On the onset it appears to be of the truth as the "C" in SBC stands for Convention. It has no Heirchy.
But from my many different church visits of SBC churches it is mostly true.
The security of the believer could use some work. It lacks reasonings of sound value.
From my experience the SBC security is vague because getting specific means they have to confront thorny issues.
e.g. - "I trust entirely in the blood of Jesus for my salvation."
Jesus's blood cleanses us, but are we to trust the blood that was shed or Jesus who shed it?
Semantics? I don't think so. If we trust the one who shed it, then we need to trust the things he said. Blood is inatimate. Trusting in His blood, per say, distances us to an extent from who Jesus - the Son/Lamb of God, Messiah - was and what he taught. It distances us from the responsibility(ies) God gave us.
Luke 14:28, Luke 13:5, Matthew 7:21 can be neglected when we trust the "blood".
All references in the NT about trusting God/Jesus are exhortations to trust Him
There's not one allusion in the Bible about trusting His "blood".
This is one of several examples of SBC's vagueness when it comes to security.