Questions For Southern Baptists

There is no way under heaven that can be interpreted to allow for non-immersed persons to being invited to the Lord's supper. SBC churches which practice open communion are, therefore, in open and flagrant violation of the BF&M, just as surely so as a woman who does not graciously submit to the servant leadership of her husband or a man who denies that the Bible is God's revelation of Himself to man.

Mark Osgatharp [/QB][/QUOTE]

The thief on the cross was invited to heaven to have fellowship with the saints. He never got wet but he was a believer.

A woman is not obligated to submit graciously to her husband if he ask her or tells her to violate scripture. You forgot the one part of the submission clause, "as to the Lord."

I'd rather violate the BF&M than my God who inspired scripture. Sometime look at the following quote under The Church, "Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes."

Mark, show me any place in scripture where the church operates in a democratic process. NEVER!!! That is the Americanized baptist chruch. God's church is a theocracy. He never cares about what is popular. HE cares about His will, not the will of the people. Why do you think there is so much ungodliness in a popularity campaign in some churches that more interested in archtectural evangelism than evangelism the way Jesus taught.

Mark, not all SBC churches operate through a democratic process. Some have elders who decide what is best. But the SBC still accepts their money.

 

Very well. Believe that if you will. However, many, many Baptist churches understand it the way I showed, and have not been kicked out of the SBC. Sorry to disappoint.

 

Remember that adherence to the BF&M is not a prerequisite to join the SBC. They will be glad to take any money you give them even if you don't agree with them. Those in the SBC range all the way from hyper-fundamentalist to somewhat charismatic.

 

GB,

This may be true. But the mission board did recently require it's missionaries to sign allegiance to the BF&M which, if consistently applied, would require them to abandon open communion.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark,

Don't you understand there is a difference in working for the Southern Baptist Convention which is the EMPLOYER and being expected to do your work as the EMPLOYEE according to certain policy than in being an Autonomous Southern Baptist Church that does not ( I repeat DOES NOT) have to adhere to a particular BF&M Statement?

My SBC Church does not adhere to ANY Baptist Faith and Message Statement. We are still going by our original ARTICLES OF FAITH from 1826.

Next Question?

 

Mark, you are making a big assumption to think that the BF&M stands for closed communion. I have not heard one person ever say that in the SBC and I graduated from an SBC seminary. For Baptist history I had Dr. Leon McBeth.

The quickest way to win people to Jesus is not to have a perfect church but to win people to Jesus Christ and disciple them.

I would wonder how many you are discipling as a pastor at the present time? How many are living for Jesus Christ because of your life? The debate is endless, but there is no debate about how many need to know Jesus.

Just remember there is not a chruch in America that doesn't have people who look and act just like Christians but who are not. They have been baptized and you may call them a believer. They may be someone who is a leader in the church you pastor. Jesus had one of his "disciples" and the others didn't know it. So don't be too sure about the idea that you are guaranteed to serve only believers. The chances that you have someone in your congregation who looks and plays the part is great. I have ecperienced and I know others who have first hand. Jesus experienced it.

All we can do is preach the word and leave the rest up to the Holy Spirit to convict. The likelihood if you stay at one church long enough that something like a leader coming to Christ that has partook of communion is great. I have seen it happen. When we preach the word God convicts. But ewen then there are people just like Judas who play the part very well until the end and we are left standing in shock.

 

I have to agree with Mark that the BFM teaches teaches restricted communion better known as "close communion" but it does not teach either closed communion or open communion.

 

Hardsheller,

Yes, I fullly understand that. I fully understand that a SBC church does not have to adhere to the BF&M. I am fully aware that there are multitudes of SBC churches which don't accept the BF&M or the Bible either one. I know of at least one SBC church with an avowed athiest for a pastor.

But my original question here was about SBC missionaries. SBC missionaries were recently required to sign attesting their adherance to the BF&M. The BF&M militates against open communion. So my question still remains:

"will the Southern Baptist invention now make restricted communion a test of missionary fitness?"

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Southern Baptist invention????????

 

Excuse me, but this is much ado about nothing.

First, if you are not a SBC missionary, what difference should it make to you?

Second, as far as I know, almost all Baptist churches (notice that I did not say only SBC) require baptism, at some point in a believer's life, as a requirement for membership.

Third, where does anyone have the right to point a finger at ANY church body for what they do or do not do, if it is not in flagrant disobedience to the Bible?

