SBC Calvinism New Statement

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

Fosdick described this kind of theology as "academic excursion without moral pursuasion."

It is an intellectual exercise in "perfectionism," in my view. The same as the "inerrant Bible" which has no connection with its historical context / no admission to any inconsistencies / no room for the Holy Spirit / no concept of "progressive revelation."

To posit perfection "in the original autographs" is a ploy since we have none of them and likely never will!

[KeithE]

[Gene Scarborough]

Anybody read Weatherhead's "Will of God"?

It has a great rational explaination of how God's Will works itself out in conjunction with man's choices.

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

I totally agree with your approach with VBS! Too many are pretenders about church membership.

On the other hand, I have had people come to me wanting to join because they were griped off at something in their old church. My approach was to encourage them to go back and help solve the problem. Our church would be no more perfect than the old one. If they went back and tried and felt the same 6 months from now, then give us a try.

I totally disagree with your assessment on Christian Social Ministries. In Atlanta, my father was the first Director of Juvenile Rehabilitation for the HMB. In that capacity he was funded to go where churches and pastors could not because Juvenile crime was highly controlled from exposing the children and families coming before them. In his capacity, as Chaplain to the Fulton County Juvenile Court, he was welcomed as a person who would talk with children about spiritual needs and try to get a local church to provide a mentoring family to the child and his family. I did the same work for the Raleigh Baptist Association and Wake County Juvenile Court.

Mission Centers were the focus of CSM and it was not a place where family members would want to minister. They were both ministries where local churches were in the wrong place and poor folks would not enter their nice doors.

After my sojourn in Juvenile Rehabilitation, the next person had a wider focus of CSM and my growing ministry to the Court failed for lack of attention. I had started a "Ministers Day in Court" program where ministers from various churches all over Raleigh signed up to be present on a given day each month. The Judge introduced them to the families present each day and invited them to talk with the minister in an anti-room. It was letting preachers know there was a real problem in Wake County that was not in newspapers for confidentiality reasons. Our big need when I left was for more involvement from black churches since about 80% of the children were black.

Your typical church is focused on local church growth over ministry. Those churches in distressed communities might have been doing something, but even they tended to serve and honor the minister rather than reach out to their distressed neighbors.

When churches become "glorified social clubs" enjoying their nice facilities and songs, it pales in comparison to Jesus walking among the poor and outcast.

That was the focus of Christian Social Ministries in its great days of yore.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, I understand the "not being fed" concern. But I feel like most US Christians are over fed and under active. And I'm not talking food. We should be joining churches for how we can serve in the church not for what "feeds me." It bothers me when people join the church just because of a stellar pulpiteer.

[ET]

[Dave Roberts]

[Gene Scarborough]

Anyone ever serve a "softball church." I had one which was convinced their softball field was the gateway to heaven.

They were so intent on winning that they brought in ringers to be sure. Most attended church long enough to qualify to play and they would spike you and cuss the umpire!!!

It was a royal mess and ultimately fired me after 2 staff members went down in moral flames with church members.

Without saying more----was anyone in that community really fooled or impressed with the level of ministry????

[Stephen Fox]

I heard a PCA Calvinist give a grand exegesis of IISamuel 9 Sunday on the Radio about King David and his first son by Bathsheeba.

As for Baptists and Calvinism I doubt this conversation will ever jump the shark, from Russ Moore to Gene Scarborough, till somebody has the integrity to engage Marilynne Robinson in the conversation.

A good place to start is serious rumination on the recent review of her essays When I was a Child I Read; a simple google for the Christian Century.

[Tim Bonney]

Well certainly we know that Calvinists are and can be evangelistic (why I still can't figure) but I see other subtle and damaging results of Calvinism in churches.

I've had church members come to me who have been sucked into the idea that everyone has a "time" that they will die. This comes from a naive view of predestination. So I hear people say "well it must have been her time." This then leads some people to come to me and say "why did God take my mom?" If God has given everyone a "time" they will die then it is only logical to conclude that God kills people including that lady's mom. Now there is a Calvinist mess! And I've had to deal with it in counseling more than once.

