Is the SBC really Baptist?

[preachinjesus]

Here's my own personal breakdown...based on my time at an SBC Seminary and now 5 years at an SBC Chuch. (I did not grow up SBC):

1. CREEDAL: - Not sure what is meant here. We have a statement of beliefs which is meant to provide a center of beliefs. I'm not sure what the alternatives to this would be. No statement of belief?

Regardless of claims by some, the SBC remains a confessional people. Seminaries aren't the church. What matters in terms of so-called creedalism, is how individual churches and their laity are seen under such confessional statements.

No church is bound to sign the BFM in order to be part of the SBC. No church is bound to adhere to the current copy of the BFM in order to be part of the SBC.

2. Soul-Liberty: - The SBC prohibits Seminary faculty & students from imbibing alcohol, so you may have something here.

This is a foolish objection. Liberty has always forbidden its students from imbiding and they're almost always recognized as Baptist. Also (and this isn't a hard list to come by) almost all Fundamentalist Baptist schools do the same thing. Since the earliest days of the Convention and the seminaries this prohibition has been in place. It isn't ceedalism. There is nothing about alcohol in the official denominational confession.

Again seminaries aren't churches. There is no way the SBC can ever make a rule binding all churches and laity to this standard. It isn't a violation of Baptist beliefs.

I'm not convinced, historically, that soul liberty is a baptist distinctive.

3. Priesthood of the believer: - I'm not sure what this is getting at here. I guess it depends on how you define this one and soul liberty. Our church definitely believes in the the Priesthood of the believer, but also that one role of the church is to help correct errors in belief or lifestyle. I need no priest to go between me and God, but If I start embezzling money, or teaching that Jesus didn't really rise bodily from the dead, someone should correct me for the good of my soul.

Well first of all its properly understood as "priesthood of all believers" and it means we have access to ask forgiveness from God, receive forgiveness from God, and have access to God without a priestly system interceding for us. Your description is actually more along the lines of Soul Liberty than Priesthood of all Believers.

I don't know anyone who is SBC and doesn't agree with the proper definition of Preisthood of all believers.

4. Wavering on Autonomy: - See other thread on SBC autonomy and wierd reversion clauses...I had never heard of these before last week, but our church does not operate this way. I would say that some local and state entities are trying to be more involved in local church activities than the national SBC would want them to be.

I've never seen a reversion clause and challenge them. That said notice this: the SBC doesn't not mandate such clauses.

Also, there are some funny little things going on in relation to autonomy in the SBC but that is almost always from the church side to the convention. I stated in that thread and never got an answer to see exact instances of the national convention/administration requiring such things and never got any evidence either way.

5. Don't believe in Church-State Separation: - Not even sure what is meant here...perhaps someone can elaborate?

Religious liberty is a convictional position of most Baptists. Some in the SBC are getting way too close to politics and desire an almost theocratic rule of the US. This is foolish and they need to fired (Richard Land.) However, the official confessional position of the convention is seeking out religious liberty through appropriate separation of church and state.

***I can only say that in my own church, we are very autonomous. We do support the CP somewhat, and The IMB directly. We also support other missionaries. We only use Lifeway curriculum in 2 of our 12-15 sunday school classes. And even though the national SBC can make resolutions against alcohol, Disney, and other nonsense that wastes time and effort, we can largely ignore them if we want to.
--SO...I'm pretty sure that my church is a "Baptist" church, since we practice believer's baptism and operate our own autonomous church.

Our church is a Baptist church and we give to the SBC through a designated portion of our budget which goes to the Cooperative Program. We don't use any Lifeway curriculum with regularity and have very little to do with the actual convention. The SBC passed a resolution on the NIV 2011 this past year...we went the following week and purchased 500 copies for give aways at some missions projects. In the past we routinely disregard the resolutions of the convention because they are pointless, non-binding, and pointless.

You cannot, you simply cannot say the Southern Baptist Convention (or soon to be Great Commission Baptists...oy vey) isn't Baptist. That is an ignorant claim. The Southern Baptist Convention still affirms the essentials of Baptist polity, belief, and theology as historically understood since First and Second London Baptist Confessions.

