Statements or Confessions of Faith

I think that many (or some) here think that less specificity is best when it comes down to a particular local church's doctrine.

 

We adhere to an evangelical statement of positions/beliefs held
DO believe that the Bibly in and by itself is FULLY sufficient and authotative, ONLY article that can claim that

Think Creeds/confessions would be similar to say Lutheryn Luthor Catechasms

IF you like to use them and are blessed by them good!

 

Had a pastor explain it this way: it's the Scripture underlying our creed, not the creed itself, that one must "hold to". What's important is whether you believe the Bible verses cited in our creed. Agreement with our creed's interpretation/take on those verses? Not so much.

 

My church has adopted the SBC's Baptist Faith and Message as its doctrinal statement.

It is not a requirement that every member believe everything in its entirety, but it is a good consensus statement of what we do believe.

 

Just curious, do you leave "open" Arm/Cal, or views on Eschatology for conviction/preference issues?

 

I would lay odds that most, if not all, Baptist churches of every type have a statement of faith akin to a confession in their constitution and by-laws while at the same time arguing that they do not hold to statements of faith or confessions.

Such is common practice, even among Baptists, and there is nothing at all wrong with the practice. Our forefathers -- the founders of the movement called "Baptist" had confessions without fail.

I would encourage more Baptists to read these founding documents. They are an education unto themselves.

Here is a place where you can read them:

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/hbd.htm

 

One's position on the Doctrines of Grace is not a test of fellowship. I know of about a half-dozen Calvinists in our congregation, and every one of them is in a position of service.

Every non-Calvinist in our church would eschew the label Arminian.

I don't know how we do it, but we all get alone fine.

One's view on Eschatology is also not a test of fellowship. My pastor is a Dispy; I think most of our members also are. Most of the Calvinists are historical pre-mil; One of our leading women is a mid-Tribber. There may be an A-Mil or two, but I've not heard anyone espouse that view.

It has not always been that way. I can remember a time years ago, when the prevailing view was Pre-mil, Pre-Trib. If you weren't Pre-trib you were considered a liberal, and possibly not saved.

A few years later, our church divided over relocation. We lost a bunch of members. Those of us left were so traumatized that we vowed never to be part of another church fight, unless it was over heresy.

So there a lot of things we simply don't fall out over anymoe.

 

good for you!

NEVER should divide over non essentials of the faith, on areas where its a "in house" debate!
Dividing/seperation should be on debates on essentials on the faith being violated!

 

The ORBs have what we call "Articles of Faith", and that is what we "practice" by....

 

Core doctrines to me are those that ALL christians have just ONE way to view it..

Virgin Birth, Bible, trinity, saved by Cross of Christ alone, faith/grace alone

secondary doctrines would to me like modes of baptism, timing of second coming, if all/part Gifts for today etc!

 

Would say that the core essentials are those doctrines that pretty much have been agreed upon by Christians since basicallt the Great reformation
bible/second coming/Gospel/trinity/Virgin birth/Baptism etc

would also say that IF a group denies especially trinity and the Gospel, by adding works to it, they are NOT a true Christian group/church!

Example would be assemblies of god holds to trinity and gospel, but add tongues and healing but NOT as essentials to gospel, not adding to salvation process...

While those in Jesus only deny trinity and add water baptism and tongues as be essential to gospel, so not a true Chrsitian Church!

 

Just a note to say thanks, I read the thread, and everyone seemed very much on target, with excellent questions. Food for my thought.

 

I would say read Axioms of Religion by E Y Mullins and you'll know why I ignore statesments and confessions of faith.

 

"There are six axioms of religion:

(1)The theological axiom: The holy and loving God has a right to be sovereign.
(2)The religious axiom: All souls have an equal right to direct access to God.
(3)The ecclesiastical axiom: All believers have a right to equal privileges in the church.
(4)The moral axiom: To be responsible, man must be free.
(5)The religio-civic axiom: A free church in a free state.
(6)The social axiom: Love your neighbor as yourself.

There is also a fundamental principle that unites the six axioms: soul competency under God. Mullins claims that the six axioms along with the concept of soul competency “express the truths and ideals which lie at the heart of all man’s higher strivings today.”

I think several of these reflect the common beliefs of all Baptists, one, two, five and six.
However, based on the assertions of many posters on this board, we are divided on three, four and the concept of soul competency.

Many Calvinists have posted that since I am uneducated in the Greek language of the New Testament, I should be denied the privilege of expressing my opinion about the efficacy of translation by experts. While one of the drivers of the reformation was doing away with the special class of privileged experts, that dark ages mentality seems alive and well on today's discussion board.

Similarly, Calvinists would quietly disagree with axiom number 4, by saying they agree, but then defining free as free to do wrong only but not free to choose to trust in God, makes men "free" and therefore responsible for doing wrong. Fiddlesticks.

And finally Calvinists claim souls are incompetent to exercise some spiritual ability unless altered by irresistible grace.

 

Van, I (a Calvinist of sorts) and John of Japan (decidedly a non-Calvinist) both took you apart in another thread concerning your translation concerns simply because while we can have "soul competency" before God, including our access to the Father without the need or use of a priest, that does not automatically give us either wisdom or education enough to do translation work at a high level.

You can continue in this vein all you like, but it will never get you anywhere.

And, at the end of the day -- as I have said before -- the main reason that you have issues with TRANSLATORS is because you disagree with their TRANSLATION. And that is because you have made up your mind that your own personal theology is the only correct position. So, you pound the board over and again in search of someone (anyone) who will agree with you concerning translation and you find no one. That will not change, unless you can convert some disciples to your own position, and at that point you will be well on your way to founding your own personal cult. :BangHead: