I am so disgusted....

[panta dokimazete]

...an amendment was offered urging that no Southern Baptist be allowed to serve on any SBC board if he consumes acohol as a beverage,

The reslution, as amended, passed overwhelmingly.

from: http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/06/more-thoughts-on-sbc-in-greensboro.html

I am SO angry...how stupid...

I think I may have to resign my part time position as a worship leader, to keep my pastor safe, since I told him I do not feel bound not to imbibe alcohol.

I also do not feel as if I can in good conscience, be a formal member of an SBC church.



Calvinism and Alcohol! I am 2 for 2 in the witchhunt!

augh!

-JD

...praying for calmness...

Lord, where can a non-EP, WCF, Reformed, Calvinistic, occasional cigar and alcohol consuming brother go on the Gulf Coast of MS????

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[caddy]

That's a tough one JD

Being a deacon in the SBC I understand your frustration. The SBC is pretty strict with their deacons on ETOH. I mentioned this here briefly some months ago and was given a few suggestions ( books ) on the subject. The short of it for me is, I have grown to love many of the people in the church, but the SBC doctrine is somewhat different than those in Reformed Circles. I think we could all agree--at least most of us in this forum--that their doctrine is weak on this subject, jut as it is weak on Covenant theology / Reformed thinking...as evidenced by many of the statements within the SBC right now. My pastor just gave me a copy of the "National Liberty Journal" because he knows I have been reading and discussing with him my thoughts and views on Reformed theology. The title of the article fom the Journal is "Predestined NOT to be a Hype-Calvinist". The article is by Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner, President of Liberty Theological Seminary. Caner states:

I am not a hyper-Calvinist
I am not an Arminian
I am a Baptist, and historically we have dwelt somewhere in the middle.


Problem is, I don't want to be in "the middle" theologically speaking.


Right now, I don't even want to think about considering another church, but there may come a time.....

Originally posted by jdlongmire

...an amendment was offered urging that no Southern Baptist be allowed to serve on any SBC board if he consumes acohol as a beverage,

The reslution, as amended, passed overwhelmingly.

from: http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/06/more-thoughts-on-sbc-in-greensboro.html

I am SO angry...how stupid...

I think I may have to resign my part time position as a worship leader, to keep my pastor safe, since I told him I do not feel bound not to imbibe alcohol.

I also do not feel as if I can in good conscience, be a formal member of an SBC church.



Calvinism and Alcohol! I am 2 for 2 in the witchhunt!

augh!

-JD

...praying for calmness...

Lord, where can a non-EP, WCF, Reformed, Calvinistic, occasional cigar and alcohol consuming brother go on the Gulf Coast of MS????

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by caddy]

 

[panta dokimazete]

My pastor gave me the same paper...as you can imagine, I was less than complementary of Caner's "expose'"...oy...

Thank you, brother.

-JD

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Why must the SBC strain the gnat of alcohol and swallow the camel of substantial doctrinal errency?

Sorry, more frustration...

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[turmeric]

Give it a little time, JD, and if you still want to leave try a PCA, I'm sure there's one in your area.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by turmeric
Give it a little time, JD, and if you still want to leave try a PCA, I'm sure there's one in your area.

Yes, I think there are several on the coast.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

...an amendment was offered urging that no Southern Baptist be allowed to serve on any SBC board if he consumes acohol as a beverage,

The reslution, as amended, passed overwhelmingly.

from: http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/06/more-thoughts-on-sbc-in-greensboro.html

I am SO angry...how stupid...

I think I may have to resign my part time position as a worship leader, to keep my pastor safe, since I told him I do not feel bound not to imbibe alcohol.

I also do not feel as if I can in good conscience, be a formal member of an SBC church.



Calvinism and Alcohol! I am 2 for 2 in the witchhunt!

augh!

-JD

...praying for calmness...

Lord, where can a non-EP, WCF, Reformed, Calvinistic, occasional cigar and alcohol consuming brother go on the Gulf Coast of MS????

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

Do you mean WCF or LBCF?

