Thread: Remain in SBC?

I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?

Originally Posted by AThornquist

I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?

What precisely do you mean by "not firm on the true gospel?" Does the SBC promote a squishy gospel?

Does it promote a squishy gospel? Emphatically, yes! Without even discussing rampant easy-believism, it is broadly Semi-Pelagian; the doctrines of grace are not well looked upon as a whole.

And please note I am painting in broad strokes. Of course there are many godly people who are firm on the gospel in the SBC, including several on the PB. However, it is for the very reason that I can accurately paint in these broad strokes that gives the basis for my initial questions.

Some background. I am a former SBC pastor who left the SBC because of this issue. To answer your question, it would depend on who you talk to. I have talked to Founders SBC pastors and asked them that very question. They usually give three responses:

1) They think that either they or the founders movement will eventually change the SBC back to what it used to be.

2) Some believe that the mainline SBC preaches the true gospel, (I would disagree), and therefore there is no reason to leave. They think the things they are messed up on are merely practice.

3) Others won't let go. They say that the SBC was founded on Calvinistic principles and they refuse to leave even though the Convention has tossed aside right doctrine. The "we were here first and no one can tell me to leave" mindset.

I couldn't with a good conscience remain as a pastor in the SBC. Others have made other decisions. Those are my thoughts. No offense to the Founders men on this board.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?

Perhaps an awakening can come to the SBC that will bring it back to it's calvinistic roots. The more respected Calvinists that appear in the denomination, like Dr. Mohler, add to the witness to the truth and God willing may bring the entire denomination under the unbrella of soteriological orthodoxy.

There is room in the SBC for the reformed churches. Those who remain there, do so, (IMHO) in the hope of returning the domination to it's roots in the doctrines of grace.

The SBC Arminian? Historically it was not that way. Calvinists can claim many solid SBC theologians.

It might do greater good to stay within and fight for continuing reform rather than bale out and jump ship and default into the sad separatistic mode so common among Calvinistic Baptists.

The Conservative Resurgence has been successful and I anticipate greater reforms.

P.s., The IMB is going great work among many Muslim people-groups, especially in Central Asia, and we could learn much from their diligence on missions in that region.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Does it promote a squishy gospel? Emphatically, yes! Without even discussing rampant easy-believism, it is broadly Semi-Pelagian; the doctrines of grace are not well looked upon as a whole.

And please note I am painting in broad strokes. Of course there are many godly people who are firm on the gospel in the SBC, including several on the PB. However, it is for the very reason that I can accurately paint in these broad strokes that gives the basis for my initial questions.

Not familiar with what the SBC teaches. I thought with folks like Mohler in the fold, they would have been Calvinistic as a rule (allowing for the usual %-age of rogue congregations).

Is there a biblical example of "reforming" bad doctrine from within, or would the example be to split off from that which is unbiblical?

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

Originally Posted by AThornquist

I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?

What precisely do you mean by "not firm on the true gospel?" Does the SBC promote a squishy gospel?

Not a squishy one but a false one. They will deny it but it is salvation by works and not grace. They believe man must contribute to his salvation by saying a prayer or doing this or that. It really all comes down to one issue. We believe regeneration comes before faith because we could not believe unless God has given us a new heart to believe, they do not. We believe it is God that acts first, they believe it is man. Their idea is that God wants you to be saved but He can't do His part unless you do your part. False gospel.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Is there a biblical example of "reforming" bad doctrine from within, or would the example be to split off from that which is unbiblical?

The messages to the Churches in Revelation 2&3 are about reform.

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

Not familiar with what the SBC teaches. I thought with folks like Mohler in the fold, they would have been Calvinistic as a rule (allowing for the usual %-age of rogue congregations).

There are many "big name" Calvinists in the SBC whom many of us love. However, there are many more non-Calvinists. If you want a few big names, they would include the men who put forth the John 3:16 Conference (i.e. anti-Calvinism conference) and Rick Warren.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Is there a biblical example of "reforming" bad doctrine from within, or would the example be to split off from that which is unbiblical?

To me it depends on what the doctrine is. If they have the gospel all screwed up, then we are to avoid them. If it is practice but they believe the true gospel, I could see trying to "reform" them.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

Not familiar with what the SBC teaches. I thought with folks like Mohler in the fold, they would have been Calvinistic as a rule (allowing for the usual %-age of rogue congregations).

There are many "big name" Calvinists in the SBC whom many of us love. However, there are many more non-Calvinists. If you want a few big names, they would include the men who put forth the John 3:16 Conference (i.e. anti-Calvinism conference) and Rick Warren.

