Lifeway hocking copiers for Toshiba

David, do you think we should not have passed legislation granting women the right to vote or ending slavery? That was changing rules in the middle of the game.
Of course you wouln't think that.
The problem people have is with the conservative theology that is reflected in the BFM 2K that is part and parcel of SB life.

 

David, do you think we should not have passed legislation granting women the right to vote or ending slavery? That was changing rules in the middle of the game.
Of course you wouln't think that.
The problem people have is with the conservative theology that is reflected in the BFM 2K that is part and parcel of SB life.</font>[/QUOTE]No, that's not the problem. I would be furious with the SBC if it required any missionary to affirm ANY CREED because they are all imperfect, and this practice is not supported by scripture or any inference that we can reasonably draw from Jesus' life, teaching, and ministry.
Yes, my personal theology is more "liberal" than the CURRENT BF&M. But I have enormous respect for many of my more conservative brothers and sisters who are current IMB (and CBF) missionaries. I could not imagine imposing my imperfect statement of faith on them, especially in a manner that I believe improperly elevates itself above scripture (or even above Jesus, as I think the current BF&M elevates itself). Even though I detest the current BF&M content, the real issue is how it is used.
Remember, I have fond memories of a time when people of a variety of viewpoints all worshipped together and pooled their money to spread the gospel. I know there were some bad liberal apples but I'm afraid the IMB is trying to throw out an entire nursery of babies with the bathwater (alot have been tossed out already).
Tom, I respect your opinion but I'm surprised you would agree with an enforced creed and the way it is used, when you consider the character of people who have used this tactic throughout history. What admirable person has forced people to sign a statement of faith under duress? Our Baptist forefather John Leland wrote about just such a thing over 200 years ago when Baptists refused to affirm the Book of Common Prayer. That is who we are supposed to be.

 

The BF&M2K is a confessional statement of beliefs. Again, no one is forcing you to believe it. You and your church are completely autonomous. If you do not like the statement of beliefs, leave the convention. Or even if you do disagree vehemently with the statement, you can still be a SBC church. Put whatever you want on your sign. AUTONOMY is the key here. The BF&M is a confessional statement of beliefs.

I don't know whether to sigh, cry, or laugh when I read these words. I speak of the Apostle's Creed, Nicea, and Chalcedon and you speak of child molesters. You cannot be serious.

Let me suggest that you had better get on your knees and thank God for those Early Church creeds that preserved the integrity of the Gospel from blatant heresy. The moment you begin to dismiss these foundational moments in church history is the moment you begin to pull the rug out from under your own beliefs. Even the most liberal people with whom I discuss these issues would not make a statement like you made above. You really ought to rethink your words.

1 - I don't care if you agree with me or not. You have the right to be wrong .

2 - The missionaries were hired to preach the gospel and it is the right and responsibility of those who hired them to make sure the gospel is being preached. The IMB is not saying, "You must believe the BF&M word for word." The IMB is saying, "This is our basic statement of beliefs. Can you work in ACCORDANCE with these beliefs and not CONTRARY to them? If not, explain your differences." This is a valid and necessary request.

3 - You are absolutely wrong. The IMB does have the right to "remove" someone who is working or teaching in contradiction to the beliefs of those who support them. Again, just for example, if the IMB believes a missionary is denying the resurrection, they have the right to hold that individual responsible (regardless of tenure).

4 - You are wrong in your statement regarding "changing the rules". As an autonomous body of believers, they have the right to define themselves however the people decide. I have been thru this so will not elaborate. But the way the SBC functions, it has every right to define itself as the people so desire and require its employees to affirm those beliefs.

5 - You have answered the question. And I would simply say you are ethically wrong. You answered the question whether the IMB has the right to hold its missionaries (employees of the people) accountable to the beliefs of the people (employers) no. And I simply say you are wrong. There is an ethical obligation from both the SBC and the missionaries to support and affirm the basic beliefs of the people.

