Two candidates for SBC President, 2018

[Jim]

[Haruo]

[Rvaughn]

One thing some SBC folks seem to find troubling is not about Ken Hemphill personally. Rather it is the fact that some “Southern Baptists who are concerned about the direction of the Convention…asked that he allow his name to be placed before the Convention for consideration.” Some of the names in the press release are likely viewed as “Anti-Cals” (some perhaps “rabid”). So, the fact that some of these “Anti-Cals” say they sought him out troubles some folks.

[William Thornton]

[Haruo]

Yeah, it worked last time, why not again?

[Haruo]

Is there a good set of Arminian/Free-Will principles that acrostically spell out PANSY? That could be useful in this fight. For which side I'm not sure.

[Haruo]

It can be fun reading up on the Bitcoins of the 1630s, namely . Not sure exactly what the Lord's point was in preordaining that particular acronym.

[Jon Estes]

[John Sneed]

I will tell you all something funny. I forget if it was 1998 or 99, but I was at the Midwest Founders Conference being held at FBC St. Peters, Missouri. A friend and I were having lunch and talking about this very topic. He thought sooner or later, there was going to be a fight. I told him, "It'll never happen. Calvinists and Arminians (the term we were using at the time) had been in the SBC together from the start." I said, "They may rub each the wrong was from time to time, but they won't fight." I felt there was too much historical precedent for Calvinists and non-Calvinists treating each other like beloved brothers and sisters that they would never hold such animosity against each other. All this proves definitively that I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. Now, I meet people who actually think a Calvinist and a Satan worshipper is the same thing. I have seen writers advocate that every Calvinist in the SBC be denied fellowship for being non-Christians. To say I am surprised by all this would be an understatement. I never saw this coming.

John Sneed

[Dave Roberts]

[Jon Estes]

[Jim]

[Dave Roberts]

[William Thornton]

I'd assess Dave's comment above as very solid.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

I won't comment other than to say it is just interesting reading to see what directions the SBC has gone post takeover.

[Jim]

It's interesting to see the back-and-forth here of those who discuss doctrine, theology, whatever, not least because the opinions are often if not most of the time diametrically opposed, though all have studied the same bible/scriptures and/or graduated with various degrees from seminaries. I was raised Southern Baptist but moved to CBF mainly on the woman-ordination thing. I fear the CBF is heading down the same road as the main-liners while the SBC stands steadily on biblical principles, though the Calvinism (or most of it) is anathema to me. The layman has only the translations of the Bible to study and decide what he believes. I finally did that taking into account the writers, time-frames, canonizing, etc., and using a good concordance(s) and even a Greek NT translated into English. I set about writing my own “unlearned” theology, unencumbered by seminary influences. It turned into a book predicated mostly on the illogical morass of the Abstract of Principles, also (to me) a theological nightmare. I am certain no one in this forum would be interested in the book, found here: , but might perhaps find something thought-provoking in my discussion of the Abstract, which is attached.

[Haruo]

[Jim]

I could have gotten a Japanese translation but it wouldn't have been much help.

[Sandy]