It is ridiculous to try to suggest the SBC isn't Baptist after reading the confessional statement of the convention. The claims about creedalism are pointless, they don't deal with churches and individual laity, and we have a big problem with soul liberty these days.

Anyways...this is a good thread I'm glad you started it.

 

[preachinjesus]

Do SBC seminary professors have to sign any document afirming that they are in agreement with the BFM? If yes, then the Seminaries are creedal, they just avoid using the word.

This misunderstands the word: creedal.

 

[Jerome]

Hopefully the decision to publish the resolution was a lesson learned.

Please elaborate. I don't follow.

 

[nodak]

Here's my thoughts, probably not worth a plug nickel but I'll own up to them:

1. When individual churches insist prospective members assent to the BFM, or when state conventions insist member churches assent to it, or when we use it as a basis to hire and fire folks, it has moved from descriptive to prescriptive, is a creed, and hence is unbaptistic for folks who used to have no creed but the Bible.

2. It never was "the priesthood of all believers" to the SBC. That is myth, with roots in other Baptist groups and confessions. For SOUTHERN Baptists it was "the priesthood of THE believer", also known as soul competency. Had it been priesthood of all believers it would have had to have been souls competency. We were not anabaptist, voting to decide the truth. We were not popish, with excathedra pronouncements, and we weren't into hierarchy, with a few leaders making decisions based on "scripture, tradition, reason, and experience." At the very least we are unSouthernbaptistic.

3. Reversion clauses make sense when the larger denomination "owns" the franchise, the building, or makes loans for its purpose. Southern Baptists used to hold to local church autonomy, so if a local SBC church voted to become Methodist or independent or whatever, it would have been nobody's business but their own. Reversion clauses are unbaptistic.

It is easy to say the complaints about the SBC become the new catholic church of the south are sour grapes. It is easy to try revisionist history, but some of us oldies were there and aren't buying it.

I will concede we can point to some gross stupidity going on pre CR, and we can all point to some things that the CR improved.

But we seem to be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

My question to those in total support of the CR and the BFM2000 is this:

What will you do when the parameters finally narrow enough to exclude you?

What will you do when it is amended yet again to a creation theory with which you strongly disagree, or to an end times scenario you believe unBiblical, or when either the Calvinists are tossed or the nonCals are tossed? What if how YOU pray in silent privacy becomes a hot topic? What if they change and decide women should be ordained, and men are not to be the leaders in the home?

Will you gladly bend your beliefs to what a handful of old men decide, compounded by the relatively small number of delegates (convention vs delegate numbers) if the liberals decide to play dirty pool and take over?

There was a time when our distinctive mark was that we expected each person, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, to read and digest the Bible.

It produced remarkably similar results.

Today we tell you to close your Bible and believe what we tell you is right. It may be that we ARE right, but unless you get that straight from God you will never know.

And you will be vulnerable to the next shaman or antichrist that comes along.

Jesus didn't defeat Satan with the words of the rabbis or priests.

He defeated him with the Word of God.

Shame on us if we teach you to do less.

 

[Ed B]

I don't mean to come across as "carpet bombing" churches – I’m not sure exactly sure to what label you are referring. I actually reject the notion that the SBC itself is Baptist anyway because it is not a church - it's the churches that are Baptist - the SBC is a convention. It reflects the beliefs of those associated within its members but does not prescribe beliefs. Organizations and Conventions do not hold beliefs, people do. The local church is the people who make up that congregation, so the church holds beliefs. The SBC is made up of churches.

I wasn't accusing you of carpet bombing anything. I am sorry if I came off accusatory towards you. I used that analogy, perhaps poorly, to point out that my statement was not aimed at all things SBC. This is a seminary thing and really has little to do with the local autonomous church other than filter who teaches pastors and other seminary students.

Also, I am not necessarily passing judgment on whether it is good or bad. I am a layperson who has never attended any seminary. I am hearing this from friends who have graduated from or who are attending SWBTS so I could be mistaken, but I have heard and read that some SWBTS professors who otherwise agree with the BFM refused to sign on principle and had to leave. Maybe I was misinformed but one of the objections was this new requirement looks and smells like a slip toward “creedalism” (if that is even a word).