[Gene Scarborough]

Years ago I bought a number of Weatherhead's little book, "The Will of God" to help in such situations.

I have had exactly the same kinds of troubled people falsely blaming God for taking a loved one. It is part of the grief stage cited by Kubler-Ross as "Hostility." Blaming God only creates faith issues for life and Weatherhead faces it squarely as the "permissive will of God."

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

I noted how earlier they claim God is the puppeteer and then try to give Him squiggle room = total inconsistency.

It is the same as the "Inerrant Bible" claiming the "original manuscripts" to be such. Every claimant is a stupid fool who knows the truth, but won't admit to it: The Bible was put together by a Committee (Church Council) and there are inconsistencies--if anyone cares to read it honestly.

What is the problem with simply saying, "We will never figure it all out and sometimes you have to take one step at at time in faith." I believe God still loves us and works out all things for good for them who love Him and trust Him.

Hurting people simply want a loving God and Minister---without us trying to explain it all.

[Tim Bonney]

Inerrancy of unobtainable original manuscripts is yet another subject that I've never been able to grasp. Given that we work with translations and manuscripts of earlier origin but not the original, I never understood the need to place faith in something we don't have and never will.

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

I have no problem saying, "The Bible is Inspired."

It is a mix of faith and history. Many of the Jewish laws and practices we do not follow so how can they be equal to Jesus' simple prescription: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."

If you try to make the Bible into a book of science, it will fail miserably. If you let the Bible be a source of answering "why it happened in Creation," you have an approach which does not conflict with science.

So much of what CR wants us to bow to is simply their right to tell us what to do no matter what the Bible says. They pick and choose and command. That I don't buy!!!

Are you trying to tell me the Canon was not put together by a Church Council with a majority vote to include or exclude manuscripts?

[Dave Roberts]

I see today that Jerry Vines has now weighed in on this. It seems to be attracting quite a lot of interest among the SBC leadership.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

The Canon inclusion required certain hurdles:

Written by an Apostle (few were actually written by their hand--rather a follower's hand)
In agreement with the Apostle's Creed--man made cognitive statement by majority vote.
Approved by all the churches---another hand raise vote by the church devotees

All of these indicate a strong hand of man and church in the process which gives us our current Canon. I find most interesting material in the non-Canonical writings and the Gnostic Gospels.

Remember: When Paul said "all scripture," he was not referring to our Bible---rather all "writings" in circulation in his day and long before the Canon came into existence!

[Big Daddy Weaver]

The "consensus accord" is a waste of time. Maybe it serves to calm the storm for a brief moment. But long-term, it's not really a solution.

The major argument put forth by these "Traditional Southern Baptists" is that - playing off of Bill Leonard's Grand Compromise thesis - there's been an unspoken agreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. The agreement is essentially that Calvinists know their place and don't step out of line.

Well, Calvinism is on the rise, Calvinist leaders are increasingly influential and hold prestigious positions in the denomination. And now, these traditionalists are ticked off and complaining.

I sympathize with the Calvinists because these "Traditionalists" are really coming across as arrogant youknowwhats

All that said, isn't this just fundamentalism at its finest? Doctrinal purity is the cornerstone of fundamentalism. A public fight is how that purity is secured and defended. For the most part, these "Traditionalists" represent the Old Guard. They are the ones who instigated the "Conservative Resurgence." Now, their 40-55 year-old sons with their many myths and romanticized view of the 1980s are stepping up to do battle and defend the power and control that their elders secured.

Just further proof that - for these leaders - the past was about power and control and the present must be about maintaining power and control (although they are a little late to the scene here).

To a certain extent, this debate is a distraction. Fighting over Calvinism is just an excuse to fight, IMO. That's fundamentalism.

[Dave Roberts]