When will 'Modern' Baptists return to being Baptist

[Crabtownboy]

For a church to name itself as those who follow Jesus and they do not, do you not think that the local churches who do follow Christ should take a stand against such a church? Counterfeits always try to look like the real thing.

You are bringing up a different topic. What would your response be if, to keep your job, or to keep your church in an association, you had to sign a statement? What if you disagreed with the statement?

As a Baptist I would not sign it even if I agreed with it as I do not believe any Baptist church, association, or denomination has the right to force me to do so. This not only violates the priesthood of the believer bur also the independence of the local church .... which is another cornerstone of Baptist beliefs.

 

[gb93433]

If you think the new young guys coming up are going to weaker on liberals than their fathers were, you're also mistaken about that.

I believe you are right. In talking to young people there is a difference. If the discussions I have with young people are an indicator of what is to come I think many are in for a shock. Many of them are singing hymns in their own meetings. They want nothing to do with hypocrisy and image building. They want to see the real deal. They want straight talk. They do not want excuses. Some of the discussions I have listened to are intense and the subject matter is real. Personally I find it refreshing to listen to them.

 

[gb93433]

You are bringing up a different topic. What would your response be if, to keep your job, or to keep your church in an association, you had to sign a statement? What if you disagreed with the statement?

That has happened to me. I worked for a man who was a member of a FBC. He was regularly cheating customers. I told him to never ask me to do it because I would not. He terminated me three weeks later.

I pastored a church that regularly invited the Mormon bishop to teach. I did not agree with that and eventually they told me to leave.Later God provided in ways I would have never imagined both spiritually and financially.

If I disagreed I would let God provide as he always has. That is the problem we have today. We have practical liberals/atheists who claim to believe the Bible but really do not in practice. They are suing people and seeking self preservation instead of trusting God.

As a Baptist I would not sign it even if I agreed with it as I do not believe any Baptist church, association, or denomination has the right to force me to do so.

Good, it also seems to vilate your conscience.

 

[Revmitchell]

You need to read your history and see where Baptists have traditionally stood ... non-creedal. You are enforcing a creed, thus you are not Baptist in the tradional sense. To force people to sign a statement is to make it a creed. You cannot be Baptist and do this as you are violating the priesthood of the believer big time.

It is a creed long before anyone signs it. It is a creed even when no one signs it. You do not know what a creed is.

 

[Revmitchell]

You miss the point. Individual Baptist churches can have statements of faith ... but they cannot impose those statements of faith on other churches. For a denomination or an association to write a statement of faith and impose it on others is to negate being Baptist. Read up on Baptist history.

The cooperative cannot force anything on anyone. Nor has it ever. Everyone is free to associate or not associate everyone is free to teach or not teach. But if you are going to associate and you are going to teach within the parameters of the convention you will agree to the BF&M 2000 or you are free to move on. The freedom is yours. No one is forced.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The cooperative cannot force anything on anyone. Nor has it ever. Everyone is free to associate or not associate everyone is free to teach or not teach. But if you are going to associate and you are going to teach within the parameters of the convention you will agree to the BF&M 2000 or you are free to move on. The freedom is yours. No one is forced.

Then you said:

The cooperative cannot force anything on anyone. Nor has it ever. Everyone is free to associate or not associate everyone is free to teach or not teach. But if you are going to associate and you are going to teach within the parameters of the convention you will agree to the BF&M 2000 or you are free to move on. The freedom is yours. No one is forced.

bold emphasis mine

You contradict yourself. In fact, you contridict yourself in your statement above. First you say that no one is forced and then you say if you are going to associate you must agree. You cannot have it both ways.

I gently suggest you read Baptist history and see where you err in calling yourself Baptist.

An earlier post read:

Originally Posted by gb93433 View Post
I would ask the question, "How many have signed it after making some changes to the BF&M before signing it?

It seems to me that if churches agree with the BF&M, then they should have all of their pastors sign it too, rather than just talk about it. They should also ask them doctrinal questions about each part of it before interviewing prospective pastors.

New churches entering the convention do have to do that very thing. At least in the state of Florida
__________________

Churches are forced to sign the BF&M before they can join in Florida. So, you are imposing a creed on them that they did not write. That is not Baptist. You are not Baptist or you would not do this. You might have such a rule for your own individual church, but not as a litmus test for others. That is one of the things our Baptist forefathers fought against and died for.

