Actually, my congregation prides itself on being Free Grace, even though we contribute $250 per year to the SBC.
-
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!
What IFB or Traditional Baptist Doctrine Do You Reject? .....
- Thread starter IveyLeaguer
- Start date
Actually, my congregation prides itself on being Free Grace, even though we contribute $250 per year to the SBC.
IveyLeaguer
New Member
Well, I guess there's no problem keeping your church populated.
Our church is the opposite. We have so few children it concerns me a little.
Ah yes, the "Fecund Bund" Baptists. But try as they might, they don't even come close to the fertility rate of rabbits; perhaps that's why they are so touchy and bitter about the Easter Bunny?:laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Alkire
New Member
I believe you are free to do as you want. But we never did the Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny deal. Never had to tell our children we lied to them about such. Our children knew that their wasn't a Santa or a Easter Bunny. We also didn't have pancake breakfast at church if that is what you are talking about, but we did have all day on the grounds in the summer, SS, preaching service, pot luck lunch or what ever you call it, play ball, singing, teaching and then back to Training Union and evening service. Yours could be as much fun as ours was.
Bob Alkire
New Member
I agree with you here.
Yep! Mine too!
No - the pancake breakfast is our family's tradition - just in our home.
But those kind of events you are talking about ARE fun. There's something about having time together with our brothers and sisters in Christ that is just so wonderful, don't you agree?Bob Alkire
New Member
No - the pancake breakfast is our family's tradition - just in our home.
Yes, I agree 100% with you!!!
quantumfaith
Active Member
Doctrines aren't really the problem. I find its attitudes that I dislike:
1. the attitude that places the pastor as the ultimate decider of spiritual questions rather than the Holy Spirit.
2. the attitude that says that I'm a better Christian than Ann because I followed the rule of not dressing my KJV in a skirt.
3. the attitude that I must not be raising my children right because we listen to music that is not hymns
4. the attitude that places a man other than my husband in authority over me (this one covers the preacher telling me I should be wearing the skirt even though my husband says wear pants)
5. the attitude that sets another Christian in judgement over me because they saw me in the ABC store buying vodka. This also covers playing cards, allowing my children to attend a prom where dancing will occur and going to see "godless hollywood movies in a dark theater that encourages s*xual behavior"
6. Pretty much anything that sets a personal preference up against the liberty of the believer to either make the holding the preference out to be more spiritual than the other or makes the other to feels as though they are committing sin/not doing their best/not fully committed to God because they don't believe the same way.
That'll do for a start.
I agree with #5, in the ABC store my baptist cohorts will pretend they dont see me, my methodist friends happily greet me.
saturneptune
New Member
Thanks a lot. My kids just read your post and found out there is no Santa or Easter Bunny. They have both been in tears all afternoon. My wife and I tried to comfort them until 6pm, and it got so bad, we had to call the emotional crisis hot line.
What was really bad was when they found out my kids were 24 and 26, the counselor told me that someone would be by to talk to me tomorrow.
Just kidding.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
How do you explain I Tim. 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man...." ?
How do you explain Acts 6:5 "And the statement found approval with the whole congregation..." and Acts 15:22 "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church..." ?
Believers baptism, by immersion, has been a distinctive of the Baptist church since Baptists first organized in the early 17th century. I'm quite surprised that someone identifying themselves as a baptist would find paedobaptism legitimate. How does that fit with believers baptism?
I'm in agreement with you on this. I believe church polity should follow the elder led model with deacons (both male and female) as servants of the church.
Women, however, are not to teach or have authority over men, therefore they cannot be elders. Scripture is quite clear on that matter.
peace to you
raying:How do you explain I Tim. 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man...." ? How do you explain Acts 6:5 "And the statement found approval with the whole congregation..." and Acts 15:22 "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church..." ?Believers baptism, by immersion, has been a distinctive of the Baptist church since Baptists first organized in the early 17th century. I'm quite surprised that someone identifying themselves as a baptist would find paedobaptism legitimate. How does that fit with believers baptism? I'm in agreement with you on this. I believe church polity should follow the elder led model with deacons (both male and female) as servants of the church.
