinist framework they inherited. Some, like Cyrus White, understood the need for a clear theology of a General Atonement, wrote about it, and caused great consternation among Georgia Baptists. Though in a minority when he wrote his booklet, probably most Georgia Baptists today agree with his position. Jeremiah Walker took free will so far as to embrace apostasy, and split off a small Separate Baptists following. Most Separate Baptists who went this far, when their churches didn't die out, ended up with the Free Will Baptists. The Charleston/Sandy Creek analogy is good as far as it goes in explaining the background of Southern Baptists, but the ins and outs of it all is much more complicated than usually presented.
Tim Bonney wrote:To pretend that the Calvinist strain is the "original" when both were present is just non-historical malarkey.
I think the Founders are only (or at least mainly) referring to the "founders" of the Southern Baptist Convention. Whether they are correct, is another matter, but I don't think there is any reason to not accept that is what they mean. Here is an example of their thinking:
The 293 delegates who gathered in 1845 to organize the Southern Baptist Convention all came from churches and associations which held to a robustly Calvinistic Confession.
While that is probably true, it doesn't deal with whether the theology of the people of these churches still enthusiastically embraced the Calvinism of their confession. I am aware of Baptist Associations who still have their original Calvinistic confessions (not necessarily Philadelphia) but reinterpret in a way close to the views of what would be called "traditionalists" among Southern Baptists.

Founders usually also point out that the first official confession that any Southern Baptists produced (1858) was the Abstract of Principles of the Southern Seminary -- and that that confession was Calvinistic.
Last edited by Rvaughn on Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Haruo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:21 pm

The Secretary of Fremont Baptist was recently searching for a covenant, confession, or Statement of Faith of Fremont Baptist, to help the Search Committee as we try to find our next shepherd or overseer. She failed, but she did find the one whereby grocery store employees have to perjure themselves to remain in good standing. One solemnly consents not to engage in or assist the sale of alcoholic beverages. I imagine a lot of Georgia Baptists were between that sort of rock and a hard place vis-à-vis eternal security.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12874
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:31 pm

Haruo wrote:One solemnly consents not to engage in or assist the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Very common in church covenants in Baptist churches in the South and Southwest (possibly elsewhere, but I'm just referring to what I have seen). The one we grew up with had it. Wasn't a problem for grocers then, cause this was a dry county. Don't know what they are doing now, since most everywhere sells beer and wine. Probably getting rid of the covenant, or many probably don't even know what it says anyway.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:57 pm

I started a thread on Church Covenants HERE. Thought someone might be interested.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Sandy » Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:44 pm

I don't think either of the Baptist history profs I had at Southwestern would have conceded the Founder's claim that all 293 delegates at the first SBC meeting in Augusta in 1945 were as staunch in their Calvinism as claimed. Granted, the Charleston tradition group would have dominated the meeting on the strength of their proximity by geography, with the meeting being made up mostly of Georgians and South Carolinians, but even many of those were "three and a half pointers" as the saying goes by that time. The Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary is one of the early confessions adopted by Southern Baptists and it is compatibly Calvinist. I don't remember if Estep or McBeth indicates in their work that there were other confessions prior to that, but when the SBC actually got around to adopting a Baptist Faith and Message in 1925 or so, it was not completely Calvinist in the doctrine it expressed. It did state Southern Baptist belief in the Bible as "truth without any mixture of error" and infallibility of the scripture.

Until recently, attempts to bring about some sort of doctrinal "conformity," by which I mean attempts at denominational interpretation of doctrine, had always been resisted in the SBC. During the 50's and 60's, though there were some bumps and bruises, Southern Baptists commonly accepted the principle of cooperative missions over doctrinal conformity. But no more. That is one place that they can look to find at least one root cause of the steep decline in membership and attendance. With the conservative resurgence came a weakening and in some cases a loss of denominational loyalty in a segment of the convention that they couldn't reach and now likely won't get back.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9507
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Dave Roberts » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:24 pm

Sandy wrote:I don't think either of the Baptist history profs I had at Southwestern would have conceded the Founder's claim that all 293 delegates at the first SBC meeting in Augusta in 1945 were as staunch in their Calvinism as claimed. Granted, the Charleston tradition group would have dominated the meeting on the strength of their proximity by geography, with the meeting being made up mostly of Georgians and South Carolinians, but even many of those were "three and a half pointers" as the saying goes by that time. The Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary is one of the early confessions adopted by Southern Baptists and it is compatibly Calvinist. I don't remember if Estep or McBeth indicates in their work that there were other confessions prior to that, but when the SBC actually got around to adopting a Baptist Faith and Message in 1925 or so, it was not completely Calvinist in the doctrine it expressed. It did state Southern Baptist belief in the Bible as "truth without any mixture of error" and infallibility of the scripture.

Until recently, attempts to bring about some sort of doctrinal "conformity," by which I mean attempts at denominational interpretation of doctrine, had always been resisted in the SBC. During the 50's and 60's, though there were some bumps and bruises, Southern Baptists commonly accepted the principle of cooperative missions over doctrinal conformity. But no more. That is one place that they can look to find at least one root cause of the steep decline in membership and attendance. With the conservative resurgence came a weakening and in some cases a loss of denominational loyalty in a segment of the convention that they couldn't reach and now likely won't get back.


