When will 'Modern' Baptists return to being Baptist

[Crabtownboy]

Most Southern Baptists advocated prayer to begin a day in public school and before a football game, and a devotional at a PTA meeting. Are you claiming you were SBC-taught, yet taught contrary to these things?

At school we had a Bible reading and prayer at the start of the day. Where I grew up is was a very homogeneous culture, that is there were no religions in our area other than Christian. If there had been other religions and they had requested to read from their scriptures and pray I am not sure what the response would have been.

Now I live in an area that is very pluralistic. If Christians are allowed to pray at the beginning of the school day or before sporting events, than it is only logical, in our country, that each religious would have to be given the same consideration. Thus, in light of this, I feel it is best not to allow either scripture reading or prayer in school or before a sporting event.

More important than this, are you saying you were taught according to the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, which contains the statement that the Bible "has God for its author... and truth, without any mixture of error, for its content," and now find "inerrancy" and those who push it something undesirable, or detrimental... or false?

The Baptist Faith and Message has become a litmus test for employment in some places. That makes it a creed. Baptist have always been against creeds. There is no place for a creed in Baptist circles, especially if it is to be used as a test of who is or is not a Christian. The BF&M has been edited and changed a number of times in the past and I assume will be in the future. What if it is changed in such a way that you disagree with it? Should you be punished because you do not agree with the latest [future] edition?

There are those who have been fired because they would not sign a paper concerning the BF&M ... not because they did not agree with the BF&M, but because they saw this as making it a creed and as Baptist they cannot in good faith sign a creed.

I agree with this stance.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I grew up SBC and what the SBC teaches now is not what I was taught, not is it what Baptist have traditionally believed. For starters the SBC has become very creedal ... which means it is not really Baptist as long as it holds to such creedal teachings. They have also abandoned, for the most part, the separation of church and state ... and the leadership has moved toward a hierarchy, not in name, but in intent.

Like I said, you are mistaking what you grew up in for who are real baptists. You learned their false definition of what a Baptist is, took it as your own and now that Baptists have reclaimed their heritage from the impostors, you want us to accept your definition again. We won't.

Your idea that Biblical Baptists (what you call modern Baptists) are creedal is simply false. We have the BF&M, but within that we have calvinists and non-Calvinsts. We have pre-mills and a-mills and everything in between. You really ought to catch up with what Baptists are today rather than accept what the other liberals are saying.

And the idea that the SBC has a hierarchy is foolish. Morris Chapman, of the Executive Board is in trouble because he overstepped his bounds in his report to the SBC week before last.

The SBC is back to being real Biblical Baptists. Your kind of thinking is in the dim dark and unlamented past.

 

[Alcott]

The Baptist Faith and Message has become a litmus test for employment in some places. That makes it a creed. Baptist have always been against creeds.

There are surely some here who applied-- or at least got the info-- to Baptist seminaries or Bible colleges before the "conservative resurgence" of the late 70's and 80's. Did the applications then not ask one to affirm the BF&M or state why one cannot affirm it in full? I had not seen such an application before 1982, and that is what it required then.

Also, if affirming the BF&M for a position makes it a "creed," then why do the churches and the recently-organized groups opposed to the current SBC leadership not abandon any version thereof, instead of stating their beliefs are in coherance with the 1963 statement?

 

[Crabtownboy]

There are surely some here who applied-- or at least got the info-- to Baptist seminaries or Bible colleges before the "conservative resurgence" of the late 70's and 80's. Did the applications then not ask one to affirm the BF&M or state why one cannot affirm it in full? I had not seen such an application before 1982, and that is what it required then.

I have not seen such an application either. Little chance I would ever see such an application as I have never applied to a seminary not even thought of teaching at one.

Also, if affirming the BF&M for a position makes it a "creed," then why do the churches and the recently-organized groups opposed to the current SBC leadership not abandon any version thereof, instead of stating their beliefs are in coherance with the 1963 statement?

Making it a condition of employment or staying on the mission field makes it a creed.

Stewart is a trustee of the International Mission Board, a national Southern Baptist agency that oversees missionaries serving in foreign countries. That agency recently required its missionaries to affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as a condition of continued employment.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a

I used bold to emphasis the condition. This makes the BF&M a creed.

In his "President's Journal," Mohler states that seminary professors are required to teach "in accordance with and not contrary to" the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message.

"Furthermore, we expect our professors to hold these convictions as personal beliefs and commitments, not merely as contractual obligations for teaching," he writes. "This model of robust confessionalism is a critical dimension of our accountability to the churches. ... We do not force anyone to accept the confession of faith, but those who accept employment here do so under these terms."
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a

1999 -- Southwestern Seminary professors Alan Brehm and Dan Kent resigned after the seminary required faculty to sign off on the SBC amendment of the Baptist Faith and Message which emphasized female submission. SBC Messengers commissioned a panel to reexamine the Baptist Faith and Message Statement with a view toward revising it to reflect unambiguous fundamentalist language.

