Featured Is the SBC really Baptist?

Regardless of claims by some, the SBC remains a confessional people. Seminaries aren't the church. What matters in terms of so-called creedalism, is how individual churches and their laity are seen under such confessional statements.

No church is bound to sign the BFM in order to be part of the SBC. No church is bound to adhere to the current copy of the BFM in order to be part of the SBC.

This is a foolish objection. Liberty has always forbidden its students from imbiding and they're almost always recognized as Baptist. Also (and this isn't a hard list to come by) almost all Fundamentalist Baptist schools do the same thing. Since the earliest days of the Convention and the seminaries this prohibition has been in place. It isn't ceedalism. There is nothing about alcohol in the official denominational confession.

Again seminaries aren't churches. There is no way the SBC can ever make a rule binding all churches and laity to this standard. It isn't a violation of Baptist beliefs.

I'm not convinced, historically, that soul liberty is a baptist distinctive.

Well first of all its properly understood as "priesthood of all believers" and it means we have access to ask forgiveness from God, receive forgiveness from God, and have access to God without a priestly system interceding for us. Your description is actually more along the lines of Soul Liberty than Priesthood of all Believers.

I don't know anyone who is SBC and doesn't agree with the proper definition of Preisthood of all believers.

I've never seen a reversion clause and challenge them. That said notice this: the SBC doesn't not mandate such clauses.

Also, there are some funny little things going on in relation to autonomy in the SBC but that is almost always from the church side to the convention. I stated in that thread and never got an answer to see exact instances of the national convention/administration requiring such things and never got any evidence either way.

Religious liberty is a convictional position of most Baptists. Some in the SBC are getting way too close to politics and desire an almost theocratic rule of the US. This is foolish and they need to fired (Richard Land.) However, the official confessional position of the convention is seeking out religious liberty through appropriate separation of church and state.

Our church is a Baptist church and we give to the SBC through a designated portion of our budget which goes to the Cooperative Program. We don't use any Lifeway curriculum with regularity and have very little to do with the actual convention. The SBC passed a resolution on the NIV 2011 this past year...we went the following week and purchased 500 copies for give aways at some missions projects. In the past we routinely disregard the resolutions of the convention because they are pointless, non-binding, and pointless.

You cannot, you simply cannot say the Southern Baptist Convention (or soon to be Great Commission Baptists...oy vey) isn't Baptist. That is an ignorant claim. The Southern Baptist Convention still affirms the essentials of Baptist polity, belief, and theology as historically understood since First and Second London Baptist Confessions.

It is ridiculous to try to suggest the SBC isn't Baptist after reading the confessional statement of the convention. The claims about creedalism are pointless, they don't deal with churches and individual laity, and we have a big problem with soul liberty these days.

Anyways...this is a good thread I'm glad you started it.

 

This misunderstands the word: creedal.

 

Please elaborate. I don't follow.

 

Here's my thoughts, probably not worth a plug nickel but I'll own up to them:

1. When individual churches insist prospective members assent to the BFM, or when state conventions insist member churches assent to it, or when we use it as a basis to hire and fire folks, it has moved from descriptive to prescriptive, is a creed, and hence is unbaptistic for folks who used to have no creed but the Bible.

2. It never was "the priesthood of all believers" to the SBC. That is myth, with roots in other Baptist groups and confessions. For SOUTHERN Baptists it was "the priesthood of THE believer", also known as soul competency. Had it been priesthood of all believers it would have had to have been souls competency. We were not anabaptist, voting to decide the truth. We were not popish, with excathedra pronouncements, and we weren't into hierarchy, with a few leaders making decisions based on "scripture, tradition, reason, and experience." At the very least we are unSouthernbaptistic.

3. Reversion clauses make sense when the larger denomination "owns" the franchise, the building, or makes loans for its purpose. Southern Baptists used to hold to local church autonomy, so if a local SBC church voted to become Methodist or independent or whatever, it would have been nobody's business but their own. Reversion clauses are unbaptistic.

It is easy to say the complaints about the SBC become the new catholic church of the south are sour grapes. It is easy to try revisionist history, but some of us oldies were there and aren't buying it.

I will concede we can point to some gross stupidity going on pre CR, and we can all point to some things that the CR improved.

But we seem to be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

My question to those in total support of the CR and the BFM2000 is this:

What will you do when the parameters finally narrow enough to exclude you?

What will you do when it is amended yet again to a creation theory with which you strongly disagree, or to an end times scenario you believe unBiblical, or when either the Calvinists are tossed or the nonCals are tossed? What if how YOU pray in silent privacy becomes a hot topic? What if they change and decide women should be ordained, and men are not to be the leaders in the home?

Will you gladly bend your beliefs to what a handful of old men decide, compounded by the relatively small number of delegates (convention vs delegate numbers) if the liberals decide to play dirty pool and take over?

There was a time when our distinctive mark was that we expected each person, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, to read and digest the Bible.