 

[Pilgrim]

Maybe you should do a blog post and update us as to what % you are disillusioned with the SBC. :bigsmile:

 

[Puritanhead]

Baptists and their Legalism -- Bah Hum-bug

I'm a Congregationalist!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Maybe you should do a blog post and update us as to what % you are disillusioned with the SBC. :bigsmile:

 

[caddy]

Exactly the 2 Books I am NOW Reading

Both are VERY good

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by caddy]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Maybe you should do a blog post and update us as to what % you are disillusioned with the SBC. :bigsmile:

- you never know - maybe I will...

 

[panta dokimazete]

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by jdlongmire

...an amendment was offered urging that no Southern Baptist be allowed to serve on any SBC board if he consumes acohol as a beverage,

The reslution, as amended, passed overwhelmingly.

from: http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/06/more-thoughts-on-sbc-in-greensboro.html

I am SO angry...how stupid...

I think I may have to resign my part time position as a worship leader, to keep my pastor safe, since I told him I do not feel bound not to imbibe alcohol.

I also do not feel as if I can in good conscience, be a formal member of an SBC church.



Calvinism and Alcohol! I am 2 for 2 in the witchhunt!

augh!

-JD

...praying for calmness...

Lord, where can a non-EP, WCF, Reformed, Calvinistic, occasional cigar and alcohol consuming brother go on the Gulf Coast of MS????

Do you mean WCF or LBCF?

I am not as familiar with the LBCF - raised "traditional" SBC - introduced to the WCF in college - moved to and served in PCA for 12 years - moved to GC - joined Baptist church - hoping the Founders movement would create some Reformed movement.

Do you have a link to the LBCF? And how it differs from the WCF?

Thanks,

JD

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by jdlongmire

...an amendment was offered urging that no Southern Baptist be allowed to serve on any SBC board if he consumes acohol as a beverage,

The reslution, as amended, passed overwhelmingly.

from: http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/06/more-thoughts-on-sbc-in-greensboro.html

I am SO angry...how stupid...

I think I may have to resign my part time position as a worship leader, to keep my pastor safe, since I told him I do not feel bound not to imbibe alcohol.

I also do not feel as if I can in good conscience, be a formal member of an SBC church.



Calvinism and Alcohol! I am 2 for 2 in the witchhunt!

augh!

-JD

...praying for calmness...

Lord, where can a non-EP, WCF, Reformed, Calvinistic, occasional cigar and alcohol consuming brother go on the Gulf Coast of MS????

Do you mean WCF or LBCF?

I am not as familiar with the LBCF - raised "traditional" SBC - introduced to the WCF in college - moved to and served in PCA for 12 years - moved to GC - joined Baptist church - hoping the Founders movement would create some Reformed movement.

Do you have a link to the LBCF? And how it differs from the WCF?

Thanks,

JD

See A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF for a side by side comparison of the original WCF and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (aka 2nd London Baptist Confession). The 2nd London Baptist Confession is based on the WCF by way of the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order and is very similar to the WCF except of course on baptism, church government and the civil magistrate. The WCF that most Presbyterian churches in America (i.e. PCA, OPC, etc.) subscribe to today contains revisions adopted in 1789. But the vast majority of it is the same except for certain matters pertaining to the civil magistrate and that bit about the pope being the antichrist.

Also, see here to download a very useful collection of Reformed Confessions and catechisms (including the ecumenical creeds) in Windows Help File format.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
...an amendment was offered urging that no Southern Baptist be allowed to serve on any SBC board if he consumes acohol as a beverage,

The reslution, as amended, passed overwhelmingly.

In the SBC, what effect does this actually have on the local church? Are their decisions in some way binding, similar perhaps to decisions made in a Presbyterian church? When they say 'urging', what does that actually mean?

Originally posted by jdlongmire
I am SO angry...how stupid...

I think I may have to resign my part time position as a worship leader, to keep my pastor safe, since I told him I do not feel bound not to imbibe alcohol.

Being a worship leader is a pretty important position. I can imagine how tough it must be to decide what to do. Does your pastor agree with the resolution?

