• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trustee McKissic endorses prayer tongue during chapel sermon at Southwestern

Jack Matthews

New Member
drfuss said:
Churches give to the Cooperative Program based on the BF&M beliefs.

As I understand Baptist polity, and the way the CP works, this isn't true.

When a church gives to the Cooperative Program, with few exceptions, it gives to its state convention which distributes the funds to its own institutions and agencies, and forwards a percentage that the state convention has agreed upon previously to the SBC. Each church does that voluntarily, as they feel led. There is no requirement incumbent upon them to subscribe to the BFM2K. There are several state conventions that still use the 1963 BFM, and many others who utilize both versions.

The Baptist Faith and Message itself states that it represents the view only of the particular group of Baptists who approved it at the specific convention in 2000 where it was passed, and any subsequent convention can change or alter it as it feels led to do. Our church gives to the CP based on our desire to participate with other Christians in a cooperative missions and ministry effort that allows stability and efficiency in the use of resources. As an independent and autonomous congregation that freely enters into this relationship, we have our own statement of faith that we have written, discussed, prayed over and adopted as a church, and it is different from and more detailed than either of the Baptist Faith and Message documents.

The SBC surely realizes that there are thousands of individuals, and thousands of churches, which do not agree completely with all points of the BFM. Cooperation in Baptist life isn't based on doctrinal conformity. It is based on the leadership of the spirit and the need to work together to fulfill the Great Commission. It is quite obvious that there will never be universal agreement on the finer points of doctrine in this life. The time has come when Baptists need to stop acting like they are the only ones who have the truth and anyone who disagrees is a sinner bound for hell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I interpreted drfuss as saying that churches give while assuming that the funds will be administered in accordance with the BFM.
 

drfuss

New Member
StefanM said:
I interpreted drfuss as saying that churches give while assuming that the funds will be administered in accordance with the BFM.

That is correct. It is reasonable to assume that funds given to any organization will be used for its publically announced objectives and beliefs, i.e. the BF&M.

drfuss
 
Well wupdeedoo, let's allow speakers to down Budweisers to make their point in seminary chapels because, after all, "it's not in the BFM". Of all the things to speak on in the Bible and he chose the one he did...it was obviously to make a point, regardless of the continuing divisive consequences.
 

El_Guero

New Member
That is my problem with the BFM2k - it does not cover what we believe. It only covers enough to be loosely interpreted.

The Bible should be our creed . . .



drfuss said:
That is correct. It is reasonable to assume that funds given to any organization will be used for its publically announced objectives and beliefs, i.e. the BF&M.

drfuss
 

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bluefalcon said:
Well wupdeedoo, let's allow speakers to down Budweisers to make their point in seminary chapels because, after all, "it's not in the BFM". Of all the things to speak on in the Bible and he chose the one he did...it was obviously to make a point, regardless of the continuing divisive consequences.

Yes, he chose to make a point. He honestly believed something needed to be said.

The attitude of "sit down, shut up, and tow the party line" leads to destruction.

People thought Martin Luther was a rabble-rouser, too.
 
Top