 

[12strings]

plug nickel

1. When individual churches insist prospective members assent to the BFM, or when state conventions insist member churches assent to it, or when we use it as a basis to hire and fire folks, it has moved from descriptive to prescriptive, is a creed, and hence is unbaptistic for folks who used to have no creed but the Bible.

-I just don't see how this is true in actuality. "No creed but the Bible" May have been a good slogan, but even those who said it would not actually hold to it. It is in itself a creed. ALL churches insist on certain beliefs or practices for membership...especailly baptist churches, who insist on believers baptism. If a person wants to exercise their "sould competency" to affirm that their infant baptism was sufficient, most baptist churches would not accept that. In doing so, they are holding to a "Creed" that says Baptism must come after salvation.

2. It never was "the priesthood of all believers" to the SBC. That is myth, with roots in other Baptist groups and confessions. For SOUTHERN Baptists it was "the priesthood of THE believer", also known as soul competency. Had it been priesthood of all believers it would have had to have been souls competency. We were not anabaptist, voting to decide the truth. We were not popish, with excathedra pronouncements, and we weren't into hierarchy, with a few leaders making decisions based on "scripture, tradition, reason, and experience." At the very least we are unSouthernbaptistic.

-I'm not sure I follow what this paragraph is saying.

3

. Reversion clauses make sense when the larger denomination "owns" the franchise, the building, or makes loans for its purpose. Southern Baptists used to hold to local church autonomy, so if a local SBC church voted to become Methodist or independent or whatever, it would have been nobody's business but their own. Reversion clauses are unbaptistic.

-I agree.

My question to those in total support of the CR and the BFM2000 is this:

What will you do when the parameters finally narrow enough to exclude you?

What will you do when it is amended yet again to a creation theory with which you strongly disagree, or to an end times scenario you believe unBiblical, or when either the Calvinists are tossed or the nonCals are tossed? What if how YOU pray in silent privacy becomes a hot topic? What if they change and decide women should be ordained, and men are not to be the leaders in the home?

Will you gladly bend your beliefs to what a handful of old men decide, compounded by the relatively small number of delegates (convention vs delegate numbers) if the liberals decide to play dirty pool and take over?

- No, If the SBC heads bad direction, I will gladly do one of two things, Urge my current church to dissassotiate with the SBC, or find a church that believes the same core beliefs as me, and allows disagreement on non-essentials. I realize the line for "non-essentials" is different for different people...but the point is the church I am now in could remove themselves from SBC at any time. For now, we think there is lots of burecratic foolishness, but also some really good things to support in the IMB and disaster relief, and in some cases more that others, the seminaries.

There was a time when our distinctive mark was that we expected each person, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, to read and digest the Bible.

-Could you elaborate on this a bit more? Did we not have teachers, preachers, seminaries to train them? Did not church members listen to their pastors and consider what they said, while comparing it with scriptures. Hasn't their been a BFM for nearly 100 years? Just a different version?

 

[Ed B]

I don't disagree...They are creedal. I just fail to see how this is a bad thing. It seems the disagreement is over how specific such a "creed" would be.

We would probably both agree that the seminary should not require professors to hold to a specific interpretation of the Nephilim in Genesis 6...But we wouldn't we also not want a Seminary Professor who was a muslim, or athiest?

Isn't some level of creedalism in the seminaries a good thing?

I don't see anything inherently wrong with creeds especially as I understand their historic context in a largely illiterate society. I understand that creeds should never be allowed to usurp scripture. Creeds are non-inspired works but they have a practical use. And I would argue that the difference in the BFM and historic creeds is granularity or detail and how we chose to use them. The BFM would be hard to recite in the context of corporate worship so it is best left as a confession.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Motion passed by SBC messengers at their annual meeting in 2007:

“That this Convention adopt the statement of the Executive Committee issued in February of this year and included in the Committee’s report found in the 2007 Book of Reports, page 17, number 4, which reads:

“‘The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.’”

p. 57, 2007 SBC Annualhttp://sbcec.org/bor/2007/2007SBCAnnual.pdf



Morris Chapman, chairman of the SBC Executive Committee, explained:

"Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention.