2000 - SBC approved a new Baptist Faith and Message which elevated the Bible above Christ, failed to safeguard Baptist distinctives of soul liberty and priesthood of the believer, and violated local-church autonomy by stating that the office of pastor must be limited to men. Former President Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention. Texas Baptists approved a proposal to reduce SBC funding.

2001 - South Main of Houston severed ties with the SBC. Two professors at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary refused to sign the new Baptist Faith and Message and lost their jobs. Former President Jimmy Carter urged estranged moderates to forget the conservative-led Southern Baptist Convention and form new partnerships to advance traditional Baptist views. Registrations numbered 5,100 at the annual CBF Convention in Atlanta, a new record. Fundamentalists in Texas held their convention at the same time as the BGCT annual convention which was peaceful and without controversy (only about 50 votes in favor of the new Baptist Faith and Message out of the thousands that attended).

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a

Other quotes.

1970--The SBC Foreign Mission Board introduces a requirement that missionary candidates respond to a question concerning the Baptist Faith and Message. The question asked is "Are your doctrinal beliefs in substantial agreement with those printed in Baptist Faith & Message (1963) and adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1963?"70a

# 1975--The SBC FMB changes the question for missionary candidates concerning the BF&M to "Are you familiar with the contents of the Baptist Faith & Message? Are you in substantial agreement with this statement? Please cite and explain the areas of differences in beliefs and/or interpretations."75a

# early 1976--The SBC FMB changes the question for missionary candidates concerning the BF&M to "Are you familiar with the contents of the Baptist Faith & Message? Are you in agreement with the statement? Please cite and explain any area of differences."76a

1990--The SBC FMB changes the question for missionary candidates concerning the BF&M to "When did you last read the Baptist Faith & Message? Are you in agreement with the statement? If no, attach a separate sheet of paper citing and explaining any area of difference."90a

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a

International Mission Board:

The trustees of the International Mission Board, in covenant with the Southern Baptist Convention, wholeheartedly affirm the current edition of The Baptist Faith and Message as the standard for carrying out the programs and ministries of the board.

Additionally, in keeping with the historical practice of the International Mission Board, the trustees adopted the following policy: Missionary candidates shall be required to read the current The Baptist Faith and Message, affirming its statements or noting and clarifying points of disagreement. Such affirmation or disagreement shall be noted in writing in the candidate's doctrinal statements of the application process.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a

While the words conditions of employment are not used it is not hard to read between the lines and see that is what is meant. This makes the BF&M a creed.

 

[OldRegular]

So it seems like Baptists should not:

Vote
hold public office
serve in the military
pay taxes
refuse to testify in court
ect,ect,ect

I will go along with that not paying taxes idea!:thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

There are surely some here who applied-- or at least got the info-- to Baptist seminaries or Bible colleges before the "conservative resurgence" of the late 70's and 80's. Did the applications then not ask one to affirm the BF&M or state why one cannot affirm it in full? I had not seen such an application before 1982, and that is what it required then.

Also, if affirming the BF&M for a position makes it a "creed," then why do the churches and the recently-organized groups opposed to the current SBC leadership not abandon any version thereof, instead of stating their beliefs are in coherance with the 1963 statement?

Before Baptists became "respectable", that is cater to the culture of the time, they had Confessions of Faith. We need to adopt the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, with modern English of course.

 

[sag38]

I'm glad that employees' of SBC institutions, etc. are required to sign an agreement stating they are in agreement with the BFM 2000. That way men and women who believe like Crabtown Boy and those who are like minded won't be allowed to teach in our seminaries or work in other SBC institutions or entities that use Cooperative Program dollars. Thank God these folks are out and will be kept out.

 

[Salty]

I'm glad that employees' ... are required to sign an agreement stating they are in agreement with the BFM 2000. That way men ...those who are like minded won't be allowed ...in other SBC institutions ... use Cooperative Program dollars. Thank God these folks are out...

Amen brother :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

You will know that the 'modern' Baptists have returned to the being traditional Baptist beliefs and actions when three things happen.

1) When 'modern' Baptists return to preaching the power of the gospel to save and transform individual lives instead of spouting the empty platitudes of civil religion and political positions.

2) When 'modern' Baptists return to extending the kingdom of God, which is not of this world, rather than building a political kingdom in this world.

3) When 'modern' Baptists institutions return to the work of missions and evangelism rather than working to influence politicians and legislators.

In other words, 'modern' Baptists must study Baptist history and doctrine and return to traditional Baptist beliefs and preaching the message of Christ. It is absolutely necessary to reject the mixing of politics and Christianity and to turn again to strictly preaching Christ and the message of Christ to the world. Not only must this message be preached, it must be lived ... and to do this will be costly for some whose congregations have been preached to and bought into the civil religion of mixing Christ and politics.

Translation:


We liberals struggle to influence anyone with our agenda so we want to work to demonize those who hold such a biblical influence in our churches and in our government.

