SBC Alliance with RCC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
Frank Page was elected President of the SBC as a result of a perception of a group of "good ole boys" running the convention. So now we have a President that believes "the Emerging Church adds value to the Convention" and takes part in meetings like this. His agenda is not representative of the convention as a whole. And he does not have the support of those who retain clear biblicla precepts.
Also, keep in mind that it absolutely does not matter a bit what Frank Page says, even if he is the president of the SBC. His statements have no effect on how an individual church in cooperation with the SBC functions. He has no ecclesiastical authority.

This is where I think the SBC starts to mess up a little. Some times the organization thinks itself more important than the local church.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
No we got our doctrine of Baptism from Covenantal Baptists known as Particluar Baptists who authored the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith.
That is what I have always understood as well. I don't think 'Baptist' history has very much to do with the 'anabaptists'.
 

PastorFaulk

Puritan Board Freshman
There are three prominent views to our heritage....

1. The Land mark view.... We descend from John the B himself.
This view was held for a while, but there is no historical proof, because it is a prideful view not worth even messing with. :down:

2. Anabaptist View... We share much of the same ideals dealing with baptism, but lacks historical proof. :down:

3. Finishing what the puritans could not. Baptists believe that they are the final step of the reformation purifying the church to become New Testament once again. They believe that many of the puritan ideals needed reforming, since they did not take on issues held over from the COE or the RCC. The center of those issues being paedo baptism. (yes yes there is a whole thread to this, please just take history for what it is and argue pagan paedo views on another thread :lol:) Baptist see Presbyterians and Puritans as reformers who still need reforming.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Pastor Faulk,

While I am a staunch Credo Baptist I do not believe the paedo view in Presbyterian Covenant Theology has any pagan origin at all. I see the smiley face so I am going to accept it as a friendly jab. But I have been amongst Presbyterian's to long to know the origin of their view of Baptism is not pagan.
 

Ivan

Pastor
It now it appears that the Southern Baptist Convention is embracing and standing alongside the Roman Catholic Church as fellow Christians. This idea is outrageous. The RCC is a cult and to be associated with them as Protestants infuriates me :mad:. I surely hope these articles are misunderstood, but here is what I have come across:

http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/05/rick_warren_joi.html
I read the list of signatures. Interesting. But, just interesting. It means absolutely nothing to the SBC. When our president signed the document he did it on his own. He may be in agreement, but that doesn't mean Southern Baptists are. It has no binding effect on Southern Baptists at all.

If anything, it probably means we should have voted in a new president who wouldn't do such silly things. You will never see me sign a document like that.
 

Ivan

Pastor
I believe the document was produced before the edict was issued. And I highly doubt that most Southern Baptist knows what the Catholic church said about us or cares.
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
wow, I see this topic has created much thought as well as emotion. I read the statement in question and have several concerns with it that have already been stated here. It has been said that an endorsement of the statement cannot be equated with and agreement to Jim Tonkowich's statement. I disagree. Mr. Tonkowich sets the tone, spirit, and intent of the statement with his introduction. To sign your name to the statement is to give endorsement to its ecumenical spriit.

As stated by others, the statement itself refers to Roman Catholics as our brothers and sisters, i.e. brethren. The RCC would like nothing more than have us agree that we are brethren, albeit separated as they call it. For this reason, and knowing the cunning and deceitfulness of the RCC and their Jesuits, we are not ignorant of such sly comments and their meaning.

True Christians, if needed, may oppose injustice where they find it. Whether it be against Roman Catholic, atheist, or otherwise. We may oppose injustices in the world without the need of an ecumenical alliance with apostasy! Why dear brethren must we sully the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and our own Christian name by laying it alongside such apostosy and heresy as comes out of the Anti-Christian system as the Roman Catholic church or the likes of a Rick Warren??? No my brethren, please do not look too harshly on those who are appaled at this statement and who signed it.

I have been around Reformed circles long enough to understand to a SMALL degree the varying beliefs on the history of the Church. May I remind you, my Protestent and Reformed brethren, that your statement of faith particulary names the RCC as that Man of Sin foretold in Scripture, Antichrist. So does the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. I am not bringing this to your attention so as to fetter your conscience to its statements. But to remind you that the men you so often revere and display in your Avatars held this belief firmly. I happen to be one alive today who still agrees with them.