And secondly, if an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession."

http://www.bpnews.net/blog/article.asp?id=14&title=Chapman+calls+for+unity


Emphasis added :laugh:

Thank you.

I don't believe Herschel Hobbs and E.Y. Mullins could be Southern Baptists today.

 

[Ed B]

Now that I think about it, I’m actually not that much against creeds. They may have a purpose depending on how you view or define the term “creed.”

I could say, for example, that I believe:

1. God is the only true and lifting God that exists. He is the Creator of the universe, eternally existing in three Persons – the Father, son and Holy Spirit – each equally deserving of humanity’s worship and obedience.
2. The Bible is entirely true. The Bible is totally sufficient and completely authoritative for all matters of life and faith.
3. All human beings are born with a sin nature and into a fallen world inclined towards sin. Only by the grace of God through the gift of faith in Jesus Christ can they experience salvation.
4. Jesus is both fully God and fully human. He is Christ, the Son of God. Born of a virgin, he lived a sinless life and performed many miracles. He died on the cross to provide forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. He rose from the dead, ascended to the right hand of the Father, and will return in power and glory to claim His bride, the church, to exist eternally with Him in Heaven.

I do believe those statements, but they are an explanation of my belief (even though I didn't come up with the statements). If presented by a church, is it then a creed? It’s part of the eight core truths of the NorthSide Bible study (Weatherford, TX), so does it make that congregation a creedal people? Shouldn’t the pastor and teachers also share in that “creed” if it represents the belief of the church?

Or I could say that “I believe in the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and trust in His substitutionary sacrifice on the cross for the atonement of my sins.” Is that creedal? It is certainly theological and it is not a verbatim text of scripture.

Of course, I could also say that the statement “We do not accept creeds” is a creedal statement in itself.

Its hard to say I agree with all the above simply because some of it was posed as a question. That said, I basically agree with all you just said. Frankly, I do not understand the objection to creeds if used within a proper context.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Its hard to say I agree with all the above simply because some of it was posed as a question. That said, I basically agree with all you just said. Frankly, I do not understand the objection to creeds if used within a proper context.

The best way to gain such an understanding if to read histories of the early Baptists in Europe.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here's my thoughts, probably not worth a plug nickel but I'll own up to them:

1. When individual churches insist prospective members assent to the BFM, or when state conventions insist member churches assent to it, or when we use it as a basis to hire and fire folks, it has moved from descriptive to prescriptive, is a creed, and hence is unbaptistic for folks who used to have no creed but the Bible.

2. It never was "the priesthood of all believers" to the SBC. That is myth, with roots in other Baptist groups and confessions. For SOUTHERN Baptists it was "the priesthood of THE believer", also known as soul competency. Had it been priesthood of all believers it would have had to have been souls competency. We were not anabaptist, voting to decide the truth. We were not popish, with excathedra pronouncements, and we weren't into hierarchy, with a few leaders making decisions based on "scripture, tradition, reason, and experience." At the very least we are unSouthernbaptistic.

3. Reversion clauses make sense when the larger denomination "owns" the franchise, the building, or makes loans for its purpose. Southern Baptists used to hold to local church autonomy, so if a local SBC church voted to become Methodist or independent or whatever, it would have been nobody's business but their own. Reversion clauses are unbaptistic.

It is easy to say the complaints about the SBC become the new catholic church of the south are sour grapes. It is easy to try revisionist history, but some of us oldies were there and aren't buying it.

I will concede we can point to some gross stupidity going on pre CR, and we can all point to some things that the CR improved.

But we seem to be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

My question to those in total support of the CR and the BFM2000 is this:

What will you do when the parameters finally narrow enough to exclude you?

What will you do when it is amended yet again to a creation theory with which you strongly disagree, or to an end times scenario you believe unBiblical, or when either the Calvinists are tossed or the nonCals are tossed? What if how YOU pray in silent privacy becomes a hot topic? What if they change and decide women should be ordained, and men are not to be the leaders in the home?

