Is the SBC really Baptist?

[Jerome]

Jon, has your church officially adopted the BF&M too?
Is this something that is common in the denomination? Is it encouraged?

 

[JonC]

Jon, has your church officially adopted the BF&M too?
Is this something that is common in the denomination? Is it encouraged?

We have accepted the BF&M. Prospective members are required to attend a class explaining our doctrine (held, I believe, quarterly on a Sunday afternoon) and are encouraged to attend a course (6 wk) that examines the BF&M. It is actually required before one can attend some of the theological studies that are offered during the week.

What I like about it is that one knows, up front, where the church stands on certain issues as well as the character of the church. We joined the church last year, and this has been our first experience with a church that wants to make sure a prospective member knows its beliefs. (I recall being told that if I have issues with the church doctrine, it is not necessarily a reflection of my faith – but that I need to be aware of the church’s stance).

I wouldn’t say that it is encouraged to adopt the BF&M as one’s statement of faith – I’m not sure who would be doing the encouraging. Normally I just see on some site that a particular chruch accepts the BF&M - but it is not necessarily their "statement of faith."

 

[Jerome]

has your church officially adopted the BF&M?

We have accepted the BF&M. . . .Normally I just see on some site that a particular chruch accepts the BF&M - but it is not necessarily their "statement of faith."

Huh? What is the difference between 'accepting' the BF&M and and adopting it as a statement of faith?

 

[JonC]

Huh? What is the difference between 'accepting' the BF&M and and adopting it as a statement of faith?

A chruch may believe the BF&M, and may accept the BF&M - but as a statement of faith? I'm not sure that the BF&M in its entirety is a "statement of faith" even if you agree with it.

Do you not see a difference in the beliefs on the link provided previouisly and the BF&M? My understanding is that we affirm the BF&M, and have our statement of faith posted.

 

[Jerome]

Tom, did your church have its own statement of faith before there was a BF&M, then replaced it with the BF&M?

It sounds like Jon's church still has its own statement of faith as well as the BF&M being 'accepted'/'affirmed'?

Have I got this straight?

 

[TCGreek]

There is denominational, and there is denominationalism. I'm wary of the latter.

 

[JonC]

Have I got this straight?

As far as me, yes, that is my understanding. If you look at our church information, there is nothing confirming the BF&M, only our statement of belief (with an explanation of our doctrines concerning baptism and the Lord’s Supper separate). But as a church, the pastoral leadership states that we affirm the BF&M and goes to lengths to insure potential members are aware of our beliefs.


I actually would prefer it be more prominent to the public eye. If you look at our website you wouldn’t be able to confirm that it is a Southern Baptist church. It does seem that many Southern Baptist churches tend to downplay its association with the SBC (at least, it doesn’t advertise it). Personally I think that it is marketing, and I would prefer an affirmation of the BF&M on our homepage. Perhaps this discussion provides the reason it is not.

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom, did your church have its own statement of faith before there was a BF&M, then replaced it with the BF&M?

It sounds like Jon's church still has its own statement of faith as well as the BF&M being 'accepted'/'affirmed'?

Have I got this straight?

I don't think we had a written statement of faith. I never saw one, at any rate. We finally got around to approving a church constitution and by-laws in the early 1980s. The BF&M was included as reflecting our doctrinal stance in general. We purposely did not deal with eschatology because there was no consensus at the time.

 

[preachinjesus]

Often many churches create their own statement of faith and affirm the BFM, though note they are not bound by this common confession. Thus the BFM acts as a unifying confessional document discussing the parameters of cooperation but not dictating what individual member bodies must believe.

But again, none of the uniquely disqualifies the Southern Baptist Covention from being Baptist.

 

[preachinjesus]

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

A bit nettlesome of a point, don't you think?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

Sounds to me like your church does not affirm soul liberty, a key baptist principle. E.Y. Mullins probably couldn't be a member of your church, were he alive today.

 

[12strings]

Sounds to me like your church does not affirm soul liberty, a key baptist principle. E.Y. Mullins probably couldn't be a member of your church, were he alive today.

Does anyone have a good historical definition, and/or examples of "soul liberty" that E.Y. Mullins is supposed to have adheared to. Here's why I ask.

If, according to Tom's descriptions, his church does NOT affirm soul liberty, than there are ZERO real christian churches that affirm soul liberty. All Baptist churches AT LEAST say you need to be baptized. Even the most "soul-liberarian" Baptist church is not going to hire a Roman Catholic Pastor.