As for the Anabaptist comments or the comments reflecting Baptists embracing their Reformed heritage, I submit to all admirers of the eminant C.H. Spurgeon his words:


"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man..."—Charles H. Spurgeon
As repugnant as that statement may seem to some, I believe it true and hold its sentiments as my own.

I also agree with the brethren's statements that much study must go into the background of the aforementioned statement before judgment is too quicly layed. I personally have researched the ecumenical movement and the Church Growth Movement (Rick Warren) and found both worthy of rejection and separation. I see this statement and its purpose as nothing more than a furtherance of the ultimate purpose of the ecumencial movement and another "roman road" leading back to Rome.

Your brother in Christ,
Geoff
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
I believe the document was produced before the edict was issued. And I highly doubt that most Southern Baptist knows what the Catholic church said about us or cares.
Agreed, 100%. But my point is that surely those propogating and signing the document DO care, and would they not have changed their tune a little after reading such a declaration from their new 'buddies'? I just don't get it. :um:
 

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
wow, I see this topic has created much thought as well as emotion. I read the statement in question and have several concerns with it that have already been stated here. It has been said that an endorsement of the statement cannot be equated with and agreement to Jim Tonkowich's statement. I disagree. Mr. Tonkowich sets the tone, spirit, and intent of the statement with his introduction. To sign your name to the statement is to give endorsement to its ecumenical spriit.
Geoff, I don't disagree that Page should not have signed a statement like this (and I haven't read the statement yet!) I think we should stay away from ecumenical statements like this in general unless we know exactly what we are signing.

That being said, I think the point most Baptists have argued against is that because Page signed this it necessarily means the SBC as a denomination is not linked with the RCC. First of all, the SBC is NOT a denomination in the strict sense of the word. It is a very loose affiliation of independent churches. Secondly, no one can claim to speak on behalf of the independent SBC church down the street from me except for that church.
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Geoff, I don't disagree that Page should not have signed a statement like this (and I haven't read the statement yet!) I think we should stay away from ecumenical statements like this in general unless we know exactly what we are signing.

That being said, I think the point most Baptists have argued against is that because Page signed this it necessarily means the SBC as a denomination is not linked with the RCC. First of all, the SBC is NOT a denomination in the strict sense of the word. It is a very loose affiliation of independent churches. Secondly, no one can claim to speak on behalf of the independent SBC church down the street from me except for that church.
I agree. I think its concerning that that president of the SBC would sign this, but does not mean the SBC is headed to Rome, God forbid. If they did I think you would see a lot of SBC congregations separate from the SBC.
 

Ivan

Pastor
I agree. I think its concerning that that president of the SBC would sign this, but does not mean the SBC is headed to Rome, God forbid. If they did I think you would see a lot of SBC congregations separate from the SBC.
The vast majority would flee the SBC with the Founders Movement churches leading the way!
 

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
The vast majority would flee the SBC with the Founders Movement churches leading the way!
Yeah, then they would have to drop their membership numbers from 6 million to about 150,000.

But, then again, if the Founder's churches were leading the way, churches like mine might consider joining.
 

Ivan

Pastor
Yeah, then they would have to drop their membership numbers from 6 million to about 150,000.

But, then again, if the Founder's churches were leading the way, churches like mine might consider joining.
First of all, it's around 16 million or better. Second, there would be far more leave the SBC if there were a compromise with Rome, although the majority of them would not be part of the Founders movement. Then again, numbers mean nothing.
 

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
First of all, it's around 16 million or better.
Sorry, typo. It was early here.

Second, there would be far more leave the SBC if there were a compromise with Rome, although the majority of them would not be part of the Founders movement. Then again, numbers mean nothing.
Agree.

On another note, I had a guy email me from the Baptist church that started us. He is the new children's minister there and is taking a class (by extension) at Liberty University. He had to ask a seasoned minister 4 questions.

After I got up off the floor from laughing that he suggested I might be "seasoned," I read the questions. One was "How do you measure success in ministry."

I told him to forget numbers. They mean nothing. If you listened to the church-growth experts, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were failures. You measure success by if you were faithful or not.

Maybe some SBC leaders (and the rest of us) need to learn this truth.
 

Philip A

Puritan Board Sophomore
Contemporary Protestant ignorance and caricatures of Reformation history and the doctrines of Roman Church are most certainly the reason for Protestant conversions to Rome. When Protestants are taught that Rome is a "cult", not Christian, then find out Rome doesn't really teach pelagianism and salvation by works but that the differences are actually much more nuanced the popish position gains sympathy. The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth.
:up::up: Sorry to muck up this discussion with primary sources, but Peter is right on here.