I personally think the SBC is going to split over Calvinism, unless God decides otherwise.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

If you want a few big names, they would include the men who put forth the John 3:16 Conference (i.e. anti-Calvinism conference)

Unfortunately, one of my former seminary professors was one of the main speakers at that conference. Made me sick.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Not a squishy one but a false one. They will deny it but it is salvation by works and not grace. They believe man must contribute to his salvation by saying a prayer or doing this or that. It really all comes down to one issue. We believe regeneration comes before faith because we could not believe unless God has given us a new heart to believe, they do not. We believe it is God that acts first, they believe it is man. Their idea is that God wants you to be saved but He can't do His part unless you do your part. False gospel.

I was under the impression that those who hold to a synergistic form of salvation, while not Reformed in any sense of the word, are still within the sphere of orthodoxy? Monergism vs. Synergism is an 'in-house' Christian debate, not an orthodoxy vs. heresy battle.

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Not a squishy one but a false one. They will deny it but it is salvation by works and not grace. They believe man must contribute to his salvation by saying a prayer or doing this or that. It really all comes down to one issue. We believe regeneration comes before faith because we could not believe unless God has given us a new heart to believe, they do not. We believe it is God that acts first, they believe it is man. Their idea is that God wants you to be saved but He can't do His part unless you do your part. False gospel.

I was under the impression that those who hold to a synergistic form of salvation, while not Reformed in any sense of the word, are still within the sphere of orthodoxy? Monergism vs. Synergism is an 'in-house' Christian debate, not an orthodoxy vs. heresy battle.

Didn't the Synod of Dordt say otherwise? Anyone have documentation on that?

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

I was under the impression that those who hold to a synergistic form of salvation, while not Reformed in any sense of the word, are still within the sphere of orthodoxy? Monergism vs. Synergism is an 'in-house' Christian debate, not an orthodoxy vs. heresy battle.

To me the belief that man contributes to salvation and that God can't do it without man's help is heresy and against the teachings of the Scripture (Ephesians 2). It is a false gospel according to Galatians 1.

Originally Posted by DD2009

Didn't the Synod of Dordt say otherwise? Anyone have documentation on that?

I believe they did, but that's neither here nor there. If a church is preaching a false gospel, how could people be saved? Yet, as much as people like Rick Warren disturb me with their weak preaching, if he is being lumped into the group of people preaching a false gospel, then there should be no true Christians in his church.

If you want to say it's a weak gospel or an incomplete gospel, I would be in agreement. I believe God can save through a weak or incomplete gospel (how many of us were saved in Arminian or Arminian-leaning churches?), but a false gospel is a different story.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 02:25:19 EST-----

Originally Posted by John Lanier

To me the belief that man contributes to salvation and that God can't do it without man's help is heresy and against the teachings of the Scripture (Ephesians 2). It is a false gospel according to Galatians 1.

So what you're saying, in effect, is that anybody who hears such a false gospel (in your words) is not saved. Because I don't believe a false gospel can save, do you? However, how do you respond to all the people who have heard an Arminian gospel and were saved (like me)? As I said previously, call it weak or call it incomplete, but I don't think it's false.

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

Originally Posted by DD2009

Didn't the Synod of Dordt say otherwise? Anyone have documentation on that?

I believe they did, but that's neither here nor there. If a church is preaching a false gospel, how could people be saved? Yet, as much as people like Rick Warren disturb me with their weak preaching, if he is being lumped into the group of people preaching a false gospel, then there should be no true Christians in his church.

If you want to say it's a weak gospel or an incomplete gospel, I would be in agreement. I believe God can save through a weak or incomplete gospel (how many of us were saved in Arminian or Arminian-leaning churches?), but a false gospel is a different story.

Acts 19:1-12 KJV
[1] And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
[2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
[3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
[4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
[5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
[7] And all the men were about twelve.

I agree that with an incomplete gospel man can still be saved. As illustrated. I don't really know where the line with arminians is drawn in regards to a false or simply an incomplete gospel or an ignorance of the power of God.

I do believe tht the Synod of Dordt covered this, however I don't have the time to search through it. Anyone know how this is clarified?

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29318

A summary of the John 3:16 Conference

Personally, I would be more than happy to be SBC were there a Founders church nearby. Frankly, I am attracted to the Southern Baptist history and identity.

Unfortunately, the SBC church plant a stone's throw from my house (the only actual SBC church I have encountered in all of Canada; the other 'Southern Baptist' churches in the country form an increasingly separate denominational organization, which has recently -- severing one of the last ties -- changed its name from 'Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists' to 'Canadian National Baptist Convention') is militantly anti-Calvinist and cultish besides.

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

So what you're saying, in effect, is that anybody who hears such a false gospel (in your words) is not saved. Because I don't believe a false gospel can save, do you? However, how do you respond to all the people who have heard an Arminian gospel and were saved (like me)? As I said previously, call it weak or call it incomplete, but I don't think it's false.

