Should I Leave the Southern Baptist Convention?

[Steven Yeadon]

Steven, that is not necessarily accurate. The SBC church I am presently a member of does not accept the BFM 2000. We accept the BFM 1963. We believe the BFM 2000 over emphasizes Pastoral authority at the expense of the Baptist Distinctives of Soul Liberty and Priesthood of the believer.

Thank you, good to know.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

OK, I will come out and say it since I was told this in another thread: Should I just join an Independent Baptist Church? Wouldn't such a church fit me far better?

Also, because of the women in leadership positions thing alone, my pastor has said it would probably go against my conscience to stay at my current church. I remember he told me that, and I think he is right.

 

[TCassidy]

Should I just join an Independent Baptist Church?

That would depend on the IFB church. They are all different.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

That would depend on the IFB church. They are all different.

That probably just means I have to start looking. Does anyone know some churches to recommend other than the two Reformed did? I still have to look into those two churches too.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That probably just means I have to start looking. Does anyone know some churches to recommend other than the two Reformed did? I still have to look into those two churches too.

Or.... start one emphasizing the distintives you believe to be important. Then if you become successful with getting it off the ground, you can experience having other people criticize you.

Brother, what goes around comes around! ​

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When the prez of the SBC came out against the General Forrest statue, It put my resolve to see our church pull out of the SBC in high gear.

I felt the same way when Penn State removed Coach Paterno' s statue.

 

[Baptist Believer]

What I should say though, in addition, is that the BF&M2000 sets the playing field we are all on.

No, not really. My church uses the 1963 BF&M confession.

It sets the lines and field size and such. Because of this, it tells us what is or is not out of bounds.

That is not supposed to be the purpose of the BF&M. It is not a creed, but a confession. It is directed to outsiders to explain the basic points of view of the majority of the members of our Baptist church. It has only been used as an "instrument of accountability" for certain denominational employees who are not politically secure.

And I would be amazed to find a Southern Baptist pastor who would even criticize the BF&M2000 for being nebulous on these "red line" issues to me.

You missed all the discussion, heated language and controversy surrounding the confession nearly 18 years ago. I lived through it and participated in it. What you are looking at are people who generally accept the 2000 BF&M. Many of us don't, and those still hold to the 1963 BF&M.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

That would be very easy for me to do in the SBC. A major reason I am in the SBC, apart from familial ties, is because the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is such an easy document for me to sign off on. It seems very "big tent" theologically compared to other denominations that stress a much tighter interpretation of the bible that I view as in error in some cases.

However, what really got me here are two things. One very personal that I cannot go into online. The second is that I found 2 John 9-11 and soon after other verses like it. I see those verses as a challenge to forsake anything that is not of pure doctrine, excepting disputable matters. For instance, for now I could be in a church that teaches the Doctrines of Grace if they allowed me to be Arminian without incident. However, the issue is my five red lines, which I can explain to get better feedback in this thread.

1. The church is against me on the issue of prophecy now. I used to be charismatic as you know. I am now out of that damnable cult thanks to you and this board TCassidy. Thank you all again! However, my pastor and the church still supports the modern Charismatic gift of prophecy and other sign gifts if they are practiced "biblically." They use Wayne Grudem's text on prophecy for doctrine.

2. The church and I have been increasingly far apart at Bylaw meetings on the role of women and divorce. We now have women as ministry leaders of all types except Deacon and Pastor. We also look over divorce when picking church leaders. I have had to recuse myself form certain ministries because I would not put myself under the authority of a woman. The church's culture also accepts family planning, which is anathema to me.

3. The church is fairly ecumenical, even when it comes to any and all Christian denominations except Mormons it seems. I have been told straight up that denomination doesn't matter by a number of people, including church leaders. I subscribe to the idea that there is a church of Jesus the Christ and church of the Antichrist at work in church history. A Mennonite and fundamentalist viewpoint based on passages primarily in 1 John. To be told that the church of the Antichrist himself, currently the high church and the mainline at least, is no different than the church of Jesus the Christ is beyond my ability to tolerate.

4. My church feels like it does not teach the avoidance of sin in the life of a Believer properly. By this I mean that I have been told by church leaders that the judgment for Believers has no real punishment to it and is just God explaining how disappointed but not angry He is with us. This is quite against the "as through fire" bible reference I keep getting when I bring up the subject with anyone on BB. Also, this teaching on sanctification goes against the bible repeatedly when it talks of making every effort to not sin. This is anathema to me and I am convinced it is leading others astray who are culturally churchgoers.

5. My church lacking clear church discipline is a humongous issue to me that is unlikely to get any better. That is unless I turn into some church discipline reformer as has happened at other SBC churches I have read about, which I considered but not for this church given the other red lines.