:luther:Martin Luther, Concerning Rebaptism, 1528, One paragraph after calling the papal church Antichrist:
We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there ahd has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed... I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints.
:turretin:Francis Turretin, Institutes, 18:14:III (post Trent):
The church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view; either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of Gospel truth which it retains; or Papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the Word of God. We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny it can be called Christian and Apostolic, but Antichristian and Apostate. In this sense, we confess that it can still improperly and relatively be called a Christian church in a threefold respect. First, with respect to the people of God or the elect still remaining in it, who are ordered to come out of her, even at the time of the destruction of Babylon. (2) With respect to external form or certain ruins of a scattered church, in which its traces are seen to this day, both with respect to the word of God and the preaching of it (which, although corrupted, still remains in her); and with respect to the adminstration of the sacraments and especially of baptism, which is still preserved entire in her as to substance. (3) With respect to Christian and evangelical truths concerning the one and the triune God, Christ the God-man Mediator, his incarnation, death and resurrection and other heads of doctrine by which she is distinguished from assemblies of pagans and infidels. But we deny that she can simply and properly be called a true church, much less the one and only catholic church, as they contend.
Oh noes, Luther and Turretin were secretly in league with Rome!!! :wow:
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
:up::up: Sorry to muck up this discussion with primary sources, but Peter is right on here.

:luther:Martin Luther, Concerning Rebaptism, 1528, One paragraph after calling the papal church Antichrist:


:turretin:Francis Turretin, Institutes, 18:14:III (post Trent):


Oh noes, Luther and Turretin were secretly in league with Rome!!! :wow:
I disgree with both Luther and Turretin on many points. Especially Luther.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I suppose this illustrates the difference between the Reformed and the Anabaptist. By calling yourself Reformed you acknowledge there is something in existence to be reformed. But, true to their name, Anabaptists reject the Church and see themselves re-inventing her. I'm glad to see the SBC is embracing its Reformation heritage and leaving behind its other Radical Anabaptist past.
First off everyone should read this article on Baptist and History so they can see the differences between the Anabaptists, Separatists, Particular Baptists, the Secessionist Baptist theory and other stuff.

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm

There is way to much confusion over this issue. Tom Nettles has done some Marvelous works on this also I am told.

Contemporary Protestant ignorance and caricatures of Reformation history and the doctrines of Roman Church are most certainly the reason for Protestant conversions to Rome. When Protestants are taught that Rome is a "cult", not Christian, then find out Rome doesn't really teach pelagianism and salvation by works but that the differences are actually much more nuanced the popish position gains sympathy. The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth.
And I disagree with the above statement. Works righteousness and indulgences were part of the problem with the RCC. It has Many other problems with idolatry and its lure to most who convert to her is her historical significance and the lust for idolatry. Men want to worship what they can touch, feel, and see. The lure to Rome is salvation depends upon the hoops that a person can perform to gain favor with God. It is a religion that places the salvation of ones soul in an individuals power to act out certain virtues so they can obtain favor with God. It is polluted.

Now I am not advocating that all RC persons are going to Hell but anyone who places their hope in the idolatrous intercessions of Mary, the Saints, and the RCC will find their hope empty when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ who gave himself alone for this hope. The RCC has tried to rob Christ of His Glory.

For Christ's Crown and Glory.....
 

Philip A

Puritan Board Sophomore
I disgree with both Luther and Turretin on many points. Especially Luther.
Strange, since you just recently posted this as a "reminder" to us:

I am not bringing this to your attention so as to fetter your conscience to its statements. But to remind you that the men you so often revere and display in your Avatars held this belief firmly. I happen to be one alive today who still agrees with them.
So now you are saying you don't agree with them on the issue in question. That's the whole point then isn't it? Everybody likes to claim the Reformers for their own side, until they're faced with what the Reformers actually wrote.
 

