When will 'Modern' Baptists return to being Baptist

[sag38]

Tom, you are not being open minded. You want an institution that indoctrinates rather than educates. Or, at least that's what some here would say in answer to your question. Sad isn't it?

 

[gb93433]

.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.

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.

I have a friend who would probably be labeled as a fundamentalist and he was asked if he agreed with the BF&M and he told them he did not. They were surprised and asked him about which part he did not agree with. He enlightened them. He did not agree with "A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth." The BF&M clearly talks about the local church but not the body of Christ. The man on the cross next to Jesus was not baptized but was he not part of the church? When he got done with them their view of the BF&M was also reduced.

 

[gb93433]

Did you teach doctrine on any level?

I know what you are getting at but I am always teaching doctrine to people I meet and know. I was not a professor. I did teach Sunday School to seminary students in my church. The pastor of the church was a trustee at SWBTS and I think he still is.

I wonder if Beth Moore signed the BF&M because I would think that she has influenced more women than anyone else in the SBC because of her books and Bible studies?

Do the authors for Lifeway have to sign the BF&M?

Does Lifeway sign an ethics agreement with its authors?

 

[ccrobinson]

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.

What is this mysterious "message of Christ" that we should be preaching? When I hear phrases like that, I think of those who think the church should be preaching a "social gospel" in place of the real gospel.

 

[Revmitchell]

I was not a professor.

Then how do you know what the professors signed? Or did not sign? You made an absolute statement with no qualifications. That left you with absolute knowledge according to your statement. Do you or do you not know what contracts or statements actual professors were required to sign? That is what we were talking about even though the word used was employee the context was about professors.

I wonder if Beth Moore signed the BF&M because I would think that she has influenced more women than anyone else in the SBC because of her books and Bible studies?

Irrelevant

Do the authors for Lifeway have to sign the BF&M?

I do not know but the reason it was brought up in this thread was in reference to professors who teach doctrine. Much different than the life way role. It is apparent that you do not understand the concern and the need for signed BF&M.

Does Lifeway sign an ethics agreement with its authors?

Not the same thing as teaching young preachers

 

[Revmitchell]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

What is this mysterious "message of Christ" that we should be preaching? When I hear phrases like that, I think of those who think the church should be preaching a "social gospel" in place of the real gospel.

Considering the source it is a real possibility

 

[Revmitchell]

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

 

[Crabtownboy]

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

Thanks for proving my point. The SBC is not really Baptist any longer .... enforcing a creed negates it as truly being Baptist. Why? Because it has become a creedal religious body.

"Historically, Baptists have shunned creeds," Lefever said. In England, early Baptists "refused to adopt a confession. They said we need no confession but the Bible."
___That sentiment carried over to colonial America as well, where Baptists came seeking freedom of conscience for their faith. Eighteenth century Baptist preacher John Leland called confessions of faith a "Virgin Mary between the souls of men and the Scriptures."
___And when the SBC was formed in 1845, no confession of faith or creed was adopted. W.B. Johnson, first president of the SBC, explained: "We have constructed for our basis no new creed, acting in this manner upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible."
___Prior to this time, numerous confessions of faith had been written by individual Baptists, local churches and associations. In fact, in the early days, Baptist churches and pastors would exchange statements of faith as part of the process of calling new pastors, McBeth said.
___The tension over confessions of faith also surfaced in early America as the so-called Regular Baptists and Separate Baptists eventually came together, McBeth said. "The Separates insisted that there be no confession, but the Regulars had a confession."
___To resolve the difference, both groups agreed the confession of faith would be "advisory only" and that no one would be required to subscribe to every point, McBeth said.
___The SBC existed for 80 years--more than half its current life--without adopting any confession of faith.
___The SBC's Foreign Mission Board in 1920 adopted the first statement of faith its missionaries were required to sign. The move was taken to abate "doctrinal agitation" and concerns about ecumenism, McBeth reports in his "Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage."
___Historians agree the 1925 Baptist Faith & Message arose out of the modernist controversies of the day, with many Baptists concerned about the teaching of Darwinian evolution as science.
___Likewise, the major revisions to the Baptist Faith & Message in 1963 arose out of the Ralph Elliott controversy at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Elliott had written a commentary on the Book of Genesis that conservatives deemed too liberal for Baptist consumption.
___Crises such as these helped Southern Baptists put aside their fear of confessions of faith and creeds, Lefever explained. "When we finally have adopted statements of faith, they usually have been in response to something."
___But even then, he said, the statements were intended "only to clarify basic statements of belief."
___"If you read the preamble to the (1925) Baptist Faith & Message, it basically says you can disagree with all this and it is OK. The preamble is the safety valve for Southern Baptists."
___Thus, by the time Southern Baptists faced proposed revisions to the Baptist Faith & Message this year, debate focused not on whether to have a confession of faith but on what doctrines would be included in the confession and what safety valves would be included in the preamble.
___The committee that drafted this year's changes offered a last-minute addition to include the phrases "soul competency" and "priesthood of believers" after widespread public outcry over that language being dropped.
___Baptist General Convention of Texas Executive Director Charles Wade attempted to amend the committee's new preamble to insert two paragraphs from the 1963 preamble affirming the lordship of Christ. Among his suggested insertions were statements that Jesus Christ is "the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists" and that Baptist statements of faith never have been regarded as "complete, infallible statements of faith nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority."
___Wade's proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by the SBC after members of the study committee insisted the old language wrongly elevated Jesus above the Bible.
___In his June 19 column in the Baptist Standard, Wade expressed concern about language in the committee's new preamble that he said moves the statement of faith from a confession of faith to a creed. The new language identifies confessions of faith as "instruments of doctrinal accountability" outlining "essential" doctrines.
___"Baptists always have believed we are accountable to God and to holy Scripture. But never have we believed we were accountable to a confession of faith," Wade wrote. "That is the very definition of a creed.
___"The Scriptures are enough," he declared. "Baptists have no creed but the Bible."
___From his vantage point as a historian, McBeth sees this year's changes as further evidence of the SBC moving toward a more creedal stance, a trend he noted in his 1987 book "The Baptist Heritage."
___"Southern Baptists in recent years have shown a distinct trend toward creedalism," he wrote in the book. "What they adopted in 1963 was a confession; but the way that document has been used has gone far toward hardening it into a creed."

