question about bfm 2000 afirmation

[nodak]

Friends move and you learn of folks facing the oddest things.

Would you automatically affirm BFM2000 to join a church? If the church was required to affirm it by local or state association to be in good standing?

Don't assume they disagree with it. One might disagree, the other just doesn't accept the whole creedal idea, and figures being forced to affirm it for membership is being forced to affirm a creed. Not that he disagrees with it at all, just with the idea of forced to affirm for membership.

What would you do? What would you say if asked by them?

 

[Zenas]

Friends move and you learn of folks facing the oddest things.

Would you automatically affirm BFM2000 to join a church? If the church was required to affirm it by local or state association to be in good standing?

Don't assume they disagree with it. One might disagree, the other just doesn't accept the whole creedal idea, and figures being forced to affirm it for membership is being forced to affirm a creed. Not that he disagrees with it at all, just with the idea of forced to affirm for membership.

What would you do? What would you say if asked by them?

Friends move and you learn of folks facing the oddest things.

Would you automatically affirm BFM2000 to join a church? If the church was required to affirm it by local or state association to be in good standing?

Don't assume they disagree with it. One might disagree, the other just doesn't accept the whole creedal idea, and figures being forced to affirm it for membership is being forced to affirm a creed. Not that he disagrees with it at all, just with the idea of forced to affirm for membership.

What would you do? What would you say if asked by them?

Since your friend seems to agree with the BF&M 2000, it would seem this thread is about creeds or statements of faith (herein “creeds”). Creeds are useful inasmuch as they condense into a readable document the beliefs of the Christian community. If I want know what a church believes I will look for its creed.

Your friend sounds like one of those Baptists who say, “I have no creed but the Bible.” This is essentially a non sequitur because the denial of any creed is itself a creed. Furthermore, one must wonder what such a statement means. All Christian sects and denominations embrace the Bible, although their beliefs vary widely.

That being said, any hesitance to subscribe to a creed you agree with is silly. Of course this person is entitled to his opinion (just as the church he seeks to join is entitled to its opinion) and if it is a big thing to him, he should look for another church.

The most interesting and surprising thing about your post is the suggestion that there is a local and state association somewhere that requires affirming the BF&M for a church to be in good standing.

 

[Baptist Believer]

What would you do? What would you say if asked by them?

I both disagree with the BFM2000 AND disagree with it being used as a creed, a test of fellowship.

I would not affirm it even if I agreed with it if it were used in that manner.

 

[Zenas]

I both disagree with the BFM2000 AND disagree with it being used as a creed, a test of fellowship.

I would not affirm it even if I agreed with it if it were used in that manner.

Why not?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Why not?

Long story on why I disagree with the BFM2000. There are a number of areas where it draws the lines too tightly and has removed things that were quite good about the BFM1963.

As far as using the statement as a creed, the BFM2000 is nowhere close to being a solid statement of faith - a summary of the main message of scripture - and I don't think documents outside of scripture should be used as a test of fellowship.

 

[nodak]

If I could figure out how to edit I would correct spelling on thread title.

I have no idea what these folks have encountered, but can say I've seen local and state associations say they affirm bfm2000. Maybe friends are misreading that as a requirement?

I've seen affirming it at least once in a church covenant new members were expected to sign before being granted membership.

 

[go2church]

No on two fronts. I couldn't affirm the 2000 BF&M and I wouldn't use a "what we do believe" confession, which is hardly detailed enough to be used as a "what you must believe" creed.

 

[Salty]

I wouldn't use a "what we do believe" confession, which is hardly detailed enough to be used as a "what you must believe" creed.

WHY NOT?

 

[Revmitchell]

I would not go to a church that did not affirm it.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Then I guess you don't want to attend any of the good churches which come out of the Northern Baptist tradition (e.g. churches affiliated with the GARBC or the FBFI).

I would not go to a church that did not affirm it.

 

[Salty]

I cant speak fro Rev Mitchell -, but I think he meant joining a SBC church.
That would be my stand -(affriming the 2000 BFM)
we currently have a church in our association that affirms to the 1963 BFM.

I would have no problem - joining a non SBC - if I agreed with their articles of Faith.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I cant speak fro Rev Mitchell -, but I think he meant joining a SBC church.
That would be my stand -(affriming the 2000 BFM)

So the issue is not really about theology, it's about walking lock-step with the rest of the SBC.

we currently have a church in our association that affirms to the 1963 BFM.