Also no true Baptist pastor would sign such a statement because it is making a statement of faith a creed ... and no true Baptist pastor would sign a creed, even if he agreed with the words of the creed.

Would you sign the Apostle's Creed? Why or why not?


Again, read your Baptist history!

 

[gb93433]

since politics is your topic, how about baptists who vote to approve homosexuality and abortion, and claim either those are alright, or that others things need to be taken into consideration as more important, things which are politicial and nothing reflecting christianity. If baptists were to stand for the word of God instead men, then we might get somewhere, but until then they're going to live the world's set of morals, and see the world not through scripture, but with a world view that reflects more the world then God.

Are you assuming there are Baptist churches that approve of homosexuality and abortion. If there are what are the names of those churches?

 

[gb93433]

Churches are forced to sign the BF&M before they can join in Florida.

New churches are church plants that are receiving CP money and are under a different set of guidelines than a typical SBC church. When I planted churches I was asked far more questions that I ever was in a typical church. In addition what I did I had to account for. I had to account for the money spent and received as well as how many contacts I made. I knocked on about 75 to 200 doors each month.

Also no true Baptist pastor would sign such a statement because it is making a statement of faith a creed ... and no true Baptist pastor would sign a creed, even if he agreed with the words of the creed.

Then there are a lot of pseudo-Baptists in the SBC seminaries.

It is one thing to make a statement and quite another to live it out. It is the living out that people see and God is honored or dishonered.

 

[Revmitchell]

TYou contradict yourself. In fact, you contridict yourself in your statement above. First you say that no one is forced and then you say if you are going to associate you must agree. You cannot have it both ways.

I contradicted nothing. You assume that if someone cannot be a part of the convention then that is forcing them. No truth to that at all.

I gently suggest you read Baptist history and see where you err in calling yourself Baptist.

Your statement is contradictory as you are placing a creed on being a Baptist.

Churches are forced to sign the BF&M before they can join in Florida. So, you are imposing a creed on them that they did not write. That is not Baptist. You are not Baptist or you would not do this. You might have such a rule for your own individual church, but not as a litmus test for others. That is one of the things our Baptist forefathers fought against and died for.

It is not foreced if they can walk away and still be a church or Baptist somewhere else. The convention cannot control what they do.

Also no true Baptist pastor would sign such a statement because it is making a statement of faith a creed ... and no true Baptist pastor would sign a creed, even if he agreed with the words of the creed.

The SOF is a creed. A SOF and acreed are one in the same. I gave you the definition.

 

[sag38]

When cooperative progam dollars are used to help start a new church I'm glad that more questions are asked and that stipulations are placed on the use of the money such as agreement to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Why? The answer ought to be obvious but your sbc trashers refuse to see the logic.

 

[Tom Bryant]

you guys have made the priesthood of believers the only distinctive of baptist life.

There is no point in continuing this. You're headed in a completely different, and i think wrong, direction

 

[Revmitchell]

you guys have made the priesthood of believers the only distinctive of baptist life.

There is no point in continuing this. You're headed in a completely different, and i think wrong, direction

They have made a creed out of it. :laugh:

 

[tinytim]

you guys have made the priesthood of believers the only distinctive of baptist life.

There is no point in continuing this. You're headed in a completely different, and i think wrong, direction

Actually, I think that making a church agree to a creed before it is inducted into any Denomination is more against the Baptist Distinctive of Autonomy of the local church.

If a denomination can mandate things like this, where will you draw the line?

The gatekeepers of any denomination is the local association. The National level has NO business telling churches what they MUST believe.
That is akin to Roman Catholicism.

 

[tinytim]

Check out how we ABC/USA ers.. handle our SOF:
http://www.abc-usa.org/identity/idstate.html

Notice it says...

An Expression of Christian Faith Representative of American Baptists adopted by the General Board, American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., November

and

Although Baptists have produced numerous confessions to express our common understandings of Christian faith, we hold the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, as our final authority. We accept no humanly devised confession or creed as binding.

