IMB BF&M2000 issues etc.

I'm actually in agreement with my more conservative colleagues here. I think the "no creed but the Bible" rhetoric is a smokescreen for "we don't believe in this creed but don't want to admit it."

"Moderates" in Southern Baptists life have gotten so accustomed to dissembling and misdirecting on theological issues that they simply can't give straight answers any more. It is a tough issue for the missionaries since they were hired under one belief system and are now trying to serve in another. Nevertheless, institutions have a right to set boundaries.

Joshua

 

Josh, the odds finally caught up to us. We agree on something.

Tell me this Josh, with all the avoiding of terminology and ducking of issues that the "moderates" do, why do you still associate with so many of them?

 

Daniel,

I'm a liberal. I don't spend a lot of time in "moderate" circles. I certainly don't spend any time in "moderate" Southern Baptist ones.

I do have friends who still have some hope for the CBF; but most of the baptists I spend my time with are in the Alliance.

Joshua

 

It's not two different belief systems, it's the same one, SB's have not change what they beleive. It was only expanded to show where the beliefs of the SBC are on some topics that have become questionable. And it shows in the reply of the missionaries who would not sign, wife is in charge making the statement her husband should have, obviously they disagree with the bible saying the husband is the head of her home.

 

Katie, the beliefs of the people in charge of the institutions are radically different than what they were fifteen years ago. I think everyone, regardless of their stripe, believes that.

Joshua

 

Soul freedom is the right to believe whatever you want, even if is not biblical. Don't get this confused with Priesthood of the believer which is the right of the believer to respond God as they are directed by scripture and the Holy Spirit. Can there a deep end which many can fall into in, sure but just because there is the potential for abuse doesn't mean these are valuable to Baptists.

 

"Autonomy of the Individual" - Arminianism.

 

"Sovereignty of the Individual" - Open Theism.

 

"Sovereignty of the Individual" - Open Theism (Arminianism taken to its logical conclusion).

 

There’s half a truth in your statement…

WHAT YOU DID NOT SAY: The “no creed but the Bible” affirmation is a reaction against using anyBaptist Faith and Message as an “instrument of doctrinal accountability”. Southern Baptists started getting themselves into trouble when seminary presidents asked professors to sign the old Baptist Faith and Message statements. (A creed is an “instrument of doctrinal accountability” while a confession is an expression of doctrine that is believed by an individual or group. A creed is directed inwardly to enforce certain theological positions while a confession is directed outwardly to tell others what we believe – certainly creeds can also be used by outsiders to understand our faith and confessions are often used for teaching by the churches, but that does not negate the primary force of each type of statement.)

WHAT YOU DID SAY THAT WAS CORRECT: Moderates who use that statement don’t agree with the way the “confession” (the 2000 BF&M) is being used (as a creed) AND many moderates believe the statement is fundamentally theologically flawed.

As far as a “smokescreen” goes, I think most moderates have been trying to clear the air from all of the false accusations that come from both sides. I get really tired of hearing about how “moderates” are allegedly trying to blow smoke about what they really believe. I (and most other Texas Baptists) have been very explicit about where we stand on issues and make no bones about where we agree and disagree with others.

Yeah, whatever gets you through the night…

Joshua, you’re losing an enormous amount of credibility with this blanket allegation of insincerity and dishonesty.

They do.

If the SBC wants to embrace an unbiblical creed, then that’s their business. But don’t expect me to stand by and not warn people about it.

 

"Sovereignty of the Individual" - Open Theism. </font>[/QUOTE]That's a flawed definition. Open theists do not believe that the individual is sovereign.

 

BB,

I have long ago admitted that baptist life in Texas is an entirely different system from urban, East Coast baptist life. The fundamentalist-"moderate" fight in Texas seems to me to be much more about politics than theology. Most "moderate" Texas baptists would probably be called fundamentalists anywhere else.

Nevertheless, in the larger baptist world - particularly in the seminaries - I've observed a deeply ingrained habit of people never admitting what they really believe. Kirby Godsey gets an obvious exception here - but baptist leaders from all sides pounced on him when he talked honestly about what we teach in mainstream seminaries.

As for the Creed versus Statement of Faith issue, if I'm not mistaken employees of Southern Baptist agencies were always expected to serve within the context of the prevailing Faith and Message. For instance, if a gay baptist couple came to the FMB in 1974 and asked to serve, what criteria would have been used to deny them?

It should be noted that I don't support the BF&M 2k, and even the earlier one is a bit conservative for my tastes . In addition, I think baptists are better ruling by consensus rather than simple majority; but I'm not in charge .

Joshua

 

In days gone by missionaries where required to write out their own statement of faith before they would be appointed. Would like to see IMB get back to its roots

 

What happened when what they wrote was not standard SBC beliefs? Were they accepted anyway?

 

In reference to the missionary couple asking for $120,000 to work for two years, that could be VERY reasonable.
I have spent too many boring years doing payroll, taxes, and insurance. And have an acquaintance with a number of the issues that MIGHT be involved.
For example: 1. They may have to pay for facility rental and upkeep that was paid separately before. Also literature and other supplies.
2. Your employer pays a lot more to hire you than you ever see in your check. If they are "self-employed" they will have to pay these things. Health insurance may be phenomenally expensive for them, even if they can get it.
That is only one of the many things the employer pays all or part of.
3. Even if they are exempt from U.S. taxes, they may now have to pay higher national income taxes where they are. Probably at least partially paid for them before by the IMB.
4. And what can be the biggest factor of all, the currency float. When the dollar is weak, they can be relatively impoverished even compared to a few days before. And in many developing countries, inflation is cruel.

So in short, if ANY of this is true, sounds like they are going to live frugally, maybe even very poorly, by general U.S. standards.

Karen

 

Usually, that is if the persons disagreement was not out of the orthodox norm, there was an agreement to work together in spite of the differences that the two had. Believe it or not we don't have to all agree about everything in order to further the Kingdom of God.

 

This is just so amazing. I don't know why I am every surprised by the moderate-to-liberal groups.

The BFM2000 is so broad. There is so much room to move around right now. How anyone can complain about it being strict is just beyond me.

Honesty would go a long way here. The mods have put this smokescreen up for too long now. Be up front and say that you do not agree with inerrancy and the prohibition upon women pastors. That is what the "missionaries" refuse to come to grips with. Let them go. If they won't be up front with something so simple, why would I think they were up front with the gospel in another country?