What I said was that if one believes that he can contribute to his salvation then he is trusting in his works. Can a man who hears preaching in an Arminian church be saved. I believe they can but only if they are not trusting in their works. For example, the churches I came out of taught that you had to walk the aisle and repeat a prayer. Can someone who does that be saved? If they are trusting in that prayer for their salvation, no. If they prayed the prayer out of ignorance but truly believe that it is only due to a work of God that they are saved, yes.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[quote=John Lanier;712225]

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

What I said was that if one believes that he can contribute to his salvation then he is trusting in his works. Can a man who hears preaching in an Arminian church be saved. I believe they can but only if they are not trusting in their works. For example, the churches I came out of taught that you had to walk the aisle and repeat a prayer. Can someone who does that be saved? If they are trusting in that prayer for their salvation, no. If they prayed the prayer out of ignorance but truly believe that it is only due to a work of God that they are saved, yes.

Now I'm confused. At first, you said the SBC preaches a false gospel. Now you're saying that if anyone believes a false gospel they won't be saved.

I don't think the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Synergistic view necessitates a false gospel. I think it is an insufficient gospel in so far as I believe that people can (and are) saved in Arminian-leaning churches. If you were to ask them on what basis they are saved, most would probably answer something along the lines of "I am trusting in Jesus as the payment of my sins." This indicates to me that they've heard enough of the gospel to know that the basis of their salvation is Christ alone. On the other hand, if someone says that the basis of their salvation is walking an aisle or praying a prayer, of course that won't save them and depicts the danger of this mode of 'revivalist' preaching (i.e., preaching for the 'effect'). A weak or incomplete gospel will probably sow more tares in the church than wheat, but still doesn't make it heresy.

Yeah, it does.

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

Something I recently did which sheds light on how Arminianism was viewed by the Reformers is to read the Canons of Dordt when they address the errors of the Remonstrance of 1610.

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

I don't think the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Synergistic view necessitates a false gospel.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Anything other than this is a false gospel.

Monergism: "In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to Christ or holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration." In this view, the new birth (or regeneration) precedes faith"

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)." From Monergism.com

If man cooperates and has a part in salvation then it is not a gift of God but is earned by man and is a work. It is as the Scriptures say "not of yourselves."

From the John 3:16 Conference:

David Allen, dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's School of Theology,

"Calvinism is not the Gospel," he said. "Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward five-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the Gospel."

Originally Posted by Soonerborn

From the John 3:16 Conference:

David Allen, dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's School of Theology,

"Calvinism is not the Gospel," he said. "Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward five-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the Gospel."

That is pretty interesting considering the men that founded the convention were 5 pointers. I guess if they were here today they would get kicked out of their own convention.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

I don't think the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Synergistic view necessitates a false gospel.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Anything other than this is a false gospel.

Monergism: "In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to Christ or holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration." In this view, the new birth (or regeneration) precedes faith"

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)." From Monergism.com

If man cooperates and has a part in salvation then it is not a gift of God but is earned by man and is a work. It is as the Scriptures say "not of yourselves."

So now we're back to the "how can a false gospel save" dilemma. If the gospel being preached is false, then people cannot be saved through it. You can't have it both ways. If people are being saved in Arminian SBC churches, then they are not preaching a false gospel; it may not be a complete gospel, but it cannot be false.

The gospel that Paul was anxious to defend in Galatians can be summed up here:

Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:16)

I think if you were to poll Arminians and Calvinists, there would be general agreement on the classic interpretation of this verse. I defy you to show me an Arminian that teaches that we can be saved by "works of the law." I agree that the Synergistic view is logically and Scripturally inconsistent, but it is not equal to salvation by works of the law; which is rightly to be condemned.

One of the more recent studies within that communion has shown that approximately 1/3 of the graduating seminarians claim to be "Calvinists." When you consider all of the years of Arminian seminary training, that is a long way from a majority.

All 1998-2004 Masters level seminary graduates from Golden Gate, New Orleans, Midwestern, Southeastern, Southwestern and the Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary were invited to complete the survey late 2006. A limited subset of Southern graduates was available for the study.

The total number of survey respondents was 2149, of those 2134 were usable.

By seminary: Golden Gate (N=270), New Orleans (N=287), Midwestern (N=148), Southeastern (N=403), Southwestern (N=978), Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary (N=11), Southern Seminary (N=52).

1,234 respondents serving as pastors or staff members at a Southern Baptist church. Within this group, 527 serve as senior or solo pastor of congregation.

There are several important items this report has found related to Calvinism among SBC church leadership.

First, Calvinist led churches are in the minority—though the number is increasing.

Second, Calvinism is on the rise among most recent seminary graduates. If present trends continue, Calvinism will continue to grow as an influence in our convention; however, these trends will take years to create a critical point of equality with non-Calvinist led congregations.

Third, Calvinist led churches, pastored by recent seminary graduates, are generally smaller in worship attendance and annual baptisms than non-Calvinist churches led by recent seminary graduates.

Fourth, church growth statistics in terms of annual baptism rates indicates that there is little difference between Calvinist and non-Calvinist led churches.

Findings from research conducted by the North American Mission Board – 2007 NAMB New Millennium Ministers Study –

Concern about Calvinism

LifeWay Research has previously reported a sharp rise in the number of self-identified five-point Calvinists among recent seminary graduates. In a related question, LifeWay Research asked Southern Baptist pastors if they were "concerned" about this increase, asking them to agree or disagree with the statement, "The rise of Calvinism among recent seminary graduates concerns me."

Among Southern Baptist pastors, 27 percent strongly agreed and another 36 percent somewhat agreed with the statement indicating that they were "concerned." Sixteen percent strongly disagreed with the statement and another 17 percent somewhat disagreed. The remaining 5 percent indicated they "don’t know."

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

Originally Posted by AThornquist

I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?

What precisely do you mean by "not firm on the true gospel?" Does the SBC promote a squishy gospel?

Not a squishy one but a false one. They will deny it but it is salvation by works and not grace. They believe man must contribute to his salvation by saying a prayer or doing this or that. It really all comes down to one issue. We believe regeneration comes before faith because we could not believe unless God has given us a new heart to believe, they do not. We believe it is God that acts first, they believe it is man. Their idea is that God wants you to be saved but He can't do His part unless you do your part. False gospel.

Do you believe Arminians can be saved? (And most in the SBC aren't even full-blown Arminians).

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Is there a biblical example of "reforming" bad doctrine from within, or would the example be to split off from that which is unbiblical?

The church in Corinth. And DD2009 beat me to it, the churches in Revelation

Originally Posted by MarieP

Do you believe Arminians can be saved? (And most in the SBC aren't even full-blown Arminians).

It would depend on what you consider to be an Arminian. That term is thrown around a lot and everyone has a different definition of what they would consider one. Those who believe they are saved by their works, no I don't believe they are saved. Those who may have a few things wrong here and there but believe they are saved by Christ and Christ alone, I do believe they can be saved.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by MarieP

Do you believe Arminians can be saved? (And most in the SBC aren't even full-blown Arminians).

It would depend on what you consider to be an Arminian. That term is thrown around a lot and everyone has a different definition of what they would consider one. Those who believe they are saved by their works, no I don't believe they are saved. Those who may have a few things wrong here and there but believe they are saved by Christ and Christ alone, I do believe they can be saved.

You are right that the term is thrown around a lot and has different definitions. We could say the same with "Calvinist" and "Reformed" too. I agree that a person who says they are saved by their works is not saved. That would be the official teaching of Rome, as well as the Church of Christ denomination (they'd shoot me if I called them that...)

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves. They would say that it is God's grace that saves us, not our works. They would deny that we earn our salvation in any way. It's because of their inconsistency that makes them within the pale of orthodoxy and not full-blown Pelagians.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by carlgobelman

Originally Posted by AThornquist

I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?

What precisely do you mean by "not firm on the true gospel?" Does the SBC promote a squishy gospel?

Not a squishy one but a false one. They will deny it but it is salvation by works and not grace. They believe man must contribute to his salvation by saying a prayer or doing this or that. It really all comes down to one issue. We believe regeneration comes before faith because we could not believe unless God has given us a new heart to believe, they do not. We believe it is God that acts first, they believe it is man. Their idea is that God wants you to be saved but He can't do His part unless you do your part. False gospel.

I can tell you without question that I don't know a single SBC pastor who believes what you say they believe. You are simply wrong.

Originally Posted by MarieP

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves.

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by MarieP

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves.

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

Right! Like I said, they are inconsistent.

"And can it be" and "Arise, my soul, arise" are some of the richest and accurate hymns soteriologically that I know of, and yet the man who penned them was no Calvinist...

And "Jesus, Lover of my soul", also by Wesley

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by MarieP

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves.

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

Here's the problem: you are lumping everyone in this catergory. Again, you are wrong. In the SBC, you must take every individual pastor and each individual church into account.

From your statement you are saying that I am a synergist. I am not.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by John Lanier

Originally Posted by MarieP

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves.

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

Here's the problem: you are lumping everyone in this catergory. Again, you are wrong. In the SBC, you must take every individual pastor and each individual church into account.

From your statement you are saying that I am a synergist. I am not.

Ivan,

I apologize if I gave that impression. In one of my earlier posts I said:

"I couldn't with a good conscience remain as a pastor in the SBC. Others have made other decisions. Those are my thoughts. No offense to the Founders men on this board."

I apologize if I have lumped those who do not believe these things in with those who do. I did not intend to offend you in any way. I should have possibly chosen my words in other posts more carefully.