It produced remarkably similar results.

Today we tell you to close your Bible and believe what we tell you is right. It may be that we ARE right, but unless you get that straight from God you will never know.

And you will be vulnerable to the next shaman or antichrist that comes along.

Jesus didn't defeat Satan with the words of the rabbis or priests.

He defeated him with the Word of God.

Shame on us if we teach you to do less.

 

I wasn't accusing you of carpet bombing anything. I am sorry if I came off accusatory towards you. I used that analogy, perhaps poorly, to point out that my statement was not aimed at all things SBC. This is a seminary thing and really has little to do with the local autonomous church other than filter who teaches pastors and other seminary students.

Also, I am not necessarily passing judgment on whether it is good or bad. I am a layperson who has never attended any seminary. I am hearing this from friends who have graduated from or who are attending SWBTS so I could be mistaken, but I have heard and read that some SWBTS professors who otherwise agree with the BFM refused to sign on principle and had to leave. Maybe I was misinformed but one of the objections was this new requirement looks and smells like a slip toward “creedalism” (if that is even a word).

 

I don't see anything inherently wrong with creeds especially as I understand their historic context in a largely illiterate society. I understand that creeds should never be allowed to usurp scripture. Creeds are non-inspired works but they have a practical use. And I would argue that the difference in the BFM and historic creeds is granularity or detail and how we chose to use them. The BFM would be hard to recite in the context of corporate worship so it is best left as a confession.

 

Thank you.

I don't believe Herschel Hobbs and E.Y. Mullins could be Southern Baptists today.

 

Its hard to say I agree with all the above simply because some of it was posed as a question. That said, I basically agree with all you just said. Frankly, I do not understand the objection to creeds if used within a proper context.

 

The best way to gain such an understanding if to read histories of the early Baptists in Europe.

 

Excellent post -- spot on!

 

Some don't seem to get it that conservative SBCers don't necessarily disagree with the positions taken in the BFM2000, but with its misuse.

And some don't seem to get it that even those that agree with it in totallily, and who agree with how it is being used, disagree with teaching new believers that they need to assent to it right away, rather than teaching them they need to hold to the Scripture.

After all, if everything in the BFM2000 is accurate and correct, there is nothing to fear if we just hand folks a Bible and say "this is what we believe."

I agree that I am far more concerned with Lifeway than with the BFM2000.

And let's be more honest in our terms. We did have some flaming liberals in the SBC (by by ya'll and good riddance.) We had some true moderates (sad to see you go.) We had a great many conservatives (I'm one.) But we did not have a conservative resurgence. We had a fundamentalist takeover.

 

But, getting back to the OP, how is the SBC not Baptist?

Some of us might not like the SBC as an organization, but nobody here has shown anything close to reasonable criticism about whether it is or isn't Baptist.

Going back to historical Baptist distinctive, how does the SBC as a whole entity deny: believer's baptism, autonomy of the local church, priesthood of the believer, two ordinances (baptism, Lord's Supper), inspiration of the Bible, separation of church and state, two offices (deacon and pastor)?

 

Well, for starters, the BFM2000 holds to the "baptism of believers" rather than the "baptism of THE believer."

 

JonC, what is your church's 'actual doctrine'?
Do you have a statement of faith other than the BF&M?

 

Our church adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as its doctrinal statement. It leaves plenty of room for varying views on eschatology and ecclesiology.

Swearing allegiance to the BF&M is not a condition of membership in our church. It says to all who come our way, "this is what we believe. If you want to join us here, you need to know this."

It is what will be preached from the pulpit. It is what will be taught by our teachers. You may disagree with part of it, but you may not teach contrary to the BF & M.

One may say our church is imposing a creed. You bet your life. A creed is nothing more than a statement of what we believe. Those who have positions of leadership and responsibility must speak from the same script on those essential issues.

So you don't agree with some things? You don't want to subscribe to them? Fine, you don't have to. You can still fellowship with us, but you can't preach, teach, be a deacon or worship leader.

Were you sprinkled in another denomination? Fine. But if you want to join our church, we'll have to dunk you.

I am a trustee at Mid-Continent University in nearby Mayfield, Kentucky. Our by-laws cite the BF&M as the doctrinal guide for this Baptist school. Our trustees must agree to it; our theology professors must agree to it; our administrators must agree to it.

We do have a non-Baptist or two in our College of Arts and Sciences. But they are evangelical, and must agree not to teach contrary to the BF&M. So far, no problems.

Call it doctrinal statement, call it a confessional statement, call it a creed, call it what you want to.

I don't know about all SBC seminaries, but Southern Seminary requires its folks to sign a doctrinal statement called the Abstract of Principals. You Southern grads can talk more about that. Don't wanna sign it? No problem. No job.

Back before the Conservative Resurgence, everybody signed the A of P, but not all agreed with it. I think some called it a "mental reservation." I call it lying.