I would hope you would not use these same ethics in everyday life.

There is definite Scriptural support for defining your beliefs. Paul did it repeatedly and asked his churches to do the same. Acts 15 is an example of the church defining itself and asking the local churches to affirm those beliefs. Jesus' request of Peter is a defining of beliefs. There is definite Scriptural support for the defining of beliefs.

On the other hand, I find little in the NT that endorses a "as long as you say you believe in Jesus everything is okay" mentality that you seem to endorse. No Paul demanded that his readers define their belief. John's gospel continually defines the belief of those who followed Jesus. The NT & Early church separated themselves from the gnostic-quasi religious environment of its day by defining itself (read the epistles of John). The definition of beliefs is biblically and historically rooted and is essential to the preservation of the gospel.

 

To SBCByGrace (get a giggle every time I see your handle from a former Southern Baptist)

I am shocked that you continue to babble as you do. When you reference Acts 15, are you referring to the circumsicion piece of the chapter?

Would you agree that the method with which the BF&M2K is being enforced on the missionaries is creedal? (Why would they ask all 3162 of them to affirm it if there is a problem with less than 1% according to trustees of IMB?) These numbers are from BP by the way, Journeymaen and volunteers are not being forced to sign er... affirm.

You sir seem blinded by the party line.

 

First of all, I would dispute that "creeds" are enforced under "duress." Baptists have historically been confessional and creedal. A quick glance at any Baptist historian such as Leon McBeth or William Lumpkin (see his Baptist Confessions of Faith by Judson press) would show this.
There are many "admirable" people who have utilized creeds. John Smyth, Thomas Helwys (Ironic that the anti-confession publishing arm of the CBF is named after these) wrote and enforced creeds. Clarke, Spurgeon, Bunyan, Broadus, Boyce, et. al., also did so. What about the presidents of the six seminaries, even Honeycutt, McCall, Lolley, Dilday, et.al., whom liberals/moderates esteem so well? They "enforced" creeds when they stood over the shoulders of new profs who had to sign the Baptist Faith and Message or the Abstract (At SBTS and SEBTS).

So, this idea that it was us big bad conservatives who just thought up the idea of having a confession of faith is a myth at best and a canard at worst. (Personally, I don't think you'd intentionally misrepresent anything, David.)

 

Some call it creedal. Some call it confessional. Either way the point is the same: the missionaries of the SBC should work in accordance with and not contrary to the stated beliefs of the people.

In the midst of my "babbling" two points continue to be neglected by the opposite side of this discussion: 1) ethics -- should a missionary receive funds from a group with whom they disagree? & 2) Baptist polity -- the IMB has the right to ask the employees of the SBC people to affirm the beliefs of the people.

I have yet to receive a reasonable response to these two issues. Now tell me who has been babbling?

Christians throughout church history (including Baptists) have been confessional/creedal people. Now all of a sudden when the mod/libs of the SBC are opposed to the confession they want to cry "we are not creedal."

Why is it when someone believes what the leadership of the SBC believes they are blinded by the party line yet when one disagrees with the leadership they are thinking for themselves? If anyone seems to parrot the same old arguments it is those who continue to cry "wolf" (excuse me--I mean "creed").

 

TomVols,
In my opinion, it is unbiblical to force a missionary to affirm or sign a creed, no matter who is in charge. I'm not sure how to address the "abstract of principles" because I don't know what's in it (school policy? administration matters?) but I do have a problem with forcing professors to sign the BF&M (no matter who does it-Dilday or Patterson). I would be interested to know what Smyth and Helwys wanted people to sign, by the way.
The best evidence we have on Christ's view on this is the confession he elicited from Peter-"Who do you say that I am?".
Lots of folks throughout church history may value creeds. But as far as I can tell Jesus did not endorse them.
Look, there are alot of creeds that look harmless enough, and seem to cover all the bases of our faith. But the ultimate revelation of God is Jesus Christ, not the BF&M or any other man-made statement. A confessional form can effectively get to the bottom of a persons' theology and the personal confession of faith which Jesus values. But placing someone in the position of 'sign or else' reeks of "you are friend or foe", whether you can provide an explanation or not after you refuse to affirm.
I know some friends of the family feel like if they don't sign it, they are finished with the IMB.
On a personal note, weren't you ill recently? I thought I read you were not feeling great. Hope all is well with you.
David