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by blhowes]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Well, a good night's sleep has cleared my head a bit.

Appreciate ya'll listening in on a frustration of mine.

Bob, my pastor is ok with my liberty. The fact is that the urging turned into an outright amendment.

I guess those folk are blinded to the fact that Jesus Christ Himself could not sit on an SBC board...

ah, well - even so, Lord, quickly come!

Thanks,

-JD

 

[brymaes]

In the SBC, what effect does this actually have on the local church? Are their decisions in some way binding, similar perhaps to decisions made in a Presbyterian church? When they say 'urging', what does that actually mean?

None. It is really just a suggestion, because any decree of this type would hinder the independancy so pridefully advocated among Baptists. However, it would potentially hinder a congregation from coming into the denomination.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Andrew,

I value your opinion greatly, are those two books good. Believe it or not I've not read them yet.

Larry

 

[Larry Hughes]

Quote:
In the SBC, what effect does this actually have on the local church? Are their decisions in some way binding, similar perhaps to decisions made in a Presbyterian church? When they say 'urging', what does that actually mean?


None. It is really just a suggestion, because any decree of this type would hinder the independancy so pridefully advocated among Baptists. However, it would potentially hinder a congregation from coming into the denomination.

I partially agree with this.

Because it does bind the conscience of the laity terribly and satanically, and that is what is most often over looked in these situations, the true less discerning brother is tossed to the wolves by a false appeal of so called "œlove". The reason is not so much that "œthe church authority" is considered binding. BUT, the very fact that they attach so called "œBiblical" (Word of God) support behind it at least causes a stumble and worse a strong demonic binding of the conscience. All the more when supported by otherwise sound theologians of the denomination (whoever the denomination is).

It´s one thing if you tell me "œthis is something the church governing body/convention/union thinks is worthy to consider", quite another to say or imply "œthus saith the Lord", for what Christian doesn´t want to love his Lord. And all the much more shifty and devious to not come right out and say it so explicitly but rather "œimply" it rather heavy in a spiritual or religious sense. Sometimes if a group explicitly says something so as to be pinned down on it "“ it is easier to refute it and say, "œThat´s just a man´s opinion", very few today are fooled by this. But if you can "œslip" it under cover of an "œimplication" so that the hearer may be forced to "œstew over it" in there conscience a bit, then you´ve better entrapped the conscience than if you had been more explicit. This is the devil´s greatest hiding trick. Better still if you can use some wordly research and data, and bring in the ole "œmodern times now knows better" arrogance, then you can really pin down that conscience hard. And it all depends on the laities discernment level, which unfortunately in most SBC´s is poor.

It´s always much easier to bind the conscience if you can just drop a doubt, so to speak, rather than say, "œwe say you can´t do_______". Usually it comes in some form of "œ"¦yes you can but the SPIRITUAL Christian or "˜more´ SPIRITUAL man will _____".

Even more devilish if you can disarm your opposition who is very capable of really refuting your demonic doctrine with a "œWhy do you argue and create division over such a non-essential issue". ITS NEVER, NEVER, NEVER A NON-ESSENTIAL ISSUE WHEN YOU BIND THE CONSCIENCE OF A BELIEVER! If you say eating beans are unspiritual and unloving to the church, you have just raised an otherwise trivial and thing to not be considered, to a thing on the level of direct and immediate WAR with the Gospel and Christ. Then when the defender who intended to free consciences and give forth a stronger faith in the Gospel, thus bearing witness to Christ, is falsely accused by appealing to "œChristians will always at all cost be nice, unity and peace". And is put in the position of defending the "œevils of alcohol" (transference and false dilemma), one just look like some selfish booze hound wanting to have your toys and pet sins (which is exactly their false accusation intent). Rome and some of Rome´s protestant children have and still do falsely accuse Luther of the very same thing in order to refute much of justification by faith alone as it plays out in the Christian life. Something like, "œLuther just wanted to find excuse for his sins." Actually, this is exactly what they did when he married Katie. As Paul would say, "œTheir condemnation is just."