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/6_26/pages/creeds.html

 

[Revmitchell]

Thanks for proving my point. The SBC is not really Baptist any longer .... enforcing a creed negates it as truly being Baptist. Why? Because it has become a creedal religious body.

You do not know what a creed is apparently. All and any statement of faiths are creeds. If a church has a SOF they have a creed. Baptist distinctives are creeds. Any set of organized doctrine are creeds. If you say Baptists do not hold to creeds that in and of itself is a creed. You cannot hold to any set of doctrine and and avoid a creed.


creed
  /krid/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kreed] Show IPA
Use creed in a Sentence
–noun
1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.
4. the creed. Apostles' Creed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creed

Now you may want to demonize those who hold to a SOF (creed) but you cannot claim to be Baptist without simultaneously holding to a creed.It cannot be done. And it is silly to suggest such nonsense.

 

[Alcott]

Thanks for proving my point. The SBC is not really Baptist any longer .... enforcing a creed negates it as truly being Baptist. Why? Because it has become a creedal religious body.

Does enforcing a creed violate your own creedal requirement in defining Baptist?

 

[gb93433]

Thank God these folks are out and will be kept out.

Think again about what you wrote. If you keep that same attitude, liberalism has begun in you. Think about what the Bible says and how Satan works. The Bible says to be on the alert. There is a reason why we are to be alert. Do not ever think for one minute that you can rest and let your guard down. Those who do, eventually find out that they are swallowed up by the very thing they were once against.

One of my best friends from seminary was very conservative and was always leading people to Christ. Eventually he developed an attitude of us vs them. That led to an attitude of elitism and it nearly cost him time in prison because of some dishonest church actions on his part in later years while he was pastoring. He took his eyes off of Jesus and placed them onto what he thought was a good thing but it was focused on self and he became complacent in his faith and study of the Bible.

I saw the same thing happen to a man who proclaimed Jesus years ago but acted like nothing could touch him. I am told that there is no evidence today that he is a Christian.

Think about what Peter said, "Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away." Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." Peter said to Him, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You." All the disciples said the same thing too.

Liberalism and conservatism is not the answer to anything. Think about what Jesus said when he was confronted about divorce while the liberals and conservatives of the day were present in Mt.19.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You do not know what a creed is apparently. All and any statement of faiths are creeds. If a church has a SOF they have a creed. Baptist distinctives are creeds. Any set of organized doctrine are creeds. If you say Baptists do not hold to creeds that in and of itself is a creed. You cannot hold to any set of doctrine and and avoid a creed.


creed
  /krid/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kreed] Show IPA
Use creed in a Sentence
–noun
1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.
4. the creed. Apostles' Creed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creed

Now you may want to demonize those who hold to a SOF (creed) but you cannot claim to be Baptist without simultaneously holding to a creed.It cannot be done. And it is silly to suggest such nonsense.

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.

 

[gb93433]

Having a creed or no creed does not prevent liberalism.

Many liberal denominations have excellent creeds and doctrinal statements but do not believe them by their actions.

 

[tinytim]

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.

I absolutely agree with you...

This is ruling from the top down, not the bottom up.

To force all churches to believe the same thing before you work together is NOT Baptist...

And any association, region or denomination that does this has ceased to be Baptist, and has forsaken their Baptist roots, and have betrayed all who were put to death for the right to believe in the priesthood of the believer...

