Normally I would agree but recently I have been doing some research on the doctrine of original sin. In tracing this doctrine backwards I find a great many people who do not believe in original sin do not believe in the virgin birth and do not believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures. It is interesting to me how subtle these theological heresies can be for many good Christians on this site have argued against original sin. I wonder if they would be so willing to argue against the virgin birth and the inerrancy of the word of God.
I've always been told there are many ways to interpret the scriptures and that each verse has multiple meanings. I believe, while there may be a tiny amount of truth to this, this premise is basically wrong. There is only one basic interpretation of scripture. I don't see the issue so much as Calvin vs Arminian as much as I see it as what is the correct.
If the non-Calvinistic Baptist theology prevails then I think the author is absolutely correct. Baptist theology will become indistinguishable from liberal theology because theology will be based upon feelings and emotions, not solid theology. Where the Calvinist churches have failed in adhering to Calvinistic doctrine, heresy has slipped in and corrupted the church. And look at the mess non-Calvinist churches are in today (yes, that includes the RCC). Do you honestly think Baptist churches will be any different once they abandon their Reformed views?
That is tough to contemplate, for I love the Southern Baptist Church. I'm raising my kids in it, and never want to leave.
The book I shared with you is quite blatant. Dr. North claims that evangelicalism (that is, an insistence of experientialism over doctrine and covenant) is nothing more than a waystation between Calvinism and outright liberal heresy.
I think Dr. North takes it to an extreme that I probably wouldn't. He finds fault with those who would ask to hear of someone's Christian conversion to determine churhc membership, and I think in most cases that this is a good idea.