News: Birmingham Baptists reject Baptist Faith statement

What are the main differences between the two faith statements?

 

The two big ones in the 2000 BFM are 1)Wives should graciously submit to their husbands; 2)Women cannot serve as Pastors

 

You know, I see nothing wrong with either of these. Scripture comes out ans states that wives should submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. Of course, the greater responsibility is placed upon the husband in these passages.

About women being pastors or not... I believe that to be correct. However, I know of instances where women have had responsible roles in the church. Up to the level of director of education etc.

 

I'm glad I don't live in Birmingham because I'd be in trouble. I don't believe women should EVER be pastor's or preachers and I believe women should submit to their husbands.

Diane

 

Good for the Birmingham Baptists.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I guess they will have to tear some more pages out of their Bible.

 

Well Said Sue!!

 

What are the main differences between the two faith statements?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The two big ones in the 2000 BFM are 1)Wives should graciously submit to their husbands; 2)Women cannot serve as Pastors

Well...those are the most "controversial" ones. Neither of those have salvific importance. The Bible also says women are not to adorn themselves with braided hair, gold, pearls or expensive clothes....should the SBC add THAT to the BFM?

 

So is it that the people who refuse to sign don't believe these two statements,

 

Kate- I understand that it is more the unBaptist principle of forcing someone to conform than it is about the individual points. Yes, the Bible says wives submit yet the BFM puts the emphasis on wives submitting over "joint submission" in the previous verses of Scripture.

 

KPBAP...you are exactly right...the biggest issue is being forced to conform despite the historical principles that Baptists hold. On submission.....I agree that the entire context of "submissive wives" is mutual submission, but that part usually gets left out or certainly the focus is not on that part.

 

The two big ones in the 2000 BFM are 1)Wives should graciously submit to their husbands; 2)Women cannot serve as Pastors </font>[/QUOTE]Those are a couple of biggies, but there is also the potentially significant change in the matter of Jesus as criterion. Many moderate SBCs/ex-SBCs see the change in this area as demoting Jesus below the Scriptures.

Haruo
neutral leftwing observer

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]Those are a couple of biggies, but there is also the potentially significant change in the matter of Jesus as criterion. Many moderate SBCs/ex-SBCs see the change in this area as demoting Jesus below the Scriptures.

Right Haruo! That is a very significant change to many of us! The criterion by which scriptures are to be interpreted is God incarnate, Jesus Christ!

Sorry, I'm not good with the quote function yet!

 

Yes, but how do you know Jesus Christ? Has he appeared to you lately, or did you read everything that you know about Him in the Bible--God's Word? I guess it is possible that someone may have never read the Bible and have had someone tell them about Jesus. However, that only removes the person one step from the Bible. The one who told them about Jesus had read the Bible and then obeyed its command to tell others. However, you can't get away from the fact the all that is known about Jesus is recorded in the Bible and that is how we all come to know Him.

Until He Returns,

Bibleboy

[ May 02, 2003, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/articles.htm

 

So... Jim,

What's the point of your posting the Mainstream (read that moderate/liberal) link? The point here is for us to discuss the issues not just put up links. We want to hear your thoughts, we don't simply want to re-read the agenda published by a particular group or organization. Come on friend, let's hear what you have to say regarding the issue.

 

Apparently you didn’t check the link. It’s a side-by-side comparison between the texts of the 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. There is not commentary there, just the facts.

If you think that simply presenting two Southern Baptists side-by-side as publishing an “agenda”, then there’s little hope of having an intelligent conversation.

 

[double post!]

 

The Problem with Confessional Statements in Southern Baptist Life is that with every re-write we are getting further and further away from the faith of those Southern Baptists of 1845.

Example:

The Doctrine of Man in the various Confessional Statements that Baptists have followed in America since our beginnings show an "improvement" in the nature of man.

In the Abstract of Principles of Southern Baptist Seminary (1859), we find that man inherits a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God, but in the 2001 BF&M we find that man's nature has improved to the state of having a nature and environment inclined toward sin.

Makes you wonder if the next revision will endow man with a nature where sin is merely an option!

All of this ties in nicely with our feel good, democratic, increasingly humanistic society and reflects the influence the society has had on modern Southern Baptists.