New SBC Controversy: Inerrancy and Doctrinal Conformity

[Sandy]

https://sbcvoices.com/finally-a-formal- ... s-debacle/

https://founders.org/2019/07/29/about-that-trailer/

http://www.bpnews.net/53375/akin-mohler ... eral-drift

And here we go again. As if the SBC doesn't have enough to deal with, it seems those within its ranks must stir up more trouble. Apparently there are those who believe the SBC is experiencing a drift toward the theological left and is in need of another "conservative resurgence" to drag it back to its conservative roots. The accusation comes from a Florida pastor, Tom Ascol, who leads a Calvinist group called "Founders Ministries." They've been around for a while and have been caustic critics of anything in the convention that doesn't fly a Calvinist flag or which might look to them like liberalism, such as someone like Beth Moore taking to a church's pulpit on "the Lord's Day" to preach, or Russ Moore's open opposition to the Trump presidency. For some reason, they think recent events in the SBC (firing Paige Patterson in particular) are signs of a liberal drift. They don't seem to have much appreciation for a denomination with agencies and churches that are independent and autonomous and don't have a source of singular doctrinal interpretation or a means of forcing it on everyone like the Presbyterians do.

Apparently they are coming out with a movie intended to set everyone straight doctrinally. I hadn't really thought that the scattered Calvinist infiuence in the SBC would amount to much, and that may still be the way it is, but these guys are apparently stirring up enough trouble to draw the ire of notable personages like Al Mohler and Danny Akin along with William Thornton, the author of a couple of SBC Voices posts hostile to Ascol and Founders Ministries.

It does not appear that Ascol and Co. have enough influence to create problems for the current leadership in the SBC but I've long since realized that there are a lot of Southern Baptists who are genuinely fundamentalist in that they believe there is only one correct view of scripture approved by God and its their's. Ascol and his group fall into that category. And it appears that they have enough support to start their own "resurgence" to nominate presidential candidates and make an attempt to grab the mantle of leadership in the SBC. They probably have enough support to make a big mess.

God's judgment on the SBC for supporting Trump? (just kidding)

[Haruo]

Doesn't the Bible make it pretty obvious that a movie will do no good, since only unrepentant sinners will watch such a thing? (Kidding right back atcha.)

[Tim Bonney]

This is the problem with doctrinal purity movements. At some point someone will come along and demand that the current movement isn’t yet pure/holy enough and if you’d get just more radical then the last movement you’d get it right. (Begging the question, what far right fundamentalism would come along next if the Founders took over the takeover??)

For grins I hunted up the Founders site. Now, the BFM isn’t good enough, you apparently need to go back to a confession of faith from the 1600s and use it as a catechism. More power to William in pointing out the problems with this movement.

Far be it from me to agree with the authors of the SBC takeover. But, they are right about this creeping Calvinism (or maybe even creepy Calvinism) being bad for the SBC. The SBCs amalgamation of particular and general Baptist strains works for Southern Baptists. It allows for OSAS without killing evangelism. It isn’t my theology as a convinced Wesleyan Arminian. But it is a theological stance that worked for most Southern Baptists for generations. Going full bore 5-point Calvinism would be a sad disaster for the SBC.

Frankly this need for perfect doctrine by the Founders crowd smack of works salvation to me. You aren’t saved by grace, but instead by perfect doctrine.

[Haruo]

But of course if you have the perfect doctrine, that's proof positive of saving grace, because how else could a sinner like you have come up with the perfect doctrine, eh?

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

Interesting. Within my own extended family I know of the disagreements between Calvinists and Wesleyans. Same tensions have existed between particular and general Baptists.

But what interests me most is the irritation politically conservative Christians have towards anything (intersectionality, feminism, racial reconciliation) that sounds like the social gospel when in fact Christ was about social improvements and reconciliations (Jesus called it the "Kingdom of God”).


Whatever he Kingdom of God means, it includes an earthly component. Read Matt 6:10.

