Comments on: Diversity in the SBC: Finding Common Ground http://sbcvoices.com/diversity-in-the-sbc-part-2/ Southern Baptist News & Opinion Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:29:18 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/diversity-in-the-sbc-part-2/#comment-2201 Dr. James Willingham Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:28:24 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=202#comment-2201 Dear Matt: The problem with every one's view including yours and Dr. Mohler's and Dr. Patterson's and mine is that we all have some things right and some things wrong. For example, when I graduated with my D.Min, the fellow in front of me was a missionary who prayed in a private prayer language. I rather suspect that I know where this thing comes from, but it is a grief to know that one cannot discuss such issues without some one getting hurt. It is like the issue of liberalism where everyone has identified liberalism with the battle with the Moderates. The truth is liberalism began in the Sovereign Grace period in Baptist History, that is, in the 16001 & 1700s. True liberalism is not a case of unbelief; it is a confidence in orthodoxy that is willing to allow for differences due to the view that truth will win the day, if given its freedom. Confidence in God and His word was the source of liberty of conscience as we know it. And the checks and balances of our federal government grew out of Soveeign Grace or Calvinism (as long as you leave out the state church idea). Interestingly enough a strong conspiracy developed to force Calvinism out of the public venue (see Dr. Carroll Quigley's work, Tragedy and Hope (NY: Macmillan, 1965) were the theology of the great conspiracy is set forth, advocated and promoted. (Does the word pluralism ring a bell? Or so-called modernism?). I think it is about p.1239 (?). Mr. Quigley's other work, The Anglo American Establishment provides further information on the conspiracy. So we have had other parties messing in American theology to muddy the waters. Some of our views were prepared for us some centuries ago. You have to research out side the box. But I must cease as it is late. <abbr><em><abbr><em>Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..<a href="http://thirdgreatawakeningcom.blogspot.com/2009/02/climax-of-reformation.html" rel="nofollow">The Climax of the Reformation</a></em></abbr></abbr></em> Dear Matt: The problem with every one’s view including yours and Dr. Mohler’s and Dr. Patterson’s and mine is that we all have some things right and some things wrong. For example, when I graduated with my D.Min, the fellow in front of me was a missionary who prayed in a private prayer language. I rather suspect that I know where this thing comes from, but it is a grief to know that one cannot discuss such issues without some one getting hurt. It is like the issue of liberalism where everyone has identified liberalism with the battle with the Moderates. The truth is liberalism began in the Sovereign Grace period in Baptist History, that is, in the 16001 & 1700s. True liberalism is not a case of unbelief; it is a confidence in orthodoxy that is willing to allow for differences due to the view that truth will win the day, if given its freedom. Confidence in God and His word was the source of liberty of conscience as we know it. And the checks and balances of our federal government grew out of Soveeign Grace or Calvinism (as long as you leave out the state church idea). Interestingly enough a strong conspiracy developed to force Calvinism out of the public venue (see Dr. Carroll Quigley’s work, Tragedy and Hope (NY: Macmillan, 1965) were the theology of the great conspiracy is set forth, advocated and promoted. (Does the word pluralism ring a bell? Or so-called modernism?). I think it is about p.1239 (?). Mr. Quigley’s other work, The Anglo American Establishment provides further information on the conspiracy. So we have had other parties messing in American theology to muddy the waters. Some of our views were prepared for us some centuries ago. You have to research out side the box. But I must cease as it is late.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

]]> By: Tony Kummer http://sbcvoices.com/diversity-in-the-sbc-part-2/#comment-497 Tony Kummer Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:25:21 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=202#comment-497 @Matt Svoboda: Thanks - I'm working up a list for a poll at some point here on the site @Matt Svoboda: Thanks – I’m working up a list for a poll at some point here on the site

]]> By: Matt Svoboda http://sbcvoices.com/diversity-in-the-sbc-part-2/#comment-492 Matt Svoboda Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:43:34 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=202#comment-492 1) The issue of tongues. I agree with the SBC's position on tongues, but I think the controversy has gone too long. Those who disagree ought to move on or leave and those who are for it need to stop 'proving their rightness' and move on. 2) Calvinism. I don't understand why people get so worked up when they here Calvinism is growing in the SBC. It is a third tier issue that ought to be non-divisive. If an Arminian and a Calvinist can't sit in a pew together than the Calvinist doesn't understand Calvinism and the Arminian doesn't understand Arminianism. Both of them promote unity, just in different ways. If you really hold to your theology, then hold to it in the midst of opposing views. 3) Theology of seeker sensitive churches- I do not agree with most of the theology that goes into their philosophy of ministry. But it is another third tier issue. 4) Hair-splitting gospel arguments. I have heard endless arguments of 'implications of the gospel.' We spend way too much time debating and splitting hairs over small details of different implications of the gospel than we spend time proclaiming the central message of the gospel. Some churches focus on different implications of the gospel than others. One might be more 'relational' and another one might be more 'social.' Neither of these are wrong, there needs to be balance, but the disputing to try to prioritize implications of the gospel is ridiculous! One implication is not more serious than another. Some implications just better fit the personality of some churches than others! But there does need to be an effort for balance. I would say those are the four biggest ones. <abbr><em><abbr><em>Matt Svobodas last blog post..<a href="http://mattsvoboda.blogspot.com/2008/10/college-football-rankings-and-what-they.html" rel="nofollow">College Football Rankings... And what they should be!</a></em></abbr></abbr></em> 1) The issue of tongues. I agree with the SBC’s position on tongues, but I think the controversy has gone too long. Those who disagree ought to move on or leave and those who are for it need to stop ‘proving their rightness’ and move on.
2) Calvinism. I don’t understand why people get so worked up when they here Calvinism is growing in the SBC. It is a third tier issue that ought to be non-divisive. If an Arminian and a Calvinist can’t sit in a pew together than the Calvinist doesn’t understand Calvinism and the Arminian doesn’t understand Arminianism. Both of them promote unity, just in different ways. If you really hold to your theology, then hold to it in the midst of opposing views.
3) Theology of seeker sensitive churches- I do not agree with most of the theology that goes into their philosophy of ministry. But it is another third tier issue.
4) Hair-splitting gospel arguments. I have heard endless arguments of ‘implications of the gospel.’ We spend way too much time debating and splitting hairs over small details of different implications of the gospel than we spend time proclaiming the central message of the gospel. Some churches focus on different implications of the gospel than others. One might be more ‘relational’ and another one might be more ‘social.’ Neither of these are wrong, there needs to be balance, but the disputing to try to prioritize implications of the gospel is ridiculous! One implication is not more serious than another. Some implications just better fit the personality of some churches than others! But there does need to be an effort for balance.

I would say those are the four biggest ones.

Matt Svobodas last blog post..College Football Rankings… And what they should be!

]]> By: Tony Kummer http://sbcvoices.com/diversity-in-the-sbc-part-2/#comment-488 Tony Kummer Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:48:20 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=202#comment-488 @ Matt: Thanks for writing this follow up post. Don't be discouraged for the lack of comments - I take that as a sign that you've handled all sides of the question fairly. Here's a question for you. What doctrines do you think are the most disputed in the SBC right now that we should relegate to the 3rd tier? @ Matt: Thanks for writing this follow up post. Don’t be discouraged for the lack of comments – I take that as a sign that you’ve handled all sides of the question fairly.

Here’s a question for you. What doctrines do you think are the most disputed in the SBC right now that we should relegate to the 3rd tier?

]]>