Will you gladly bend your beliefs to what a handful of old men decide, compounded by the relatively small number of delegates (convention vs delegate numbers) if the liberals decide to play dirty pool and take over?

There was a time when our distinctive mark was that we expected each person, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, to read and digest the Bible.

It produced remarkably similar results.

Today we tell you to close your Bible and believe what we tell you is right. It may be that we ARE right, but unless you get that straight from God you will never know.

And you will be vulnerable to the next shaman or antichrist that comes along.

Jesus didn't defeat Satan with the words of the rabbis or priests.

He defeated him with the Word of God.

Shame on us if we teach you to do less.

Excellent post -- spot on!

 

[JonC]

Please elaborate. I don't follow.

Prior to 1980 there was a disconnect between the SBC seminaries and its churches. For example, Ralph Elliot’s The Message of Genesis (1961) was liberal theology and was rejected by the churches, but embraced by Midwestern Seminary and the Sunday School Board trustees. In 1992 Elliot described how he was “counseled” to use “doublespeak technique” as “Professors and students learned to couch their beliefs in acceptable terminology” But basically, the convention did not represent the churches.

The BF&M of 1963 was intended to prevent neo-orthodoxy and some of this from happening again.

As Ramsey Pollard put it: “If you don’t believe the miracles and the Word of God, get out of our Seminaries! I am not saying that because it is smart. I am not saying that because it’s trite. I am saying it because Southern Baptists need to be on guard against false teachers within our own ranks…Your academic freedom stops at a certain point.”


Also consider the Broadman Bible Commentary controversy, the Criswell Controversy (1969-70).


The seminaries were very liberal. There was a time when a majority of seminary graduates rejected the virgin birth of Christ and the biblical accounts of miracles. A survey of Southern Seminary graduates showed that 35% of its MDiv didn’t even affirm that God existed.

There was a liberal drift away from Scripture. Instead of conservatives breaking off from the SBC, the conservatives took the SBC back (which has never occurred with a denomination of this size). What I mean is that the BF&M is important and that the SBC, if it has learned anything, should have learned to safeguard doctrine – particularly within its seminaries.

 

[JonC]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with creeds especially as I understand their historic context in a largely illiterate society. I understand that creeds should never be allowed to usurp scripture. Creeds are non-inspired works but they have a practical use. And I would argue that the difference in the BFM and historic creeds is granularity or detail and how we chose to use them. The BFM would be hard to recite in the context of corporate worship so it is best left as a confession.

I don’t have much of a problem with creeds either – except that they are authoritative. But even then, they are (or should be) representative of Scripture. The difference, and the reason that I can accept the BF&M, is that these confessions are not considered authoritative or inerrant and Baptists do have a long history of confessions. Frankly, the BF&M presents a description of what the SBC represents and is designed to represent the issues that arise within culture (i.e., women pastors, homosexual marriage, etc.). Apart from this type of message it is difficult (I’d say impossible) to maintain a denominational identity within a changing culture.

I do think that many will object to the BF&M, saying that it is creedalism. But I also think that this will be due to a disagreement in the message rather than the principle (as a principle, it really hasn’t changed in five decades). So, if professors object and leave, then perhaps the original intent of the BF&M is being realized.

But I do understand why one would object if they disagree with the changes. A local church may, for example, have endorsed same-sex marriages and now they are faced with holding a position that is in opposition to their denominational standings and need to disassociate with the SBC. The SBC added to its official stance, and excluded the belief of a local church (although it was not in exclusion of the majority). Since it is not a creedal, the SBC cannot impose the BF&M upon any congregation. Local churches voluntarily associate with the SBC and form the SBC body.

In our church, we do have to attend a potential or new member course where the BF&M is addressed. The intent is to allow potential members to understand the position of the church on issues (but fundamental to Christianity and fundamental to the denomination). Then there is another six week course in the evening where the BF&M is examined in detail. But the BF&M forms a denominational identity – not a Christian identity.

