BF&M 2000 vs 1963

[Salty]

In another thread Thomas stated "BF&M 2000 which abandons historic Baptist principles, including those affirmed in the BF&M 1963."


Tom, exactly what historic principles were abandoned in the BFM 2000?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

In another thread Thomas stated "BF&M 2000 which abandons historic Baptist principles, including those affirmed in the BF&M 1963."


Tom, exactly what historic principles were abandoned in the BFM 2000?

Here is a comparison of the two with statements by Texas Baptists; I will post two links in case one doesn't work; these are converted from pdf files. The commentary is in the far right column:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html...ists.org/files/2010/08/bfmcomp.pdf&images=yes


http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html...w.texasbaptists.org/files/2010/08/bfmcomp.pdf

 

[Salty]

I am pretty sure, I could have found both editions

How about you telling us specifically what you don't like about the 2000 BF&M?

 

[Salty]

The ones with misguided thoughts are the ones who came up with the BF&M 2000 creed, and its supporters.

I will never go to a church that affirms this new Baptist creed. It is just as bad as liberalism, only at the opposite extreme.

First, are you even Southern Baptist?
Second, if you are - you do realize that a local independent church is not obliged to follow - of course you know that, since some of the CC churches use the outdated 1963.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am pretty sure, I could have found both editions

How about you telling us specifically what you don't like about the 2000 BF&M?

All of the objections raised in that commentary describe what I don't like about the 2000 version.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

First, are you even Southern Baptist?
Second, if you are - you do realize that a local independent church is not obliged to follow - of course you know that, since some of the CC churches use the outdated 1963.

Used to be Southern Baptist, now I'm independent Baptist (not independent fundamental Baptist).

Yes, I know a local SBC church is not obligated to follow it, but most obviously do, or do have evidence otherwise? Since it was approved by messengers from local churches, one would assume that the churches which sent the messengers approve of the statement.

 

[Salty]

Used to be Southern Baptist, now I'm independent Baptist (not independent fundamental Baptist).

I am currently SBC and independent -!!!

All of the objections raised in that commentary describe what I don't like about the 2000 version.

Are you afraid to give us specifics?

 

[Yeshua1]

First, are you even Southern Baptist?
Second, if you are - you do realize that a local independent church is not obliged to follow - of course you know that, since some of the CC churches use the outdated 1963.

NOT a Sbc, but didn't the new one seem to affirm that we are sinners NOT in sight of God due to original Sin, but more like when we make the choice to sin?

And that it was wriiten in a way to make it seem pro Arminian, instead of 'neutral?"

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am currently SBC and independent -!!!



Are you afraid to give us specifics?

I am afraid of nothing.

It seems easier for people to read the commentary, and then they will know what my objections are instead of my having to list them.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

NOT a Sbc, but didn't the new one seem to affirm that we are sinners NOT in sight of God due to original Sin, but more like when we make the choice to sin?

And that it was wriiten in a way to make it seem pro Arminian, instead of 'neutral?"

No..............

 

[Yeshua1]

No..............

why was there such a big response then to the new wording it seemed in SBC circles?

 

[12strings]

Used to be Southern Baptist, now I'm independent Baptist (not independent fundamental Baptist).

Yes, I know a local SBC church is not obligated to follow it, but most obviously do, or do have evidence otherwise? Since it was approved by messengers from local churches, one would assume that the churches which sent the messengers approve of the statement.

This summarizes why some have objected to the 2000 BF&M:

For the first time the Baptist Faith and Message held itself out be an "instrument of doctrinal accountability." The creedal nature and intent of this change is manifest in recent events. Since its adoption, many staff members of Southern Baptist institutions have been required either to sign/affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message or to forfeit their positions.