I Just don't see how the supposed idea of "soul liberty" could really work.

-andy

 

[Yeshua1]

Does anyone have a good historical definition, and/or examples of "soul liberty" that E.Y. Mullins is supposed to have adheared to. Here's why I ask.

If, according to Tom's descriptions, his church does NOT affirm soul liberty, than there are ZERO real christian churches that affirm soul liberty. All Baptist churches AT LEAST say you need to be baptized. Even the most "soul-liberarian" Baptist church is not going to hire a Roman Catholic Pastor.

I Just don't see how the supposed idea of "soul liberty" could really work.

-andy

How do you define term "Soul Liberty?"

My understanding is that local Baptist churches,even those belonging to groups such as SBC/NAB etc still adhere to their own local
churches statement of beliefs?

 

[preachinjesus]

Sounds to me like your church does not affirm soul liberty, a key baptist principle. E.Y. Mullins probably couldn't be a member of your church, were he alive today.

I challenge that soul liberty is a historical baptist distinctive.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I challenge that soul liberty is a historical baptist distinctive.

Challenge away. It goes right along with the priesthood of the believer.

Walter Shurden outlines the Baptist "Four Fragile Freedoms": http://www.ministerscouncil.com/OnLineManual/documents/OutlineShurdensbook.pdf

 

[nodak]

When I first became a Southern Baptist, soul competency was THE key Baptist teaching.

Briefly, it is the idea each person is able to come to faith in Christ for salvation without a human mediator, and is able under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to read and understand the Scripture.

You don't go to church to be told what to believe. You find a church that teaches what you see in the Bible.

Or so we believed.

These days the SBC leadership seems to want us to come to church so they can tell us what to believe.

It is totally not an issue of whether or not we agree with what they teach.

It is totally an issue of whether or not we must have a human mediator to stand between us and God.

Shurden's book is excellent. So is "The Axioms of Religion" by E. Y. Mullins if you want to understand what has changed.

 

[Yeshua1]

When I first became a Southern Baptist, soul competency was THE key Baptist teaching.

Briefly, it is the idea each person is able to come to faith in Christ for salvation without a human mediator, and is able under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to read and understand the Scripture.

You don't go to church to be told what to believe. You find a church that teaches what you see in the Bible.

Or so we believed.

These days the SBC leadership seems to want us to come to church so they can tell us what to believe.

It is totally not an issue of whether or not we agree with what they teach.

It is totally an issue of whether or not we must have a human mediator to stand between us and God.

Shurden's book is excellent. So is "The Axioms of Religion" by E. Y. Mullins if you want to understand what has changed.

the leadership in SBC also trying to steer back towards more "reformed" salvation thinking, Eh?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

When I first became a Southern Baptist, soul competency was THE key Baptist teaching.

Briefly, it is the idea each person is able to come to faith in Christ for salvation without a human mediator, and is able under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to read and understand the Scripture.

You don't go to church to be told what to believe. You find a church that teaches what you see in the Bible.

Or so we believed.

These days the SBC leadership seems to want us to come to church so they can tell us what to believe.

It is totally not an issue of whether or not we agree with what they teach.

It is totally an issue of whether or not we must have a human mediator to stand between us and God.

Shurden's book is excellent. So is "The Axioms of Religion" by E. Y. Mullins if you want to understand what has changed.

Exactly; I agree with everything you said because it is historical and factual.

And that's why I said that E. Y. Mullins, a towering figure in 20th Century Southern Baptist life, could not be a Southern Baptist today. And Herschel Hobbs probably couldn't, either!

Today's SBC has become increasingly authoritarian, creedal, exclusivist, an in denial of historic Baptist distinctives.

 

[Ed B]

the leadership in SBC also trying to steer back towards more "reformed" salvation thinking, Eh?

No. First of all most Calvinists in the SBC are not reformed in the purest sense. At most a minority of the leadership would claim to be 5-point Calvinists and I haven't read of any effort by them to make that a test of fellowship in the convention. There is a minority on the other side who are concerned (unnecessarily) that an increase in Calvinism within the SBC will result in missions being neglected. But no, there is no plot or grand scheme among SBC leadership to turn the convention into Particular Baptists.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Today's SBC has become increasingly authoritarian, creedal, exclusivist, an in denial of historic Baptist distinctives.

I was talking with a friend recently who knows a lot of SBC folk. He said he was saddened when a relatively highly placed young man in a state association that he had just met for the first time said, "Nothing of any importance happened in the SBC before 1989."