The irony in all this is is that Lutherans and Reformed are the ones always accused of "following men's ideas and interpretations" and bound to confessions and creeds rather than "the bible only", yet we see this.

Rome hid the bible and bound the conscience explicitly, nothing could be more clear today now: Many protestant groups now hide the bible and bind the conscience with bibles WIDE open.

Ldh

[Edited on 6-19-2006 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 6-19-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Andrew,

I value your opinion greatly, are those two books good. Believe it or not I've not read them yet.

Larry

Larry,

I think you will enjoy reading both of those books immensely. Gentry's book is exegetical. West's book is historical/theological and entertaining, a rare combination. Both strongly defend the Biblical moderationist position with respect to alcohol. I recommend them very highly! Enjoy!

 

[Larry Hughes]

Andrew,

Thanks, there on my list to get.

Larry

 

[Larry Hughes]

Very at length article, very good on the subject and just why "prohibition" movements are not so innocent in spite of their "noble" sounding blubber.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1091124904.html

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Very at length article, very good on the subject and just why "prohibition" movements are not so innocent in spite of their "noble" sounding blubber.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1091124904.html

Thanks for posting this link, Larry. Looks like the prohibitionist movement picked up steam at about the same time the protestant churches in this country slowly began slipping doctrinally.

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by theologae
However, it would potentially hinder a congregation from coming into the denomination.

A church would not be hindered in the least in joining the SBC. I'm sure it (the topic of alchohol) wouldn't even come up. The vast majority of SBC churches are formed on the local level (I could start a Baptist church right now!) and first joins a local association of SBC churches. With that a Baptist church associated with a local association would have no problem joining the SBC, which basically means that they would be able to send messengers (delegates) to the annual meeting of the SBC.

When a church wants to join a local association there is usual a committee the examines the doctrine of the church, but this is lax, in my opinion. A tad messy, eh? For good or ill.

The only time this issue would become a factor is when someone from a church that is "lax" on the alcohol issue. Then the person who is being consider for an appointment to a committee of one of the SBC entities might have a problem.

Resolutons, amendments and etc. have little or no affect on the local church. The church I attend doesn't not make it issue of it all. Hence, there would be a few members that may not be able to serve a SBC committee. Believe me, they don't care.

I would say that the vast majority of the membership of the church I attend don't even know what goes on at the annual meeting of the SBC.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Chris,

Yea, I thought it was a pretty informative historical narrative. What is notable is how it progressed to the point where they wanted to destroy anyone who drank, as does all religious legalism, it leads to murder if not in reality in the heart.

You summed it up well when the churches began to let doctrine slip, then so came the devil armed and ready. Just like Paul warned us.

Ivan,

You are correct at the formation and government level, that style of government, which is valid, functions that way. However, I am aware of, at this moment, a forming baptist church of former SB members who will not come under the SBC for this very reason. They see it for what it is in its undertones. Not that the SBC formerly can impose this upon them as it doesn't function that way. But for the very conscience level it falsely imposes a doctrine of demons upon their people and hiding Christ and the Gospel.

This was the crucial point for the Genesis of the reformation. Not that the Pope could necessarily outwardly impose a "rule" or legal thing upon the people, but that the effect it had on the conscience of the believer. One can have a "church governmental structure" that says, "We don't impose top to bottom formerly", yet still impose false Gospel and a legal way at the conscience level, despairing the true believer and further deceiving the false saint into hell and then claim to be "œgospel" driven. In fact the later is worse than the former for one can resist unto persecution formerly imposed required religious works and be burned at the stake for it, as Rome did. This the devil does when he can no longer impose upon the conscience of the believer, he sets forth the outward persecution. However, until then the inner persecution is where the real damage is done to the faith of the believer.

In this view it could and has hindered some staying within or coming within the SBC and good for them that they will not deny their Lord by this subtle denial of Christ crucified. It must be realized that at the end of the day this resolution is NOT about alcohol, but the very Gospel itself.

In Christ Alone,

Larry