We do not like it that anyone runs on family values and wins so when someone fails we will broad brush all conservatives with hypocrisy and conflation of politics and religion. If there are no family values in our government then abortion is much easier to pass.

We do not like that we cannot openly influence the world so we need to attempt to belittle all conservative values and push them out of public influence as well so our agenda gets met when no one is looking.

We do not want people to believe the Bible is literally true so we distort what it means to understand scripture by means of literal interpretation.

If we can keep the church only about evangelism and our liberal agenda then we can further push our utilitarian religion so that we all can just be happy. Doctrine is of no importance to us but energy conservation is, We love Jesus but care little for Paul.

In the end we have a need to rewrite Baptist history so as to effect our agenda. We hate confessions of Faith because it holds us to doctrinally sound theology. We are more interested in our very own personal freedom than we are clear doctrine.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I'm glad that employees' of SBC institutions, etc. are required to sign an agreement stating they are in agreement with the BFM 2000. That way men and women who believe like Crabtown Boy and those who are like minded won't be allowed to teach in our seminaries or work in other SBC institutions or entities that use Cooperative Program dollars. Thank God these folks are out and will be kept out.

:thumbsup: :thumbs::wavey:

 

[Tom Butler]

I am privileged to chair the board of trustees at a Baptist university in Western Kentucky. Okay, okay, I'll name it--Mid-Continent University.

Our by-laws state specifically that the university's world view springs from inerrant scripture. They also specifically state that MCU subscribes to the Baptist Faith and Message as its doctrinal statement. It requires all faculty to embrace the BF&M. Or, in the rare case of a non-Baptist faculty member, the requirement is that he or she agree not to teach contrary to the BF&M.

This is not a question of the priesthood of believers or soul competency. Not one single faculty member is forced to confess something he or she does not believe. Let's not confuse creeds with confessions. But call it what you want--creed, confession, doctrinal statement--but if you want to teach at this Baptist University, this is what you'll teach.

I'm wondering how many of our SBC seminary professors (and administrators) signed doctrinal statements with their fingers crossed. That was part of the problem that produced the conservative resurgence.

 

[EdSutton]

Editor must have left, for a bit.

[/qipte]

Uh- what exactly is a "[/qipte]" ??

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I have not seen such an application either. Little chance I would ever see such an application as I have never applied to a seminary not even thought of teaching at one.



Making it a condition of employment or staying on the mission field makes it a creed.



I used bold to emphasis the condition. This makes the BF&M a creed.





Other quotes.





While the words conditions of employment are not used it is not hard to read between the lines and see that is what is meant. This makes the BF&M a creed.

FTR, Professors at Southern Seminary have been required to sign, abide and teach by the Abstract of Principles for more than a century. No one has to hold to 'the Abstract' and/or to the BF&M, but neither does anyone somehow have any 'God-given' right to teach there, either.

Today, unlike in 1860, the SBC 'owns' Southern, and as the 'owner' they (and Southern Seminary) certainly have the right to set standards for their employees. I do not recall them attempting to set standards for any non-employees, however, but I could be mistaken in this.

BTW, 'the Abstract' is 'binding' on Southern and Southeastern Seminaries, including being in the charter of Southeastern Seminary, but is not required in any manner for Golden Gate, New Orleans, Midwest, or Southwestern Seminaries.

Ed

 

[gb93433]

We do not want to forget the alliance between the Democrats and liberal Christians.

Politicians are not dumb they have alliances on both sides of the fence.

 

[gb93433]

Morris Chapman, of the Executive Board is in trouble because he overstepped his bounds in his report to the SBC week before last.

Who held him accountable?

 

[gb93433]

I'm glad that employees' of SBC institutions, etc. are required to sign an agreement stating they are in agreement with the BFM 2000.

I was an employee at SWBTS and never signed any document other than hiring papers. So your information is wrong.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Bumping to ask once again, what is the "message of Christ" the O/P wants us to preach ?

 

[Revmitchell]

I was an employee at SWBTS and never signed any document other than hiring papers. So your information is wrong.

Did you teach doctrine on any level?

 

[sag38]

I was an employee at SWBTS and never signed any document other than hiring papers. So your information is wrong.

I'm certainly glad you used the word "was."

 

[Tom Butler]

Let me pose a hypothetical situation.

You are the president of a Baptist institution of higher learning. You have found a brilliant scholar, credentials a mile long.

But he is not a Baptist. He's not even an evangelical. Shoot, you learn that he's a professing atheist. And, he says you have no right to impose your beliefs on him. He's capable of teaching the material, even agrees to teach it from the Southern Baptist perspective--he just doesn't believe any of it.

Well, you might say, I see your point. I believe in soul competency, priesthood of believers, and I'm not creedal. Welcome aboard.

See where this anti-creed obsession can lead?

You think this is an extreme example? Yep. And I doubt if such a conversation would ever get past the professor's lack of membership in a Southern Baptist church. I'm just employing a little hyperbole to make a point.