Should a Southern Baptist Church be required to Affirm the BF&M 2000?

Unfortunately, it is not just a matter of how it "sounds". Open Theism is open heresy. There is no other way describe a belief that God can only try to stop evil, that God can make mistakes, that God doesn't know the future as well as the past when God Himself states that He does.

The Baptist Press article also mentioned a lot of laughter taking place when a zinging point was made to disparage the orthodox belief about God. Unfortunately, these Open Theists folks may be laughing themselves all the way to hell. How sad, how sad.

Ken

[ July 02, 2002, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Maybe, maybe not. I've been reading up on it because I discovered it is surprisingly similar to the understanding of scripture I've developed in my private devotion. (The last time this happened was when I discovered John MacArthur's, "The Gospel According to Jesus". I studied my Ryrie Study Bible for about a year before I finally realized Ryrie misunderstood the nature of repentance and faith. I could not make his notes on the Bible passages correspond to what the Bible actually said. I finally had to admit that Ryrie was wrong.)

Open theism does not claim that God cannot stop evil. The claim is that God allows people the freedom to create evil. You talk as if Open Theists believe that God is not active in the world, restraining evil and promoting good.

I've heard that one author suggests this, I haven't run across it yet in the literature. It may be a case of someone interpreting an author's claim that God's calling for a believer may not always work out the way originally intended... I really have no idea though since I haven't seen a claim like this yet.

As far as God making mistakes goes, I don't believe this at all. I'll bet that it is not a consistent belief among those who hold an understanding that is compatible with Open Theism.

This seems to be the sticking point for most people... I've been thinking about this quite a bit since discovering the Open Theism literature. I think a person's understanding of time makes quite a bit of difference here.

If you believe time is merely a sequence of events, then God may very well be wholly within time and the thought of "being outside of time" makes no sense. Open Theism would be the obvious theological model in this case.

But if time is something more than a simple sequence of events, then other points of view such as Calvinism are possible... of course it does not negate Open Theism, but it makes the Open Theism model more complicated.

Can anyone explain the nature of time? (I'm not looking so much for an illustration, such as a parade or a line, but rather something a little more descriptive.)

But as far as illustrations go, I understand time as a river, begun by God and ending at a predetermined place. We, in this river of time, have freedom to move from place to place through the river, but cannot exit the bank. Certain events have been preordained (much like rocks in the midst of the current) and we have the choice of going on one side or the other (or dashing ourselves against the rocks). But all of time is moving, in fast currents and nearly stagnant pools, flowing toward the final day. In my current understanding, God is both inside and outside of time, guiding us with the Spirit and manipulating circumstances according to His plan.

That's not quite the position of an Open Theist, but it is close.

Russell Moore has quite a bias, so I would be careful to put too much weight on how he characterized the meeting. (I plan to order the tape so I can hear it myself. It sounds interesting.)

By the way, people don't go to hell because of doctrinal impurity -- they go to hell because they have not placed their faith in God.

 

Let's try to keep this discussion generally on topic. It is OK to discuss doctrinal matters in the context of the denominational situation of the SBC & CBF, but a discussion strictly on open theism is off topic. There is a discussion on open theism already started in the Calvinism/Arminianism forum. Thanks for your cooperation.

rlvaughn, moderator

 

Sorry about that chief!

I was just trying to point out that there can be diversity in the Open Theism camp. That's the main point.

Thanks!

 

It took the Roman Catholic church about 600 years to establish a papacy. The SBC could establish one in about 3 years.
Maybe the SBC can build a Vatican for Paige Patterson!!!!!

 

Yes. But every time the leadership changes the BF&M, you should be required to affirm it, too.
After all, the BF&M is inerrant (or is it the Bible that's inerrant? I always forget which one we're supposed to affirm), and it is our criteria for interpreting scripture (no wait-weren't we supposesd to use Jesus for that?).
Of course, even though the BF&M is inerrant, they are always changing it. So even if you affirmed back in 1925, 1963, or even 1998, you have to keep affirming just to make sure you haven't fallen from grace (no wait-that doesn't happen because of pre-destination...now I'm really confused). Regardless, this isn't something petty that you can do just once by walking down an aisle during an invitation hymn after much thought and prayer. This is important.
After all, doctrinal conformity is the most important thing to a Baptist. Well, a Southern Baptist anyway, and they are the ones who aren't going to h-, well you get the idea. (Paul must have been smoking something when went he off on faith, hope and love being so great-what was he thinking?).
I for one can't wait for the next BF&M to come out so I can find out what to believe next.

 

David
Hope you are well. Great Post!

 

Thanks, I am great. Rebecca and I added a new baby boy to our family April 29th, Karl David Cooke III a/k/a "Beau". He was dedicated at church on father's day and the whole family was there (including folks you know from Macon).
David

 

David,
Your fallacious post notwithstanding , congratulations on the new blessing! The dedication on Father's Day must've been a wonderful occasion.

 

Tom,
Thank you. Yes, it was a wonderful day. I felt (and feel) truly blessed.
I was on paternity leave for 9 weeks (!), so If you noticed a drop in sarcastic posts from moderates, it may have been because I was too busy changing diapers to reach a computer (that, and playing with my 2 year old while my wife fed our newborn). 9 weeks paid paternity leave-now that was a blessing.

 

I've been reading some historic Baptist statements in the history forum. Some Baptist abstained from joining associations or conventions. Perhaps they knew what we are realizing, that an association or convention quickly degenates into an hierarchy.

 

I am with Rev. Joshua here. I believe if you want all of the spoils and "benefits" of being an SBC church you should sign it. Let's be honest about it. Now I am an IFB. We are unafilliated altogether. This is not even an issue for us. I believe we should all be independent of any organization that would even entertain the idea that we sign a statement like that. Conventions and cooperative programs really can have benefits but at what cost? My three cents.

Bob Ross

 

IFBers unaffiliated?

Now there is a statement that should generate some laughter. Having been a part of the IFB and now the SBC I can tell you I was marked more distinctly in IFB circles for with whom I affiliated than the SBC ever dreamed about.

The old "I am an IB b/c we are not a part of a denominational affiliation" is a joke. They may not contribute to a Cooperative Program but most IFBers are affiliated with a particular group.

 

Such as the BBF. To say they are independant is just something the pastor says to boost the morale of the congregation.