Why?Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
If a church wants to be part of the SBC, it seems only fair and reasonable that it and its members should subscribe to BF&M2K.
Especially if a particular church existed before the SBC came into existence and already had an Articles of Faith in place 19 years before the SBC was formed. </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your point, but if BF&M2K was agreed by the SBC in Convention, then that is the will of the majority of the Convention; the dissenting minority then have two choices - either submit to the will of the convention, or leave (they can either form a new association/ convention like the CBF did, or have no association at all and be completely Independent). That may seem a little harsh, but I don't think it is unfair; if we as congregations associate/'Convene' by agreement between us, then it is fair to say that when agreement can no longer be reached, then we should cease to associate in that manner or on that level.
Yours in Christ
Matt </font>[/QUOTE]Matt, The only problem with your view is that the SBC did not make subscription to the BF&M2K part of the membership requirement for affiliated churches.
It is the Convention's Doctrinal Statement not the Statement of all the Churches.
If the convention requires subscription to the BF&M2K in order for a local church to be an affiliated church then I suspect many will leave as you are suggesting.