Is it possible to be Southern Baptist and...

[JonC]

="JonC, ]@Iconoclast[/USER] ,




Well let me see if that is what I said, or is it what you projected on me?
in post #52 I said;
The BF M is a watered down document which tells much about where some of the churches are.

Notice I said SOME OF THE CHURCH'S
In post#56 I said;

I know what it is. I do not share your perspective on it. I have been in some of the churches to see firsthand.

In both posts I used the term some, which means ,not all a few....Why did you extend it as if I said ALL?

Hey Icon.

My comment was merely to try and help you (and others) who are not Southern Baptists understand why the SBC F&M is not very dogmatic.

It does not represent the doctrine of churches but a confessional statement of general beliefs Baptist churches hold to in cooperation with other churches.

If the BF&M represented a churches doctrine then it would indeed be "watered down". But due to the nature of the thing it can only falter in being too broad or too narrow.

I also provided a link to the SBC site to help you understand its purpose.

I agree that the Southern Baptist denomination is comprised of healthy, sick, and dead churches. I have also seen this first hand. But it is because of the faithfulness of individual churches, not a reflection of the F&M.

Perhaps a better conversation would be the aspects of the F&M you reject.

 

[rlvaughn]

...I know a little bit about the SBC from personal experience.

...Anyway that was what I saw first hand in the 1980's.

...If @The Biblicist attended 23,778 SBC churches at some length then at least he would be able to give an honest opinion about what most SBC churches teach on Sunday Morning. But the problem is that he should never have tried to condemn or critique the whole based on his experiences.

I must say that I did not read and perceive this in the same way that Jon did. I took it as one man's opinion of the SBC (as a convention) based on his personal experience and not as a blanket condemnation of every church and individual in the SBC.

 

[37818]

What do you mean?
In what way do you think that is do?

In your repay to @JonC post#58 you seemed to have argued that the "Baptist Faith and Message" is watered down. What did you mean by that?
I am arguing the New Testament Faith and Message is what is to constitute the genuine Baptist Faith and Message.

 

[Van]

You realize neither of these claim what you say....

I'm fine with allowing the text to speak for itself.
2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

James 2:5
Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

 

[Reformed1689]

If you are fine with letting the text speak for itself....

2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

So if it is by faith we are chosen, we somehow had faith from the beginning? How is that possible? What this verse is saying is that we have already been chosen. That election is then activated by sanctification and faith. You aren't letting the verse speak for itself at all. We are chosen from the beginning for what? "Salvation through sanctification...."

James 2:5
Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

This verse doesn't support you at all.

 

[Van]

If you are fine with letting the text speak for itself....

So if it is by faith we are chosen, we somehow had faith from the beginning? How is that possible? What this verse is saying is that we have already been chosen. That election is then activated by sanctification and faith. You aren't letting the verse speak for itself at all. We are chosen from the beginning for what? "Salvation through sanctification...."

This verse doesn't support you at all.

I am sorry, but just read 2 Thessalonians 2:13. You seem to think you know the answer to the question "the beginning of what?" The minimalist answer is from the beginning of the New Covenant.

Your view is precluded by 1 Peter 2:9-10. Please do not tell me if we can live not as a chosen people but really be a chosen people. That deflection of the truth is absurd.
As the verse reads we were chosen (How?) through the sanctification by the Spirit (being set apart in Christ) and (on what basis?) faith in the truth.

We do agree we were chosen for salvation.

 

[Reformed1689]

The minimalist answer is from the beginning of the New Covenant.

How in the world do you arrive as that being the beginning?

 

[JonC]

I must say that I did not read and perceive this in the same way that Jon did. I took it as one man's opinion of the SBC (as a convention) based on his personal experience and not as a blanket condemnation of every church and individual in the SBC.

The problem (for me) was the comment about nothing substantial being taught in Sunday Services. Perhaps it was an overstatement and unintentional. Still, we need to take care when dealing with other denominations in a negative way. .

 

[Van]

How in the world do you arrive as that being the beginning?

The salvation for which we were chosen is under the New Covenant. Those chosen for salvation from the beginning of the New Covenant were chosen through faith in the truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

not believe in OSAS?

Anyone who rejects OSAS embraces the reality that a true born again child of God can do something to lose salvation and ANYTHING you can do is what the Bible defines as "works." Jesus defines "works" as inclusive of all internal determining activity in the human soul (emotions, intellect, will) that may or may not be expressed externally.

 

[Iconoclast]

In your repay to @JonC post#58 you seemed to have argued that the "Baptist Faith and Message" is watered down. What did you mean by that?
I am arguing the New Testament Faith and Message is what is to constitute the genuine Baptist Faith and Message.

When you read the other confessions of faith it is quite easy to see it is designed as a compromise document for those who do not want to hold the historic truths, but want to feel as if they have a confession also.

 

[JonC]

When you read the other confessions of faith it is quite easy to see it is designed as a compromise document for those who do not want to hold the historic truths, but want to feel as if they have a confession also.

This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the BF&M. It is not a confession of faith along the lines you suppose it to be. It is a confessional in that it outlines basic fundamentals for cooperation within the SBC.

What you refer to as confessional is directed towards church doctrine within the church (and for that reason is much more narrow a document).

SBC churches believe in Christian liberty within local churches and cooperating churches. The SBC F&M is confessional to the SBC - the SBC is NOT a church. Those churches within the SBC acknowledge the F&M. Most (if not all) have other more narrow statements of faith pertaining to its congregation.

This is why I pointed out it is impossible for the F&M to be "watered down", and the suggestion demonstrated a misunderstanding of the SBC and the F&M. It can be too broad or too narrow, but it is not a confession of faith as you would assume it to be.

I think I understand why you misunderstood. You are looking at SBC churches as if they are confesdional when historically most (if not all) SBC churches have rejected Confessions and Creeds while holding to some type of common belief among participating churches. That is what we mean be the F&M being "confessional" (not that it is a "Confession" but that it is not prescribed belief...it is confessional).

 

[37818]

When you read the other confessions of faith it is quite easy to see it is designed as a compromise document for those who do not want to hold the historic truths, but want to feel as if they have a confession also.

I did not understand, at that time, that was also a title of a SBC group statement. I had failed to notice.

 

[Rebel1]

Anyone who rejects OSAS embraces the reality that a true born again child of God can do something to lose salvation and ANYTHING you can do is what the Bible defines as "works." Jesus defines "works" as inclusive of all internal determining activity in the human soul (emotions, intellect, will) that may or may not be expressed externally.

I don't think one can "lose" salvation. I think one can still willfully reject it after having willfully accepted it.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As Rebel is now banned for denying Lev 3 as inspired Scripture, this thread is closed.