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
So now you are saying you don't agree with them on the issue in question. That's the whole point then isn't it? Everybody likes to claim the Reformers for their own side, until they're faced with what the Reformers actually wrote.
Just as Calvin would claim Augustine for his soteriology, but and Rome would claim Augustine for their ecclesiology.
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Strange, since you just recently posted this as a "reminder" to us:



So now you are saying you don't agree with them on the issue in question. That's the whole point then isn't it? Everybody likes to claim the Reformers for their own side, until they're faced with what the Reformers actually wrote.
So in order to "claim a reformer for themselves" they have to agree with everything they wrote? I don't think anyone believes that. I think I have respect and reverence for the reformers as much as anyone. Their volumes line my bookshelves and I enjoy them very much. There just are things written that when I read it, I have to respectfully disagree. They may indeed be right, and I am wrong. But my conscience must be clean. The only way I have learned to maintain a clean conscience is to be convinced from Scripture in my conscience. Men may write something that provokes or points to truth. In other words, Spurgeon was a great help in leading me to right understand of election. But it was the Word of God that convinced me. Isn't this what we mean by Sola Scriptura?

God bless my brother
 

Ivan

Pastor
On another note, I had a guy email me from the Baptist church that started us. He is the new children's minister there and is taking a class (by extension) at Liberty University. He had to ask a seasoned minister 4 questions.

After I got up off the floor from laughing that he suggested I might be "seasoned," I read the questions. One was "How do you measure success in ministry."

I told him to forget numbers. They mean nothing. If you listened to the church-growth experts, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were failures. You measure success by if you were faithful or not.

Maybe some SBC leaders (and the rest of us) need to learn this truth.
Amen!
 

2 Tim 4:2

Puritan Board Freshman
Frank Page was elected President of the SBC as a result of a perception of a group of "good ole boys" running the convention. So now we have a President that believes "the Emerging Church adds value to the Convention" and takes part in meetings like this. His agenda is not representative of the convention as a whole. And he does not have the support of those who retain clear biblicla precepts.
Also, keep in mind that it absolutely does not matter a bit what Frank Page says, even if he is the president of the SBC. His statements have no effect on how an individual church in cooperation with the SBC functions. He has no ecclesiastical authority.

This is where I think the SBC starts to mess up a little. Some times the organization thinks itself more important than the local church.

The problems such as these stem out of the constant battle between the libs and those who hold to clear bibclical precepts. I am not sure that there is a view as being more important than the church as there is this desire for control over the convention as a whole on both sides. In the midst of that battle the local church can get lost. But if we gave in to guyd like Page we would eventually return to Seminaries that teach a doubtful Bible.
 

Ivan

Pastor
But if we gave in to guyd like Page we would eventually return to Seminaries that teach a doubtful Bible.
That's an interesting statement. Let me preface this question by saying that I'm not far or against Page.

Why do you believe Page would return our seminaries to teach a doubtful Bible?

I'm not in the SBC loop so I don't really know anything about him.
 

Bandguy

Puritan Board Sophomore
The vast majority would flee the SBC with the Founders Movement churches leading the way!
Yeah, then they would have to drop their membership numbers from 6 million to about 150,000.
No silly. They would never do that. They would simply list these people as members who need to be brought back into the fold, or some such nonsense.

The chairman of the Resolutions Committee, Gerald Harris, responded to my appeal by saying that the committee thought it inappropriate to bring my resolution before the body because they feared it would infringe on the auntomy of local churches. We should not try to tell churches what to do, he said. Well, anyone who read my resolution and the resolutions that were passed this year and other years will recognize that this argument holds no water. However, it is a tremendous advance over last year's response from the chairman that, if churches took my resolution seriously we would lose our most promising prospects for evangelism!
Link

They couldn't ever bear to admit that their numbers have been way inflated for years.:D
 

2 Tim 4:2

Puritan Board Freshman
But if we gave in to guyd like Page we would eventually return to Seminaries that teach a doubtful Bible.
That's an interesting statement. Let me preface this question by saying that I'm not far or against Page.

Why do you believe Page would return our seminaries to teach a doubtful Bible?

I'm not in the SBC loop so I don't really know anything about him.

Let us be careful to keep my statement in context. I did not make Page soley responsible however I most certainly included him. I see now that I miss typed my post and the "d" should be an "s" at the end of "guy" to form the word "guys".

Frank Page has presented himslef as on a mission to unite the convention. In doing so he includes the Emerging Church movement as "bringing value to the convention". I tried to find the original statement but it was made some time last year and I was unable to locate it to link to it. I do however stand by my assertion that he has mde such a statement. It was made to a Pastor in Arkansa. I did find this article on the matter: Apprising Ministries: OPEN LETTER TO DR. FRANK PAGE AND KENT SHIRLEY

The Emerging Church Movement is in grave error and has a low view of scripture. This very issue is what created the conservative resurgence which began approximately in 1979. It depends heavily on philosphy in place of scripture. It is ecumenical in nature and has no value to the Kingdom of God in any of its forms.
 