We only recite the BF&M as a congregation if the offering is low. :smilewinkgrin:

What scares me more than the influence of seminaries is a dependence on LifeWay. I don’t fault the SBC but the churches that look to Southern Baptist organizations to provide programs and materials rather than developing a leadership and scholarship from within their own local church.

 

[nodak]

Some don't seem to get it that conservative SBCers don't necessarily disagree with the positions taken in the BFM2000, but with its misuse.

And some don't seem to get it that even those that agree with it in totallily, and who agree with how it is being used, disagree with teaching new believers that they need to assent to it right away, rather than teaching them they need to hold to the Scripture.

After all, if everything in the BFM2000 is accurate and correct, there is nothing to fear if we just hand folks a Bible and say "this is what we believe."

I agree that I am far more concerned with Lifeway than with the BFM2000.

And let's be more honest in our terms. We did have some flaming liberals in the SBC (by by ya'll and good riddance.) We had some true moderates (sad to see you go.) We had a great many conservatives (I'm one.) But we did not have a conservative resurgence. We had a fundamentalist takeover.

 

[preachinjesus]

But, getting back to the OP, how is the SBC not Baptist?

Some of us might not like the SBC as an organization, but nobody here has shown anything close to reasonable criticism about whether it is or isn't Baptist.

Going back to historical Baptist distinctive, how does the SBC as a whole entity deny: believer's baptism, autonomy of the local church, priesthood of the believer, two ordinances (baptism, Lord's Supper), inspiration of the Bible, separation of church and state, two offices (deacon and pastor)?

 

[nodak]

Well, for starters, the BFM2000 holds to the "baptism of believers" rather than the "baptism of THE believer."

 

[JonC]

This thread makes no sense if taken to mean the SBC rather than the SBC churches. The BF&M is not binding on the local church. The SBC does not “require” baptism for those who were baptized as infants (it leaves it up to the local church), it does not prohibit elder leadership (again, the autonomy of the local church). So it can go on and on in that manner. It's a convention and reflects a portion of doctrine (and that not always defined). The actual doctrine belongs to the chruch.

But within many of the SBC churches I’ve noticed some drifting towards elders (which is historically non-baptist).

 

[Jerome]

JonC, what is your church's 'actual doctrine'?
Do you have a statement of faith other than the BF&M?

 

[JonC]

JonC, what is your church's 'actual doctrine'?
Do you have a statement of faith other than the BF&M?

Yes, we do have a statement of faith. It does not, of course, encompass all of the chruch doctrine.

http://www.thefirstfamily.org/?page_id=182

 

[Tom Butler]

Our church adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as its doctrinal statement. It leaves plenty of room for varying views on eschatology and ecclesiology.

Swearing allegiance to the BF&M is not a condition of membership in our church. It says to all who come our way, "this is what we believe. If you want to join us here, you need to know this."

It is what will be preached from the pulpit. It is what will be taught by our teachers. You may disagree with part of it, but you may not teach contrary to the BF & M.

One may say our church is imposing a creed. You bet your life. A creed is nothing more than a statement of what we believe. Those who have positions of leadership and responsibility must speak from the same script on those essential issues.

So you don't agree with some things? You don't want to subscribe to them? Fine, you don't have to. You can still fellowship with us, but you can't preach, teach, be a deacon or worship leader.

Were you sprinkled in another denomination? Fine. But if you want to join our church, we'll have to dunk you.

I am a trustee at Mid-Continent University in nearby Mayfield, Kentucky. Our by-laws cite the BF&M as the doctrinal guide for this Baptist school. Our trustees must agree to it; our theology professors must agree to it; our administrators must agree to it.

We do have a non-Baptist or two in our College of Arts and Sciences. But they are evangelical, and must agree not to teach contrary to the BF&M. So far, no problems.

Call it doctrinal statement, call it a confessional statement, call it a creed, call it what you want to.

I don't know about all SBC seminaries, but Southern Seminary requires its folks to sign a doctrinal statement called the Abstract of Principals. You Southern grads can talk more about that. Don't wanna sign it? No problem. No job.

Back before the Conservative Resurgence, everybody signed the A of P, but not all agreed with it. I think some called it a "mental reservation." I call it lying.