My question for Thomas, and others who object to this...is:

Is it the fact that there is ANY doctrinal agreement required for SBC employment for Seminary professors, missionaries, etc...or is it that the BF&M is much to detailed to function that way, and contains things you believe to not be essential to baptist identity, and if they were only required to affirm a much smaller, more basic doctinal statement (apostle's creed, for example)...you would have no problem with that?

 

[12strings]

Other major issues the article has in disagreement with the 2000:

-1963 says the bible is "the record of" God's revelation. 2000 says it "IS God's revelation. (author doesn't like this, and says it elevates the bible above Christ...which I think is an exageration).

-2000 adds the word "substitutionary" to the section about Jesus' death on the cross. (author doesn't like the focused emphasis on this aspect to the neglect of the others)

-2000 has specifics about Pastors being men, and about wifely submission in the home. (author thinks this should be a local church/family decision).

ALSO...2000 adds language emphasising God's perfect knowledge of past, present and future (no doubt in response to rising open theism)...but the author of this article has no comments on that section.

 

[12strings]

ALSO, THE POLL IS FLAWED...

In most circles...it is the 2000 that is viewed by some to be too CONSERVATIVE (too restrictive) ...and the 1963 that is viewed by some to be too LIBERAL.

 

[Salty]

I am afraid of nothing.

It seems easier for people to read the commentary, and then they will know what my objections are instead of my having to list them.

So you are saying you agree with EVERY objection?

 

[Yeshua1]

Other major issues the article has in disagreement with the 2000:

-1963 says the bible is "the record of" God's revelation. 2000 says it "IS God's revelation. (author doesn't like this, and says it elevates the bible above Christ...which I think is an exageration).

-2000 adds the word "substitutionary" to the section about Jesus' death on the cross. (author doesn't like the focused emphasis on this aspect to the neglect of the others)

-2000 has specifics about Pastors being men, and about wifely submission in the home. (author thinks this should be a local church/family decision).

ALSO...2000 adds language emphasising God's perfect knowledge of past, present and future (no doubt in response to rising open theism)...but the author of this article has no comments on that section.

Well, based upon tht...

Would stick with the 2000 editions, read more biblcally correct!

 

[12strings]

Well, based upon that...

Would stick with the 2000 editions, read more biblical correct!

Not exactly...at least in the examples I've given, The 1963 says nothing incorrect biblically about Jesus' death, female pastors, or husband-wife relationships...it simply says less, or nothing at all.

On the issue of the bible being "the record of God's revelation." Or simply "God's revelation...either phrase could be taken and defined in a way that could either be entirely fine, or twisted in a way that could be described as incorrect...but I'm fine with either phrase...if a non-Christian asked me if I believed the bible was God's revelation, I would say yes...if they asked me if it was the record of God's revelation, I would say yes.

 

[go2church]

The 2000 changes overreach. The article on scripture is a disaster, the article on women in ministry should be an issue left up to each church. The preamble is changed as well. Instead of being a document of what we do believe it has become a document of what you must believe. Some are fine with this, but it i am not.

 

[12strings]

The 2000 changes overreach. The article on scripture is a disaster, the article on women in ministry should be an issue left up to each church. The preamble is changed as well. Instead of being a document of what we do believe it has become a document of what you must believe. Some are fine with this, but it i am not.

So what's your answer to this question I previously asked:

Is it the fact that there is ANY doctrinal agreement required for SBC employment for Seminary professors, missionaries, etc...or is it that the BF&M is much to detailed to function that way, and contains things you believe to not be essential to baptist identity, and if they were only required to affirm a much smaller, more basic doctrinal statement (apostle's creed, for example)...you would have no problem with that?

 

[go2church]

The 2000 is now used as a creed, except at Southern Seminary. I would take the approach of finding out what one believes and then determine if take will work. There is room for differences.

Soul freedom, bible freedom, church freedom and religious freedom for me would be essential for someone to affirm.

Also, record of revelation to me is way different then just revelation. Jesus is the revelation, the bible is the record of God revealing himself. To me this is a huge difference.