The horror!! I certainly hope you were not a member of an SBC church in the 20th century!

I would have no problem - joining a non SBC - if I agreed with their articles of Faith.

So what do you disagree with in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message?

 

[Jerome]

The most interesting and surprising thing about your post is the suggestion that there is a local and state association somewhere that requires affirming the BF&M for a church to be in good standing.

The dissident state convention in Texas does:
http://sbtexas.com/am-site/media/sbtc-constitution-and-bylaws.pdf

...Article III. Doctrinal Statement. The Baptist Faith and Message, adopted in 2000 by the Southern Baptist Convention, shall be the doctrinal statement for the Convention.
Article IV. Affiliation. Section 1 Affiliation Qualifications. The Convention will only allow a church to affiliate if the church: (a) Affirms the doctrinal statement of the Convention...

 

[Revmitchell]

So the issue is not really about theology, it's about walking lock-step with the rest of the SBC.

Do you really believe that is the only option? I think you are smarter than that.

 

[Salty]

So the issue is not really about theology, it's about walking lock-step with the rest of the SBC.

Evidently you are not SBC

The horror!! I certainly hope you were not a member of an SBC church in the 20th century!

My first SBC was in 1972. Things have changed since 1963

So what do you disagree with in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message?[/QUOTE] Nothing - the 2000 has added so new things.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I can't speak for Rev Mitchell, but I think he meant joining a SBC church. SNIP

That very well maybe. However, what he said

I would not go to a church that did not affirm it.

is a blanket statement that is a slap in the faces of good non-SBC Baptist churches. Contrary to the beliefs of some, the SBC is not the mother ship of Baptists in America.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Do you really believe that is the only option? I think you are smarter than that.

Of course not, but it is clear that Salty would not attend an SBC church that does not affirm the 2000 BF&M, but is open to other Baptist denominational viewpoints as long as they are not SBC.

It seems - unless I have misunderstood - that it the church is SBC, it MUST affirm the 2000 BF&M or he will not attend. A church that affirms the 1963 BF&M and not the 2000 BF&M is apparently out of the question.

That points to an issue of conformity to current doctrinal statements issued by the SBC, not just a matter of theology.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Evidently you are not SBC

I don't claim it, but my church is technically a member of the SBC because of our missions funding goes through the Cooperative Program.

I grew up in the SBC and considered myself in the SBC under 2000.

My first SBC was in 1972.

1965 for me.

Things have changed since 1963

Nothing stays the same except the call of the gospel and the fundamentals of the faith.

Nothing - the 2000 has added so new things.

So why is the 1963 BF&M not acceptable?

 

[Baptist Believer]

The dissident state convention in Texas does:
http://sbtexas.com/am-site/media/sbtc-constitution-and-bylaws.pdf

Yep. If you are going to be a member of the Southern Baptists of Texas, you must (1) affirm the BF&M 2000, (2) play by the rules of the Convention, (3) be in friendly cooperation with the Convention's work, (4) not allow women to be pastors (don't know if that extends below the "senior" pastor), (5) be opposed to homosexual practice in word and action (with lots of interpretive leeway for the Convention to act against you), (6) and not question or act contrary to the leadership's interpretation of the BF&M 2000 - which if interpreted according to the plain language, would prohibit any suggestions rethinking any aspect of the document.

The BF&M 2000 has essentially been declared without error and above critique, regardless if the Bible may teach differently. Simply put, they are using it as a creed.

I sincerely doubt many other state conventions have tied their churches this closely to a manmade statement.

 

[TCassidy]

I sincerely doubt many other state conventions have tied their churches this closely to a manmade statement.

Don't forget the vast majority of Texas Baptists belong to churches affiliated with the 2.7-million-member Baptist General Convention of Texas. The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention was only 150 break-away churches (now grown to about 1700 but many of those have dual affiliation with BGCT) while the Baptist General Convention of Texas represents 5,700 affiliated congregations.

The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention broke away from the Baptist General Convention of Texas in 1998 largely due to the Baptist General Convention of Texas' continued cooperation with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which was organized in 1991, largely due to the conservative resurgence in the SBC, and represented what they self-identify as "moderates" while the more conservative Southern Baptists of Texas Convention refers to them as "liberals."