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
I don’t think the danger or issue lay in that real and true Christians actually being within the RCC. That goes without saying and is one issue. One needs to separate this out because that is not the issue.

However, there is a sneaky bit of danger in fuzzing over and attaching “ecumenicalism” with “bigotry” in an official capacity from a group with another group, be they denominational or a loose federation of churches. This can be a kind of “slow cooking of the frog” approach. The danger lay in the confusing of the two.

The one thing that unites Baptist, Reformed and Lutherans alike is the Gospel and by Gospel we mean THE Gospel, justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This Rome anathemized and we ought to be ever vigilant as to the official stance of the institutional whore of Babylon. Now that does not mean that no Christians are in the RCC. But the Baptist are right to be alarmed at this because we’ve seen other RCC ecumenical movements, e.g. one of the Lutheran branches before, that comes in the form of “do we REALLY disagree about grace”. The answer is emphatically yes, but if you fuzz it over enough the answer becomes no.

The REAL danger is, again, in confounding ecumenicalism with bigotry and is similar to what happened throughout the 80s and 90s as homosexuality was slowly equated with racism and, thus, behavior becomes equal to ethnicity. How long will it be before “bigotry” against Rome = justification by faith alone as far as speaking against Rome is concerned? We’ve already seen tastes of that in the Muslim community and the generic idolatry of “peoples of faith”. When you say, “Jesus alone” that is imputed sin/righteousness, oopps, there goes your ecumenicalism and pretty soon that’s suddenly bigotry. Secular society has already equated these two things Christ alone = a form of bigotry. This is just one more step in that direction.

This particular signed on by these many folks is NOT a good thing by any measure. There is no up side to it. And this issue ought not be confused with “are real Christians in the RCC?” The Reformers had NO problem separating these two issues and neither should we.

L
 

Ivan

Pastor
But if we gave in to guyd like Page we would eventually return to Seminaries that teach a doubtful Bible.
That's an interesting statement. Let me preface this question by saying that I'm not far or against Page.

Why do you believe Page would return our seminaries to teach a doubtful Bible?

I'm not in the SBC loop so I don't really know anything about him.

Let us be careful to keep my statement in context. I did not make Page soley responsible however I most certainly included him. I see now that I miss typed my post and the "d" should be an "s" at the end of "guy" to form the word "guys".

Frank Page has presented himslef as on a mission to unite the convention. In doing so he includes the Emerging Church movement as "bringing value to the convention". I tried to find the original statement but it was made some time last year and I was unable to locate it to link to it. I do however stand by my assertion that he has mde such a statement. It was made to a Pastor in Arkansa. I did find this article on the matter: Apprising Ministries: OPEN LETTER TO DR. FRANK PAGE AND KENT SHIRLEY

The Emerging Church Movement is in grave error and has a low view of scripture. This very issue is what created the conservative resurgence which began approximately in 1979. It depends heavily on philosphy in place of scripture. It is ecumenical in nature and has no value to the Kingdom of God in any of its forms.
Point well made and taken. I think you're right about Page making that statement about the Emerging Church. I think it's an attempt to help the "young people" feel like they are part in the Convention.

Yes, if this is the road that is taken the SBC will be back to square one, but people like Dr. Mohler at Southern will do their best to keep us on track.
 

lwadkins

Puritan Board Junior
To come out against persecution is fine, but when you sign a document such as this, you open yourself to misunderstanding and to the misuse of the document but the RCC. (Which has happened before.)
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
It is important that we distinguish and understand our terms...

cult = a false 'church' that was never a part of the true church. Examples: Jehovah's Witness, Mormonism

apostate church = a church that was once a true church, but has subsequently fallen away from the true faith. It is no longer a true church (the candlestick having been removed).

While there may be a fine line between these two designations, they are yet very important.

The Roman Catholic church is not a 'cult' because it once was a true church. Since the Council of Trent in the mid 16th Century, it has lost all claim to being a 'true church'. However, it is still a 'church'...but a church that has fallen away (an 'apostate church').

The Jehovah's Witnesses are not even a 'church'. They are a cult.

I am not saying that a Roman Catholic who believes in their church's doctrine is any less lost than a Jehovah's Witness. An apostate church is every bit as lost as a cult, but the proper use of these terms is important because such considerations effect other considerations down the road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top