[Haruo]

I think this is closely related to tensions between pre-, post-, and a-millenialists. The anti-Rauschenbuschianites (politically conservative Christians, in Keith's lingo) are convinced that "Thy Kingdom come ... on earth as it is in heaven" refers to something that God will impose either by divine fiat at or after the Parousia, or through the election of little messiahs like Trump, Johnson (yes, the UK is also on earth), Putin (yes, even Russia is part of our earth), Kim ... who will implement it piecemeal by local fiat.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

This strain of Cals, I call them "rabid cals " is lethal. I don't think they have much sway in the SBC these days.

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

Once you begin a crusade to purify, that crusade takes a life of its own, usually until it is discredited either theologically or morally. Some of the SBC strain is popping out in both. I find this a sad product of what was assumed to have the answers for the future. I hope there can be a greater pivot back to the center for the SBC, but I'm not interested in jumping back into the fractured bandwagon.

[KeithE]

IMO, until the strongly held belief in inerrancy is relinquished, the sporadic fragmentation (of not just the SBC but of Christendom) will continue. Each side will find their passages to concentrate on and get all self-righteous, creedal and yes Pharisaic about.

The Founders no doubt rely on Romans 9, and selected other passages while more “general" Baptists rely on John 3:16 and the general tenor of Christ’s and Paul’s teaching of salvific choice.

The Spirit is strong and clear enough to guide us through disparate strands resident in the bible itself (if you are honest reading w/o the constraint of inerrancy). And we should be tolerant enough (avoid judgmental attitudes and especially words) to live with various residual expressions of the Spirit when it comes to actions/doctrinal stances (if you disagree after prayer in some given action/belief of someone else, just let them do it or believe it and do not divide Christendom anymore).

The Founders are also bothered by the various equal rights for (x, y, z) movements in our culture which they regard as extra biblical. At least that is what they brought up in their public statements. But the ministry of Jesus to the marginalized as well Paul’s 1 Cor 13 and Gal 3:28 point to the love and equal rights of all peoples (x,y,z).

Until the Spirit of God and love of all people (including immigrants, various races, various religions, liberals, conservatives, LBGTQs ...) rules, the divisions will continue. Trump and Ascol are not helping.

Please accept my “IMO" at the beginning of this as a note of willingness to accept the beliefs/actions of more conservative brothers and sisters. But I’d like to air my beliefs as well - I believe them to be inline with Jesus’s repeated "Woe to you Pharisee”. I believe Jesus was lovingly trying to change their attitudes. I am doing the same w/o much prospect of success.

[William Thornton]

Inerrancy doesn't demand inerrant interpretations. We generally agree in the SBC on doctrine, the BFM is a confessional statement. Employees, trustees, leaders should be in agreement with that. Neither chirches nor pastors are required to affirm it by the SBC.

I'm satisfied that the CBF believes itself to be spirit led. They have been led, as they see it, to places I wouldn't go. We can all agree on what is necessary to join together in cooperative enterprises and to share a common identity; thus, I am pleased to interact and share with my friends here even though it is unlikely I would want them as the pastor of the church I attend, or teach in seminary. There are SBCers thT I wouldn't put in leadership or employment.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

It is a rehash of what separated the Episcopalians and the Congregationalists from the Baptists and the Quakers. It is "extremist" only from our own perspective. From their perspective (the Christian Nationalists', not todays Episcopalians' and Quakers', thank God) it is normative, a return to, I hate to say it, what M.A.G.Anteriorly.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

The term "profane" (as distinct from "obscene" and "off-color") is a religious one, and at least if etymology has any force, one's notion of what is sacred colors how one uses it, what one applies it to. This is a quadruplex of headlines that forces me to look at Fox. I understand the motive behind their use of the term in a headline like this, but I need to see which particular comments they were so labeling. And then I need to look into the apparent contradiction between the next two headlines. None of these, unlike the fourth, is labeled "opinion", fwiw.

I was almost glad to see evidence that the Dayton shooter, unlike the clearly MTAAGA (Make Texas and America Great Again) driven El Paso guy, was anti-Trump, . But I have a feeling this will be downplayed in the WAPO, NYT, CNN treatment of the story, just as the Fox rendition may play it up. We'll see.

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

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.

[Haruo]

[Haruo]

Most of what was billed as profanity was actually just offal, some of it bovine, but it's true Beto O'Rourke used "Jesus Christ" as an intensifier.