Women, however, are not to teach or have authority over men, therefore they cannot be elders. Scripture is quite clear on that matter.
peace to you
Canady, thanks for your very gracious response. Some others here have been less than respectful with theirs. Here are a few quick responses.
1. The author of 1 Timothy (traditionally Paul, but may not be) was speaking to a specific group of people in a specific historical context. In this particular context, it would not have been acceptable for a woman anywhere to exercise authority, therefore, as is the case many other places, Christians are encouraged to make accommodation to the culture. For instance, do we believe that men should not have long hair or that women can't pray with their heads uncovered? How about the passages that deal with proper treatment of slaves? Of course this is valuable for us today, but the issue is "what are they saying to us today." Additionally, there are a number of highly-respected evangelicals that have sided as I have. These are people who have a high view of Scripture, who love God and are committed to God's service. That caused me to address my former convictions.
I understand the difficulty of this issue and am respectful of those who differ, but it is grieving to me when they don't wrestle at all with it.
2. As I read those texts, they are purely descriptive, not normative for us here today. In fact, many issues of church government appear to have been ad hoc constructs to fit the needs of their communities. If this is correct, I think it is dangerous for congregants to have a vote on a number of issues on the strength of their holding church membership. I believe many decisions must be made by a governing body in the church to avoid abuse from one person yet not leave the issue up to the church at large.
3. Long story short, you're right on with your point. This is one doctrine I prefer to hold with an open hand because I'm not positive that I'm right about it. As far as it fitting with believer's baptism, well, practically, when I was in graduate school in Illinois, I attended and worked in a free church (that has a very strong evangelical reputation)in the reformed tradition that actually practiced both. So, it both dedicated and baptized infants, also both baptizing and confirming adults. Because this has been a core doctrine of Baptists since the beginning, I realize I'm going to be on my own with this one. I'm okay with it.
4. Glad you agree. See the above comments regarding the gender issue.
Blessings to you.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The Apostle Paul gives reasons for not allowing women to teach or have authority over men. The reasons he gives are not cultural, they are biblical. He quotes scripture concerning the creation and the fall as the foundation for not allowing women to teach or have authority over men. These reasons, therefore, are not subject to cultural accommodation, since they would violate scripture if they be ignored.
Here, your argument for cultural accommodation may have merit, but these issues are not the same kind as male leadership where scripture is clear.
Such thinking gives rise to limitless speculation on the meaning of scripture. The question for scripture is "what does it mean in the context that it was written"? You can make application to "today" when you know what it means.
Questions of church polity are largely left unanswered by scripture. We can/do find models within the early church and certain commands to those who are leaders. IMHO, the elder led model best fits the way the early church conducted its business. However, certainly every church should be able to decide how to run its business.
Concerning the "gender issue" in relation to deacons, I came to my conclustions the same way I did with male leadership for the church. I don't base my acceptance of women as deacons on "cultural accommodation", I base it on scripture.
In the middle of the qualifications of deacons, the Apostle Paul says "women likewise" (often mistranslated as "their wives", IMHO). This phrase does not occur in the qualfications for elders (women are not allowed to be elders), and parallells the qualifications already given for deacons. It is clear to me that Paul is referring to women serving as deacons.
Thank you, and...
peace to you
raying:
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
I never realized that the culture and fads of the last 2000 years changed what God is saying to us "today." God's Word and principles never change. It is the one unchangable standard we have. Oh yes, and it is not "what THEY are saying to us today" it is what God is saying. You originate your point about culture discussing slaves and the dress of men and women. Since there are no slaves today, that is a mute point. Obviously dress will change over the years. This is where your error starts. You take obvious cultural differences and extend them over into timeless principles, such as Baptism and the qualifications for deacon. Just what else in the Bible would you change due to cultural differences?
In your last sentence, you said "glad you agree," well, I am very glad I do not agree.
Let me set the record straight. The Bible is authoritative. I earnestly seek to interpret and apply its teachings through the illuminating power of the Spirit. God's Word does not change, that is clear. Different circumstances only change the application of Scripture, as you perceptively pointed out when you said "since their are no slaves today, that is a [moot] point." Yes, thank God, it is, and so are many others, but the same, unchanging Truth, the Truth conveyed through Paul's writings, still applies to us today and is still efficacious.