Wow, I get it, just leave this church and continue to debate whether to hop denominations.

Steven, I must join some of the others in finding your posts to be confusing with little clarity. You have never responded to the scriptures I provided on POTS.

1. I don't think you are an Arminian. It's seems you prefer kind of an eclectic mix. That will always cause some doctrinal problems.

2. No birth control. I can agree it's a real problem if it is a deliberate. Dr. Al Mohler wrote a great article regarding deliberate childlessness:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/06/07/deliberate-childlessness-moral-rebellion-with-a-new-face-2/

There are good reasons to limit one's family size. Ever heard of Tay Sach disease?

I am the Director of Music at my church. It's an executive position, but I do not attend the meetings of the Elders.

I hope you will find peace.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Steven, I must join some of the others in finding your posts to be confusing with little clarity. You have never responded to the scriptures I provided on POTS.

1. I don't think you are an Arminian. It's seems you prefer kind of an eclectic mix. That will always cause some doctrinal problems.

2. No birth control. I can agree it's a real problem if it is a deliberate. Dr. Al Mohler wrote a great article regarding deliberate childlessness:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/06/07/deliberate-childlessness-moral-rebellion-with-a-new-face-2/

There are good reasons to limit one's family size. Ever heard of Tay Sach disease?

I am the Director of Music at my church. It's an executive position, but I do not attend the meetings of the Elders.



I hope you will find peace.

I guess I don't see the problem because my perspective increasingly makes perfect sense to me. I am increasingly secure with most of my beliefs, which when taken together leaves me fairly extreme in Christianity. However, I view these things as clearly attested to by the bible and thus proper doctrine.

As to your points I'll just come out and say it is guys like this that make more and more sense to me:
Calvary Chapel and Maranatha Music

Menno Simons is also my new go to historical theologian.

I am finding more and more peace over time as I search with all my heart for the Lord, our Father in heaven's truth. I think my real issue was honestly spending so much time in that TULIP debate, which is the one theological issue that never seems to end in my mind. It robs me of peace really, but I must understand it to find out what the playing field for predestination and free will doctrines are as attested to by the bible.

 

[TCassidy]

Steven, you are in way over your head. I suggest a break.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

That probably just means I have to start looking. Does anyone know some churches to recommend other than the two Reformed did? I still have to look into those two churches too.

For the most part, this church rejects women leadership, birth control, charismatic following and is strictly Arminian. It's also KJVO to 'da max.

Caution they do believe in vile words:

He has been banned by at least 6 countries, for hateful rhetoric.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Baptists believe in Individual Soul Liberty. Therefore there are probably no 100% alike Baptists. Each Baptist will have his specific quirks and beliefs on secondary issues, however the primary issues (I.E Christ is THE Son of God, He died on the cross for our Sins and is THE only way to Heaven) are what unite Christians in fellowship.

I think you ought certainly define what your own beliefs are on secondary issues, but I would not break fellowship over primary issues.

Ex: I go to a Free Will Baptist Church even though I lean more towards Perseverance of the Saints. The agreement on primary issues, combined with the Bible based teachings, and the fellowship of other Saints makes me stay despite secondary issues.

"Unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things"

 

[TCassidy]

"Unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things"

I believe our doctrine should encompass two different lists of distinctives. First of all our core beliefs:

1. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

2. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

3. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

4. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

5. The second coming of Christ.

Once you have those 5 fundamentals you can move onto the next set of distinctives:

1. Biblical Authority

2. Autonomy of the Local Church

3. Priesthood of the Believer

4. Two Ordinances

5. Individual Soul Liberty

6. Saved, Baptized Church Membership

7. Two Offices - Pastor and Deacon

8. Separation of Church and State

After that, all else is peripheral.

I have some preferences. Things I prefer but which are not a reason to avoid fellowship or membership over.

1. Byzantine based bible translation.

2. Conservative music, traditional psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.

3. Expository preaching.

4. Particular Redemption.

5. Closed communion.

6. Seminary educated pastoral staff.

7. Discipling of new converts.

8. Strong, bible based, youth program.

9. Compassionate outreach to help meet community needs.

10. Reconciliation, not condemnation.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Steven, you are in way over your head. I suggest a break.

My brain is stressed out on theological stuff for now, which says a lot as I was halfway to an MDiv specializing in theological studies a few years ago. I am thinking of relaxing, letting ideas percolate in my brain, reading religious literature, and just responding to threads instead of making new ones unless its an easy issue to me. Nothing adventurous like my last few threads.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

For the most part, this church rejects women leadership, birth control, charismatic following and is strictly Arminian. It's also KJVO to 'da max.