The SBC has every right to require its missionaries to agree to, and to sign off on, the BF&M. If I hire some one (regardless of their calling), I expect them to agree to, and abide by, the set guidelines and by-laws. If the SBC did not do this, it would be guilty of releasing hordes of semi-religious nuts into the world (under the name of SBC missionaries) who would be free to teach any whimsy of doctrine, all in the name of the Southern Baptist Church.

Yes, I am a Southern Baptist, and, yes, I do agree with having SBC missionaries agree to follow the BF&M. If that makes me a heretic, so be it.

Oh, and I am just curious...Just why are you (Mark) so interested in what the SBC is asking of its missionaries if you are not a Southern baptist?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Two reasons why an organization should not return to its historical roots. Either the original "root" wasn't right, or the world has changed to the point where the organization should move forward as well.

I believe that in many things the Southern Baptist Convention should move forward, in others they should "return."

Open/closed/close communion deserves examination to determine whether this should remain in the Baptist Faith and Message. Only then can we as a convention decide whether to return to some "historical root" or to proceed and change the language with the realization that a saved person is saved regardless of whether he has been immersed or not. I would be a proponent of the latter.

 

It is a church declaration - not a Biblical one, unless I am missing something. You must be saved - not necessarily baptized - to partake in the Lord's supper.

 

I find it interestig that in some churches the people could find acceptance into heaven by God but not by a local church to partake of communion/Lord's supper.

The man next to Jesus on the cross wil be found in heaven but he was not baptized. Remember even Paul stated that he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel.

Furthermore some of those members just got wet and are not even believers but they can partake because they came forward and got wet and are a member of a local chruch but not a member of God's family.

Even Judas fooled Jesus disciples. So if that happen what makes any of us superior to Jesus' disciples to think that we can't be fooled?

Man-made rules always have holes. But the scripture is without any. It is eternal but man's rules change and cause division and dissension.

All we can do is to preach the true as stated in the Bible and let God convict. I have never told a congregation to come forward to be saved. But the number of times I have heard that is phenomenal. That's not salvation. That's easy believeism.

 

Well, I got here very late to this thread, and have now read through it! Whew! So, here are my comments (mixed amongst others)!!

I don't think it's appropriate for people to join a denom, and then pick & choose what denominational practices they're going to adhere to. As a member of the SBC, I'm bound to adhere to the distinctives as a matter of scriptural living for the Baptist. As for the Baptist Faith and Message, this is a foundation of Baptist faith, and I stand by it as a matter of allegience for the Baptist. </font>[/QUOTE]You guys are taking the words right out of my mouth!!

Exactly!!

Excellent question!!

Exactly!!

I guess I'm a heretic right along side of you, Trotter, for I also agree with having SBC missionaries agree to follow (and sign) the BF&M.

When requiring missionaries to sign the BF&M first happened, we heard of some of them being fired because they wouldn't sign it (a very few, relatively speaking). Some SBC'ers were irate that this would happen. I heard of an elderly missionary who was fired because she was a "pastor" (in China, I believe), and had been for many, many years.

My point here is NOT to get into a discussion of women pastors(!) But I did ask the question that since Southern Baptists do not believe women should be pastors, why was she a pastor working for SBC in the first place? I have yet to get an answer to that question.

If someone works for (and is supported by) an organization, I believe that organization has every right to require adherence to that organization's beliefs.

A couple of the ministers at my church think eventually ALL SBC pastors will be required to sign the BF&M. If we think having missionaries sign it created a firestorm, just wait till THAT happens!!

And to stay on topic, my SBC church lets any baptized believer (baptized by immersion) share in the Lord's Supper with us, regardless if they are a member of our particular church. Do we verify their baptism? No, we don't. That is between them and the Lord as to whether they qualify, and I would hope their integrity would allow them to determine whether or not they should participate.

 

Quote:

"A couple of the ministers at my church think eventually ALL SBC pastors will be required to sign the BF&M. If we think having missionaries sign it created a firestorm, just wait till THAT happens!!"

Just how will the SBC manage this? SBC churches are autonomous. I attend a SBC church. We did not get SBC approval to call or to keep our pastor. He is paid by our church not the SBC. The SBC cannot dictate to us what we must do or not do.

 

Amen Terry,

A virtual firestorm of dissent and controversy will descend on the SBC the day the powers that be decide to have all SBC Pastors sign the BF&M!

The issue over requiring churches to affirm it came up here in Missouri and was quickly tabled.

Everyone who is thinking understands that this kind of step would be the end of the SBC.

BTW your message was numbered 666. Just thought I'd let you know.