[ July 26, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

The IMB is allowing for these differences by saying "Can you work in agreement with or in accordance to these beliefs (and not contrary to them)? And if you cannot, please explain why."

The BF&M is merely the stated beliefs of those who support these missionaries. If a missionary has major problems with the beliefs of those that support him/her, then at the very least they should be able to explain those differences.

What the IMB is doing is not unreasonable. As a matter of fact, it is very ethical and moral. Personally, I want to know that the money that I give to support the missionaries is supporting people of like beliefs.

 

Your scriptural support for this assertion?

The Abstract is one of the oldest statements of faith/creed/confessions Southern Baptists ever used. It is the doctrinal statement of SBTS and SEBTS and can be read at either website or at Abstract of Principles . It is a Reformed Calvinistic document that many signed and then committed insubordination by teaching against it during the dark years of our seminaries, but that's a whole other discussion

Check the book by McGlothlin on Baptist Confessions, aluded to by me in an earlier post.

Peter's response was a bit of a "creed," which Jesus praised highly. Speaking of Jesus and creeds, a quote from Geerhardus Vos would be quite instructive here:

You wrote:

You're an attorney if I remember right. Didn't you have to get a license to practice law? Didn't you have to pass the bar? Didn't you have to raise your right hand and make a promise about your conduct? Why is that any different than what we're asking missionaries to do? It's simply an opportunity to see if they will proclaim the message they have been charged to proclaim. To fail to do this would be treasonous against the very task.

Actually, it was my mother. She had a stroke last week and I've been caring for her, which is why you haven't seen me around much. Thank you for asking and I do ask you to pray for her.

 

Your scriptural support for this assertion?
&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;Jesus never asked someone to sign a creed or staement of faith.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
the Abstract is one of the oldest statements of faith/creed/confessions Southern Baptists ever used. It is the doctrinal statement of SBTS and SEBTS and can be read at either website or at Abstract of Principles . It is a Reformed Calvinistic document that many signed and then committed insubordination by teaching against it during the dark years of our seminaries, but that's a whole other discussion

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; I have less of a problem with this b/c at least they new they had to sign it going in. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

The best evidence we have on Christ's view on this is the confession he elicited from Peter-"Who do you say that I am?".
Lots of folks throughout church history may value creeds. But as far as I can tell Jesus did not endorse them.
[/QUOTE]Peter's response was a bit of a "creed," which Jesus praised highly. Speaking of Jesus and creeds, a quote from Geerhardus Vos would be quite instructive here:

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; Peter's response was HIS response, he chose the words. Note that his preceding statements of what other people said were wrong, but his confession was right. Note that what jesus praised was a personal confession not the signing of someone else's statement. You know, when we all meet Jesus it will be our own words that count. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

You wrote:But placing someone in the position of 'sign or else' reeks of "you are friend or foe", whether you can provide an explanation or not after you refuse to affirm.
You're an attorney if I remember right. Didn't you have to get a license to practice law? Didn't you have to pass the bar? Didn't you have to raise your right hand and make a promise about your conduct? Why is that any different than what we're asking missionaries to do? It's simply an opportunity to see if they will proclaim the message they have been charged to proclaim. To fail to do this would be treasonous against the very task.