Wow, is this stuff associated with Way of Life ministries? He is openly hateful (Matthew 5:43-48), he is openly hostile (Matthew 5:21-26), he is uncontrolled (Galatians 5:22-23), and he forgets to have a good reputation with outsiders (1 Timothy 3:7); among many other verses, from his pulpit.

 

[righteousdude2]

I have a few reasons to leave the SBC now, but I wanted to discuss with you guys and my church leaders whether I should stay or not. Here are my current reasons for wanting to leave, which may expand honestly:

1. The denomination is too "big tent." I now believe that doctrine and moral teaching is of extremely high importance. A significant minority, if not a majority at times, of Southern Baptist churches teach or enforce things I could in no way support. (Charismaticism, a kind of evangelical "modern" womanhood, birth control, church discipline in only extreme circumstances, embrace of the nuclear family over and against the extended family, a turning away from the bible as the rock of all we believe in, a poor understanding of when or when not to go to war, an odd style of American nationalism, ecumenism, health and wealth over charity, and even socially liberal politics).

While many of these are rare problems, 2 John 9-11 warns us that we are not to even welcome false teachers, let alone go to church with them! Also, some of these are trends in the denomination that I am concerned will win out in the near to mid future. Or, as is the case with church discipline, they are broad problems with determined minorities fighting for a biblical position.

2. The denomination was founded Calvinistic with heavy attention to the Doctrines of Grace. I am Arminian, and honestly coming to arguments with people at church or in the conference about this issue seems foolish to me, since the denomination is most true to its roots when it allies with people, who do not believe as I do.

3. Of all the church leaders of church history, I most identify with Menno Simons, so I view myself as a Baptist who is ultimately descended from the Mennonites and their teachings. Teachings that are heavily altered in some cases to better conform with a literal interpretation of the bible. I do not identify myself with the Reformation and its theology all that much over and against the Mennonites. Here again the SBC doesn't seem to fit given its more Reformed roots.

Thanks in advance for any comments!

If you are asking, you are probably one foot out the door brother1 I'd say, go, and don't let the door hit you where the where the naturalness of your body split you1

 

[Billx]

I have a few reasons to leave the SBC now, but I wanted to discuss with you guys and my church leaders whether I should stay or not. Here are my current reasons for wanting to leave, which may expand honestly:

1. The denomination is too "big tent." I now believe that doctrine and moral teaching is of extremely high importance. A significant minority, if not a majority at times, of Southern Baptist churches teach or enforce things I could in no way support. (Charismaticism, a kind of evangelical "modern" womanhood, birth control, church discipline in only extreme circumstances, embrace of the nuclear family over and against the extended family, a turning away from the bible as the rock of all we believe in, a poor understanding of when or when not to go to war, an odd style of American nationalism, ecumenism, health and wealth over charity, and even socially liberal politics).

While many of these are rare problems, 2 John 9-11 warns us that we are not to even welcome false teachers, let alone go to church with them! Also, some of these are trends in the denomination that I am concerned will win out in the near to mid future. Or, as is the case with church discipline, they are broad problems with determined minorities fighting for a biblical position.

2. The denomination was founded Calvinistic with heavy attention to the Doctrines of Grace. I am Arminian, and honestly coming to arguments with people at church or in the conference about this issue seems foolish to me, since the denomination is most true to its roots when it allies with people, who do not believe as I do.

3. Of all the church leaders of church history, I most identify with Menno Simons, so I view myself as a Baptist who is ultimately descended from the Mennonites and their teachings. Teachings that are heavily altered in some cases to better conform with a literal interpretation of the bible. I do not identify myself with the Reformation and its theology all that much over and against the Mennonites. Here again the SBC doesn't seem to fit given its more Reformed roots.

Thanks in advance for any comments!

Yes, most of us are Calvinistic and Armenians are at times excluded from Ordination because they lack a full understanding of grace. There is no priesthood of the believer at that juncture. Personally I prefer Mr. Wesley as he does not endorse either saying keep on preaching the gospel fellas. When either systems are used it seems to me they end up in the new heresay saying I am saved with no walking in Jesus steps. Keep on preaching the gospel. Jesus saves, Jesus saves.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, most of us are Calvinistic and Armenians are at times excluded from Ordination because they lack a full understanding of grace.

Uh, what?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Yes, most of us are Calvinistic and Armenians are at times excluded from Ordination because they lack a full understanding of grace. There is no priesthood of the believer at that juncture.

I think even the most zealous 5-point Calvinists in the SBC will readily admit that they are not in the majority, and Armenians (nor Arminians) are excluded from ordination in any systemic way.

Ordination is a local church activity, and I'm sure candidates sometimes are not ordained for doctrinal issues, but I've never heard of anyone being declined ordination for being Armenian or not being a five-point Calvinist.

 

[TCassidy]

Why would someone be denied ordination for being from Armenia?