Featured question about bfm 2000 afirmation

Since your friend seems to agree with the BF&M 2000, it would seem this thread is about creeds or statements of faith (herein “creeds”). Creeds are useful inasmuch as they condense into a readable document the beliefs of the Christian community. If I want know what a church believes I will look for its creed.

Your friend sounds like one of those Baptists who say, “I have no creed but the Bible.” This is essentially a non sequitur because the denial of any creed is itself a creed. Furthermore, one must wonder what such a statement means. All Christian sects and denominations embrace the Bible, although their beliefs vary widely.

That being said, any hesitance to subscribe to a creed you agree with is silly. Of course this person is entitled to his opinion (just as the church he seeks to join is entitled to its opinion) and if it is a big thing to him, he should look for another church.

The most interesting and surprising thing about your post is the suggestion that there is a local and state association somewhere that requires affirming the BF&M for a church to be in good standing.

 

I both disagree with the BFM2000 AND disagree with it being used as a creed, a test of fellowship.

I would not affirm it even if I agreed with it if it were used in that manner.

 

Why not?

 

Long story on why I disagree with the BFM2000. There are a number of areas where it draws the lines too tightly and has removed things that were quite good about the BFM1963.

As far as using the statement as a creed, the BFM2000 is nowhere close to being a solid statement of faith - a summary of the main message of scripture - and I don't think documents outside of scripture should be used as a test of fellowship.

 

No on two fronts. I couldn't affirm the 2000 BF&M and I wouldn't use a "what we do believe" confession, which is hardly detailed enough to be used as a "what you must believe" creed.

 

I would not go to a church that did not affirm it.

 

So the issue is not really about theology, it's about walking lock-step with the rest of the SBC.

The horror!! I certainly hope you were not a member of an SBC church in the 20th century!

So what do you disagree with in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message?

 

The dissident state convention in Texas does:
http://sbtexas.com/am-site/media/sbtc-constitution-and-bylaws.pdf

 

Do you really believe that is the only option? I think you are smarter than that.

 

Of course not, but it is clear that Salty would not attend an SBC church that does not affirm the 2000 BF&M, but is open to other Baptist denominational viewpoints as long as they are not SBC.

It seems - unless I have misunderstood - that it the church is SBC, it MUST affirm the 2000 BF&M or he will not attend. A church that affirms the 1963 BF&M and not the 2000 BF&M is apparently out of the question.

That points to an issue of conformity to current doctrinal statements issued by the SBC, not just a matter of theology.

 

I don't claim it, but my church is technically a member of the SBC because of our missions funding goes through the Cooperative Program.

I grew up in the SBC and considered myself in the SBC under 2000.

1965 for me.

Nothing stays the same except the call of the gospel and the fundamentals of the faith.

So why is the 1963 BF&M not acceptable?

 

Yep. If you are going to be a member of the Southern Baptists of Texas, you must (1) affirm the BF&M 2000, (2) play by the rules of the Convention, (3) be in friendly cooperation with the Convention's work, (4) not allow women to be pastors (don't know if that extends below the "senior" pastor), (5) be opposed to homosexual practice in word and action (with lots of interpretive leeway for the Convention to act against you), (6) and not question or act contrary to the leadership's interpretation of the BF&M 2000 - which if interpreted according to the plain language, would prohibit any suggestions rethinking any aspect of the document.

The BF&M 2000 has essentially been declared without error and above critique, regardless if the Bible may teach differently. Simply put, they are using it as a creed.

I sincerely doubt many other state conventions have tied their churches this closely to a manmade statement.