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;I agreed to follow and uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State og Georgia. However, to the extent that I reasonably believe that a law is immoral/illegal I have the right,and some would say obligation, to challenge that law in Court. In my view, Jesus is the Constitution, or foundation of our faith. The Bible is the body of case law that points to and helps us interpret that Constitution/foundation. The BF&M is a mere tiny town municipal ordinance that is subject to the scrutiny of the Bible and ultimately to the Word Made Flesh Jesus Christ. Any law that violates the Constituion ought to be struck as unconstitutional. In my view, that's very easy to do with a creed, because of what you leave out, leave in, over-emphasize, under-emphasize, or take out of context. So 1..creeds are a bad idea, and 2... the current creed is "unconsitutional" in my view because it is an incorrect and imcomplete statement of our faith, and has wrongfully deleted Jesus as our criteria for interpreting what ultimately points toward him. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Actually, it was my mother. She had a stroke last week and I've been caring for her, which is why you haven't seen me around much. Thank you for asking and I do ask you to pray for her.
[/QB
&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;Already have and will continue to do so. God's blessings on you and your family.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

 

Jesus never rode in a car, taught at a seminary, used a computer, ad infinitum. This reason is not convincing. He did ask for confessions about Him and the Scriptures throughout the Gospels. This is what creeds/confessions are.

Referring to the Abstract...By their own admissions, moderates/liberals signed the Abstract knowing they would not teach in accordance with it. This is more justifiable than being asked if missionaries now have problems with the new BFM? Why is it so wrong that they be asked if their theologies have changed? And you may have hanged yourself here and be making my own point. If the missionaries who have a problem with the BFM 2K (which are very, very few) cannot sign it because they do not believe it, then they should not sign it and join a fellowship that is more reflective of their beliefs.

Thousands of messengers approved the writing and wording of 2000 BFM. It's not like it was done in a clandestine way. More input was in this document than the Abstract, which you earlier had no problem with people signing And what about Deut 6:4-6? Was this wrong? Was God's commands relative to this passage wrong?

Your analogy is impressive, but not apples and oranges. You promised to uphold the constitution(s). The ordinance that is in violation that you would feel the urge to challenge would be part and parcel of your role as an officer of the court. You were asked to faithfully discharge your duties in a certain way for certain precepts and principles. Why shouldn't missionaries be asked to do the same, since they engage in the most important matters in all humankind?

I disagree. I think they're a good idea if used properly. And the whole "criterion" issue has been debated before, so we won't get into that, but let me just say that the 2000 BFM properly clarifies the intent of the '63 drafters, even according to the '63 drafters themselves.

Thank you for praying for my mom. Remember my dad as well because I'll be going into the hospital with him as he will undergo back surgery to repair degenerative disks in his neck. There's only one of me to go around. Quick...where's the people who cloned Dolly

 

God is picky about the method?
"what then, only that in every way whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached, and in this I will rejoice, yes and will rejoice"Phil 1

is the word less effective when preached from a sandbox rather than a pulpit? or is it less effective when Bob the Tomato shares principles of Gods word with a talking cucumber?

Not saying any VBS is pretense in the least,and neither am I supporting every VBS 'program' especially since I dont know them all..

but what should we do..sit the kids down with an interlinear greek/hebrew Bible, a concordance, Bible Dictionary and a KJV bigger than their heads? All they would retain would be paper cuts from tearing out the pages and making paper airplanes from boredom.

Gods word is Gods word.

 

LifeWay hocking computers! The original subject heading sounds as if these computers are "hot!" as in stolen! Mercy, if you don't need a copier--what difference does it make that our Brother Drapier is selling them! LifeWay is like that ole show--"Green Acres" and the character, Mr. Haney. Ole Mr. Haney--you name it, he had it--in the back of that ole pickup truck! LifeWay has everything from study books & commentaries all the way down to nickel pencils that are on sale for a dollar and a quarter!

You don't have to buy a copier if you don't want to!

 

With these words of wisdom from go2church

and blackbird

I think it's probably wise to close this topic that has long since forgotten what it was about. In fact, I never knew!