BF&M 2000 vs 1963

[Salty]

You really didn't deserve that much of an answer, but you needed correction. As for the rest of it, find out yourself.

Actually, I personally know the man who wrote the acrostic - evidently you do not

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Actually, I personally know the man who wrote the acrostic - evidently you do not

Good for you. Then I won't have to tell you after all.

 

[Salty]

Good for you. Then I won't have to tell you after all.

That would be hard since you don't know anyways

But the important question is who determines what the basic beliefs are. The acrostic does not list all doctrine of Baptists.

And in case you don't realize it - the BF&M is for Southern Baptists - and even at that a local independent Baptist church is not required to accept it -not even the 2000.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of elder led churches (as opposed to congregational rule) and the fact that many churches do not see deacons as officers of the church. So are we or are we NOT truly a Baptist?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

That would be hard since you don't know anyways

But the important question is who determines what the basic beliefs are. The acrostic does not list all doctrine of Baptists.

And in case you don't realize it - the BF&M is for Southern Baptists - and even at that a local independent Baptist church is not required to accept it -not even the 2000.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of elder led churches (as opposed to congregational rule) and the fact that many churches do not see deacons as officers of the church. So are we or are we NOT truly a Baptist?

Oh, I know all right. But considering the manner of your posts, I pick and choose what to answer.