This Identity Statement is not binding.. but is a representation of what we teach in the ABC/USA.
NO church has to sign something stating we agree before the churches can be allowed into a local association.

I would run from a denomination that had that much power.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Actually each level of Baptist life is autonomous. A church has a right to set up a standard for beliefs to be a member. In the SBC, an association has the right to say who can be a member of it. all through the state and national.

No one has a right to be a SBC or an AB for that matter. I would imagine that your local Christian Science church has a set of beliefs that if they wanted to be a part of the AB, the denom/organ or whatever you all call it would say, "No, sorry you don't believe what we believe."

So a church in the AB could choose not to accept the inerrancy of Scripture or the deity of Jesus or His substitutionary death and still be a part of the AB?

 

[gb93433]

When cooperative progam dollars are used to help start a new church I'm glad that more questions are asked and that stipulations are placed on the use of the money such as agreement to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Why? The answer ought to be obvious but your sbc trashers refuse to see the logic.

Why would you suggest such a liberal idea that has zero support from scripture? You should be ashamed that you do not know your Bible better than that. It is liberals like you in the SBC under the guise of conservatism who are trashing the SBC by your lack of knowledge of the Bible and professing to believe the Bible yet do not know what it actually says and acting according to hwat the world teachers. Your post smacks of pragmatism.

Everything that is done should be done to the glory of God not with doublemindedness and separation between those who supply their own money and those to whom it is given (1 Cor. 10:31). To see a difference because of a money issue is nothing more than worldly theology.

It is people like you who are trashing the SBC by your liberal theology.

 

[tinytim]

Tom Bryant asked:

So a church in the AB could choose not to accept the inerrancy of Scripture or the deity of Jesus or His substitutionary death and still be a part of the AB?

Technically yes.. if the local association failed to do it's gatekeeping work.

If a church in our local association started teaching heresy, then the association would remove fellowship from it, thus disenfrancishing it from the ABC, and State/Region.

But the National Level would have no recourse to do it at that level.
The National level of the ABC/USA does not control the churches.. the churches controls the National level.

Does this present problems... yes.. .
The whole homosexual affirming mess is a byproduct of not ruling from the top down.
But we are not willing to give up the rights of church autonomy or priesthood of the believer in order to make sure that all churches believe the same thing.

It is a dangerous precedent to allow a denomination to dictate what it's church's can and cannot believe.

Suppose the BF&M would change to say that all SBC churches must be Calvinistic?
Or use the KJV.
Or Use only CCM or P&W.
Or Use only Hymns...
????

If local associations would do their jobs right, there would be fewer problems.
The National level should exist for missions.. Not dictating.

 

[gb93433]

Technically yes.. if the local association failed to do it's gatekeeping work.

There are those who know and do nothing about it because they are focused on climbing a ladder and do want to be disturbed with such things.

 

[Revmitchell]

The SBC is not a denomination. And denominations do rule from the top down. In a denomination the church has no choice to stay or go. The church, its name, its property, its pastor all must do as directed by the hierarchy. This is not so on the convention. The church, its Pastor, the property may come or go at any time. Guidlines for cooperating should be set by cooperative and is done by the votes of the cooperating churches.

Broadway was not expelled by the leadership in the convention, it was expelled by the vote of the cooperating churches. The difference between what the cooperative has done, And it is false that the leadership did this, and a denomination is night and day.

 

[Tom Bryant]

So your structure trumps biblical truth? I am really trying to understand this. So a local church could actively support and allow as members active couples and if the local ass'n did not remove the church, the denomination would have to accept that?

But because your primary truth is autonomy and priesthood, they would have to allow it? Sounds like a prescription for weakening and destroying the whole group.

My primary truth would be the Word of God and from it flows the priesthood of all believers and the autonomy of the local church.

If the BF&M was amended (which is a long and involved process) to include or exclude those things, I would tip my hat and ride off into the sunset long before they ever asked me to leave.

The national organization is autonomous and can if they get enough votes do exactly that.

But the issues that are at the forefront of the liberal controversy a few years ago was nothing so trivial. What was center stage was the inerrancy of the Bible and demanding that seminaries and organizations that received CP dollars were faithful to that stand. The liberal will argue that it was a power grab. But they are wrong about that as well as lots of other things.