This alone is the reason I will never be a SBCer... I don't consider the SBC a Baptist entity if they force all churches to agree to a creed...

Thank God I am ABC/USA!
We may have our problems.. but we are still BAPTIST..

And not taking after the Nicolaitans!

 

[Tom Bryant]

So to be a "real" Baptist, we must not have any standards or doctrinal statement to which a Baptist church must agree. We can baptize babies because we don't want to be creedal. We can (more likely in this case) reject Biblical inerrancy and authority because that too would be creedal.

The only "creed" you guys have is the priesthood of believers. Because everyone must have the freedom to believe whatever they want because to put standards on a church is to be creedal and therefore non-Baptist. I suppose the next step is because of your view of the priesthood of believers, it would be wrong for a church to have a doctrinal standard because that too would be creedal and we would cease to be Baptist.

Your position has been voted on by Southern baptists for the last 30 years. And you lost. 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.

If that makes us not your definition of real Baptists, then so be it. Your definition is flawed. Your way would have brought death. Your way brought us to liberal seminaries and state papers. You might have had missionaries but they would have no message, no salvation, no Bible... but you'd be "real baptists" :laugh: :BangHead:

 

[tinytim]

Who has the right to "put standards on a church" as you you said?

ONLY GOD..
No church has the right to tell our church what to believe.

That is the very thing Christ hated in Rev. , Ruling from the top down.

For a denomination to make a church sign a creed before the church joins is NOT Baptist.

That denomination has lost the "P" in Baptist...

making it "Batist"

 

[gb93433]

Then how do you know what the professors signed? Or did not sign? You made an absolute statement with no qualifications. That left you with absolute knowledge according to your statement. Do you or do you not know what contracts or statements actual professors were required to sign? That is what we were talking about even though the word used was employee the context was about professors.

You need to learn to quit making assumptions. Assumptions can be dangerous. You need to read the wording in which my response was directed to.

It is apparent that you do not understand the concern and the need for signed BF&M.

Your assumption is wrong. The SBC is too liberal for me now. Shall I assume you are liberal too. The SBC claims to take a stand for believing the Bible but I do not see it and did not see it when I brought it to the attention of several others about the Mormon bishop being invited to teach at a church I was pastoring. One was a past president of the SBC, the state SBC convention, and the local SBC convention. One of the deacons at the church was on the state church growth board. I was told by them that each church is autonomous and they could do nothing. That is a lie. They could have done something but chose to hide. Isn't their action about as godly and righteous as the RCC when it did not take a stand against the pedophiles leading their churches? A local pentecostal pastor stood by me and spoke with the deacons telling them they were wrong. It was clear he believed the Bible and stood against such heresy. But where were those who claimed to believe the Bible?

Show me one place in scripture where Paul gave an excuse of refusing to address problems in churches because the churches were autonomous?

 

[Crabtownboy]

So to be a "real" Baptist, we must not have any standards or doctrinal statement to which a Baptist church must agree. We can baptize babies because we don't want to be creedal. We can (more likely in this case) reject Biblical inerrancy and authority because that too would be creedal.

The only "creed" you guys have is the priesthood of believers. Because everyone must have the freedom to believe whatever they want because to put standards on a church is to be creedal and therefore non-Baptist. I suppose the next step is because of your view of the priesthood of believers, it would be wrong for a church to have a doctrinal standard because that too would be creedal and we would cease to be Baptist.

Your position has been voted on by Southern baptists for the last 30 years. And you lost. 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.

If that makes us not your definition of real Baptists, then so be it. Your definition is flawed. Your way would have brought death. Your way brought us to liberal seminaries and state papers. You might have had missionaries but they would have no message, no salvation, no Bible... but you'd be "real baptists" :laugh: :BangHead:

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.

 

[gb93433]

Who has the right to "put standards on a church" as you you said?

ONLY GOD..
No church has the right to tell our church what to believe.

That is the very thing Christ hated in Rev. , Ruling from the top down.

I do not see leadership in a church as an either/or but the leaders are to be the examples and servants.

Where are we to tolerate false teachers and churches that entertain false teachers. When false teachers and those who claim to believe the Bible can co-exist what does that tell us about their strength?

Who were the pastors of local churches? Certainly not the people.

Who taught the congregations? The pastors

What kind of men were to be selected for pastoral leadership? From among the people.

Discipline is done by the leadership. Is that not from the top down?

No church may have the right to tell you what to believe but they do have the right to stand against you and disfellowship you if you entertain false teaching.

Where doers the Bible encourage complacency and letting false teachers go unhindered.

I saw a case where some churches published an advertisement in the newspaper against a false teacher who was coming to town. He was a paerosn much like Benny Hinn. As a result the churches got some good press by being in the news and the false teacher never came.I have not heard of him since. That was about 30 years ago.

 

[gb93433]

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.

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.