The same point can be made about women praying with their heads uncovered or men with long hair. These are difficult passages that can still speak, but few believe their letter applies to us today.
I was talking about "they" as in God's inspired text, the Scriptures. Thanks for clearing that up.
I wouldn't change a word of it, in fact, I would do my best to exegete what it meant to the original intended audience and apply that to my life today.
Uh...okay...sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, I have been considered an Independant Fundamental Baptist Pastor for many years and just today I have learned that I wasn't even aware of some of the doctrines in my church.
Please be careful in stereotyping it is a dangerous practice. The focus should remain on Independant by definition it means not dependant on the practices or teachings of others. That matters of church practice is at the discretion of the local church.
Many of the things listed here are not common practice today. Yet there are many Pastors who teach
1. Dresses or skirts only
2. Closed communion ( good arguments on both sides, local church decision)
3. KJV only
4. Altar calls ( can't really see where the problem is)
5. Choir (amazing that this is an issue, pride from the pulpit is much more rampant than pride from the choir)
6. Tithing (good arguements on both sides, preach it as you feel it)
I respect their right to make those decsisions if it is by conviction and not by the instruction they have received. A careful examination of many Baptist churches regardless of affiliation will bring to light that the teachings and local practices of the Pastor is many times more influenced by the school they attended than by a careful study of scripture.
Please be careful in stereotyping it is a dangerous practice. The focus should remain on Independant by definition it means not dependant on the practices or teachings of others. That matters of church practice is at the discretion of the local church.
Many of the things listed here are not common practice today. Yet there are many Pastors who teach
1. Dresses or skirts only
2. Closed communion ( good arguments on both sides, local church decision)
3. KJV only
4. Altar calls ( can't really see where the problem is)
5. Choir (amazing that this is an issue, pride from the pulpit is much more rampant than pride from the choir)
6. Tithing (good arguements on both sides, preach it as you feel it)
I respect their right to make those decsisions if it is by conviction and not by the instruction they have received. A careful examination of many Baptist churches regardless of affiliation will bring to light that the teachings and local practices of the Pastor is many times more influenced by the school they attended than by a careful study of scripture.
Additionally, I will add that, though I have my own convictions, I would certainly not consider the Baptist positions on Baptism and deacon (or elder) qualifications to be timeless principles for all Bible-believing, evangelical Christians. There are some just as devout as you and I who know the Bible as well or better than you and I and who take it as seriously as you and I who find themselves in different positions. Obviously, I believe I'm right, but in the end, I'm still probably wrong on some of these things. So are they. So just be careful you don't call others believers' theological and Biblical integrity into question when you claim the final word on such difficult issues.
Goodnight. Blessings.
saturneptune
New Member
You make some good points. It is a matter of where that line is drawn. For example, although I believe in a six day, young earth Creation, I would not go into a theological down spiral if I found out I was wrong. The same goes for all the end time theories. When you get into the areas that effect salvation and the nature of Jesus Christ, that is another story.
I do not know Greek or Hebrew with any type of skill except what I can look up in a reference book like anyone else, so that could affect subjects like you talk about, such as dress. The debate over qualifications for deacon, as far as what the "husband of one wife" means has been argued back and forth for centuries. When you get into women holding these offices, really, I have not seem much disagreement about that one. Elder and deacon are different offices. Elder seems to have a much greater element of leadership. Most Baptist churches do not have an elder form of government (although more are doing this). In the past, in churches with no board of elders, some deacons have tried to be wanna be elders, when that was not their job. That was the fault of the congregation for allowing the abuse of power by the deacons. Phrases such as "the deacons run the church" or "the deacons ran off the pastor" show an abuse of power, as this was not their job. It was to serve.
The final decsion about a lot of these questions such as what type of government (elder vs congregational) and the role of women is up to the local church.
I do agree with that, Planets. I feel that way, or at least aspire to, about all non-essentials, but there are some beliefs that if I don't affirm with faith wholeheartedly, I don't affirm anything distinctive about Christianity. And I'm unwilling to do that. I want to make sure I leave ownership of Truth to God alone and be teachable.
Blessings to you, friend.