Do the brothers on this forum attend churches that adhere to a Statement of Faith, whether the 1689 Confession or something else? Or do you believe that simply stating "We believe the Bible" is sufficient?
Steve
Steve
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Statements or Confessions of Faith
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
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.
Tom Butler
New Member
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.
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?
Martin Response
My church has adopted the "Abstract of Principles" compiled / written by Basil Manly, Jr, one of the "Founding Four" of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary circa 1858 / 1859. In contains sections, editions, and remnants of the 2nd London Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, and the New Hampshire confession.
Strong Calvinistic Soteriological belief, short on "End Times" Eschatological beliefs in detail.
Good confession. It was the first "written down" confession for the SBC if memory serves.
"That is all!" :thumbs:
My church has adopted the "Abstract of Principles" compiled / written by Basil Manly, Jr, one of the "Founding Four" of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary circa 1858 / 1859. In contains sections, editions, and remnants of the 2nd London Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, and the New Hampshire confession.
Strong Calvinistic Soteriological belief, short on "End Times" Eschatological beliefs in detail.
Good confession. It was the first "written down" confession for the SBC if memory serves.
"That is all!" :thumbs:
I'm sorry not to have come back a little soner on his thread, since I started it, but work and other stuff caught up with me.
I was converted in a church that had come out of the Brethren Movement, and its position was that it just followed the Bible. At the time I was saved it was a faithful church in the 'no-name theology' corner. But over the years people have come in and brought various teachings and I could no longer say that it was faithful to the Gospel.
In Britain, many baptist churches have come out of the Baptist Union (the one that Spurgeon left) because of its liberalism. Some have become Grace Baptist churches, following the 1689 Baptist Confession and others (like my church) have joined the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches which has its own Statement of faith
http://www.fiec.org.uk/AboutUs/Beliefs/tabid/509/Default.aspx
Every minister and Officer of every FIEC church has to declare every year that he is still committed to this Statement. I personally am a fan of the 1689 Confession, which is somewhatt fuller and more clearly Calvinist, but my church is the only one in my town where the Gospel is being preached and I can go quite happily with the FIEC Statement.
The point is that it is not enough to declare, "I just believe the Bible." Unitarians, J.W.s and Word-Faith folk say that. The question is, what do you believe the Bible teaches? There needs to be agreement on that to ensure that a church remains faithful.
This is what Spurgeon wrote when he republished the 1689 Confession in 1855 and adopted it at the Met tab:-
Steve
I was converted in a church that had come out of the Brethren Movement, and its position was that it just followed the Bible. At the time I was saved it was a faithful church in the 'no-name theology' corner. But over the years people have come in and brought various teachings and I could no longer say that it was faithful to the Gospel.
In Britain, many baptist churches have come out of the Baptist Union (the one that Spurgeon left) because of its liberalism. Some have become Grace Baptist churches, following the 1689 Baptist Confession and others (like my church) have joined the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches which has its own Statement of faith
http://www.fiec.org.uk/AboutUs/Beliefs/tabid/509/Default.aspx
Every minister and Officer of every FIEC church has to declare every year that he is still committed to this Statement. I personally am a fan of the 1689 Confession, which is somewhatt fuller and more clearly Calvinist, but my church is the only one in my town where the Gospel is being preached and I can go quite happily with the FIEC Statement.
The point is that it is not enough to declare, "I just believe the Bible." Unitarians, J.W.s and Word-Faith folk say that. The question is, what do you believe the Bible teaches? There needs to be agreement on that to ensure that a church remains faithful.
This is what Spurgeon wrote when he republished the 1689 Confession in 1855 and adopted it at the Met tab:-
Steve
glfredrick
New Member
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
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
Tom Butler
New Member
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!
convicted1
Guest
The ORBs have what we call "Articles of Faith", and that is what we "practice" by....
True, but who determines what a "non-essential" doctrine is? For example, I could attend a KJO church (and take only my KJV), but a KJO, just could not be involved in a non-KJO church.
In addition, how many member actually know what their church doctrine statement actually says? and means?
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!
FAL - Basically I agree with you
(yes, there is a but coming! :laugh
But - Catholics believe in additional books of the Bible, Some groups do not believe in the Trinity, Church of Christ among others believe in Baptismal regeneration, - as far as gifts - some believe if you do not speak in tongues, you are not truly saved.
So would these folks be on their way to Heaven - even if they do not believe in these core doctrines?
In addition - mode of baptism- I could attend a Methodist church or some similar church and fellowship with them - however, if a person was not immersed they would not be permitted to join our church; though they would be more than welcome to attend and fellowship with us.
And once again, I say - who determines what the core doctrines are? Not being argumentative - as I do agree with those you listed as core doctrine and secondary
FAL - Basically I agree with you
(yes, there is a but coming! :laugh
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!
"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.
(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.
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
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:
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: