My thoughts huh?

I think that they definitely have their work cut out for them. :wl:

I think that the majority of the SBC views them as an enemy. :zapped:

I think that for the most part their attempts to significantly change the SBC will get them nowhere. :tm:

I think that their loyalism to the SBC is their weakness. They are acting like Erasmus when they should be like Luther.

In sum, I don't think that they'll ever constitute more than a small minority of the SBC.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic. :end:

I think it is good for the SBC that the Founders are there. I think they should remain loyal to the SBC until they get booted out.

[quote:56a09a8334][i:56a09a8334]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:56a09a8334]
My thoughts huh?

I think that they definitely have their work cut out for them. :wl:

I think that the majority of the SBC views them as an enemy. :zapped:

I think that for the most part their attempts to significantly change the SBC will get them nowhere. :tm:

I think that their loyalism to the SBC is their weakness. They are acting like Erasmus when they should be like Luther.

In sum, I don't think that they'll ever constitute more than a small minority of the SBC.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic. :end: [/quote:56a09a8334]

Ben, do you know where most of the "Founders" stand on Eschatology? LIke Al Mohler, etc.

The Machine (SBC) is too big to change. Come out from Among them! Calvin would have already placed them under church censure for not doing so. I think they are beating a dead horse

Doesnt Scripture say to come out from Babylon?

blade

Why should they surrender their godly heritage. They are the ones who are being true to the historical roots of their denomination.

Luther did start out to leave the Roman Church-State, everyone knows that. He loathed being termed a 'schismatic'. It was only until his hand was forced, that he did so.

I agree with Eric; not until they are 'booted'. Make the SBC leadership/pastors go on record officially as denying the gospel (ie.."calvinism&quot, then leave peacefully. Until then, it is 'semper reformanda'....as Stonewall would say..."Duty is ours, the consequences are God's"

Grace,
Dwayne

The Founders group is helpful to the SBC.

The SBC is not Babylon. It is a collection of true Christian congregations. People should be extremely patient before leaving a church. I do not think that Calvin would have counseled them to leave. Here is a great quote from Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, Ch. 1, Sec. 14. He is addressing those who break from a church because of the doctrinal and moral problems of that church (in other words, the church is not pure enough for them).


[quote:44b4e6b101]
They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle's sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order. If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel, (Gal. 1: 2,) and yet among them the same apostle found churches?
[/quote:44b4e6b101]

Scott

[quote:c5121dbdbb][i:c5121dbdbb]Originally posted by Scott[/i:c5121dbdbb]
The Founders group is helpful to the SBC.

The SBC is not Babylon. It is a collection of true Christian congregations. People should be extremely patient before leaving a church. I do not think that Calvin would have counseled them to leave. Here is a great quote from Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, Ch. 1, Sec. 14. He is addressing those who break from a church because of the doctrinal and moral problems of that church (in other words, the church is not pure enough for them).


[quote:c5121dbdbb]
They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle's sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order. If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel, (Gal. 1: 2,) and yet among them the same apostle found churches?
[/quote:c5121dbdbb]

Scott [/quote:c5121dbdbb]

Scott, thank you. I've been dealing with this very issue privately (well...semi-privately, I sent e-mail out to several lists asking for good advice). You just helped to confirm a decision.

[quote:cb808de40d][i:cb808de40d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:cb808de40d]
The Founders group is helpful to the SBC.

The SBC is not Babylon. It is a collection of true Christian congregations. People should be extremely patient before leaving a church. I do not think that Calvin would have counseled them to leave. Here is a great quote from Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, Ch. 1, Sec. 14. He is addressing those who break from a church because of the doctrinal and moral problems of that church (in other words, the church is not pure enough for them).


[quote:cb808de40d]
They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle's sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order. If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel, (Gal. 1: 2,) and yet among them the same apostle found churches?
[/quote:cb808de40d]

Scott [/quote:cb808de40d]

I think I agree with Scott, but I also believe that this quote from Calvin has implications for the way we view Rome, because remember that Calvin not only counseled others to break with Rome, but he did so himself.

Fred,

Do you know why Calvin left Rome? I mean, obviously we view as being extremely corrupt in its doctrine, but did he leave a list of reasons anywhere?

Remember, Rome took up the Council of Trent in which only 1/3 of the delegates were from somewhere OTHER than Italy. Then they conveniently decided that the only way to deal with us Protestants was with the sword.

With their Counter-Reformation came the Military response as well, with their non-negotiating attitudes. The papacy allied itself with militant Catholic kings, which benefited both the papacy and the king. The papacy could take souls, the king could take the land.

So who played the part of the true schismatic? The church who initially desired reform or the church who sought to destroy the reformers?