You really don't grasp the BFM statements prior to BFM2K are probably better understood as responses to what was happening in the culture than as an effort to formulate doctrine per se. In 1925, Northern Baptists (later ABC) were mired in the modernist controversy. The SBC tried to differentiate itself by saying, "We are more conservative than Baptists in the North and more true than those Yankees." In 1963, the revisions were an effort to maintain that perspective following the publication of Ralph Elliott's "The Message of Genesis." Elliott, who would now pass for a conservative in most biblical studies areas, shook the SBC by putting in print what had been common teaching for a generation in most OT departments. Only in the 2K version, was there an effort to fully formulate a consistent creedal statement. Moving from a missions-based cooperation toward a more rigid doctrinalism has produced the loss of denominational loyalty.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7587
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:04 pm

Sandy wrote:I don't think either of the Baptist history profs I had at Southwestern would have conceded the Founder's claim that all 293 delegates at the first SBC meeting in Augusta in 1945 were as staunch in their Calvinism as claimed.
Not your history profs, but according to Longshore this is conceded by Timothy George in Baptist Confessions, Covenants, and Catechisms (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996).
“Each of the 293 ‘delegates’… who gathered in Augusta to organize the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, belonged to congregations and associations which had adopted the Philadelphia/Charleston Confession of Faith as their own.”

I do not have this book or access to it, so cannot check it. It would seem that that part [the confession] could be verified by someone who had the time to check out the delegates. What would be much harder is to prove whether their actual theology matched the theology of their adopted confession. I would also think that by 1845 some of the Georgians had modified their Calvinism since several of them had gone partially after Cyrus White and his general atonement theology.
Sandy wrote:...when the SBC actually got around to adopting a Baptist Faith and Message in 1925 or so, it was not completely Calvinist in the doctrine it expressed.
The Baptist Faith and Message is an interesting modification of the already modified New Hampshire Confession.
VII. Of Grace in Regeneration
We believe that in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance and faith and newness of life. (New Hampshire)
Maybe its just me, but it seems that the BF&M still keeps some of the Calvinistic idea that regeneration, or the new birth, precedes repentance and faith.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

Postby Sandy » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:32 pm

https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/ba ... l-justice/

New post here as this issue seems to keep the SBC blogging world engaged in launching verbal projectiles at each other.

Baptist Standard wrote:“I see godless ideologies that have spread across Western civilization over the last decades with a vengeance, to tell us what we are supposed to be seeing,” Ascol said in the video. “Many of these ideologies have been smuggled into many evangelical churches and organizations through the Trojan horse of social justice.”


Ascol intersperses his own comments in between statements from those whom he clams are "smuggling in godless ideologies" to make it appear that those individuals--Russell Moore, Beth Moore, Rachel Denhollander, J.D. Greear, Dwight McKissic, are among the smugglers. He uses very selected clips of statements they have made, without the context included which he sets himself with his own comments. He then got some other SBC leaders, Al Mohler, Danny Akin, to respond to questions that were worded in such a way as to get a response which could be deceptively used to support Ascol's contention. After a trailer advertising the whole project appeared and his intentions became clear, many of those who agreed to appear have dropped out after seeing his intentions didn't match their response in context.

I don't know how much influence Ascol and his group, along with other segmented groups like his, have in the SBC but it appears that another war for control is shaping up. This kind of infighting is certainly a good explanation of why Baptisms are down, or why churches have to leave the name Baptist off the sign to successfully plant churches.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9507
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Molly Worthen

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:56 pm

Could help Thornton understand all this, get more insight.

But as my Daddy used to Preach, you can take a horse (mule) to water, but you can't make him drink!

And Tom Ascol, Jerry Vines for that matter could learn a lot from the collected essays of Marilynne Robinson, The Givenness of Things, close as your nearest Barnes and Noble.

I wonder if Tom Ascol or anybody engaging him in this conversation has had his mind addled in the least by Worthen or Robinson
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Thornton y

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:00 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:
William Thornton wrote:The founders refers to the founding of the SBC, not antecedents. Like i said, this outfit is not going much farther in our Grand Old Convention.

The problem with the rabid Cals is that once people get to know them and their theology, they don't like them very much.


The only semi-calvinist theology I ever got from my SBC upbringing was "once saved, always saved." I never knew any serious 5 pointers. From outside of the SBC, it looks like doctrine imported into SBC life from the outside. It doesn't feel native to Southern Baptists.

I particularly get that feeling when the same Calvinists want to get churches to elect "boards of elders." It just looks like a move to turn the SBC into Baptist styled conservative Presbyterians.


I like Thornton okay but the more I got to know Pressler, and Jesse Helms and Albert Lee Smith and his wife Eunie and her Eagle Forum outfit, the driving force in the Takeover, the less I liked them!!!
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Previous

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests