Baptists not in unison...

I am SBC! It bothers me some as well because of the subjectivism that it leads to. But, at the same time, the SBC is not a dictatorship (unlike what many claim). I think if many of the local fellowships focused a little more on God and a little less on their autonomy we would be a little better off. Also, it is worth noting all of the flak the SBC has been receiving in recent years. Many got mad when professors at seminaries teaching heretical things were encouraged to leave and that the International Mission Board requires missionaries to sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. But I don't have a problem with all that!

But that is just my 2 cents worth as well.

In the Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

The church as found in the new testament of Jesus Christ consisted of autonomous congregations. Each congregation was to ordain elders and deacons as a part of the pattern for the organizational structure of the church. I have a problem with the self- appointed conventions and magesteriums that are not in harmony with the pattern for the autonoumous congregation as set forth in the new testament of Jesus Christ. Mat. 28:18-20, Titus 1:4,5,Acts 20:17,28, I Thes. 5:12-14, I Pet. 5:1-3, I Tim. 3:1-11, Acts 15:1- 6.

 

Churches that do not desire to do so must stand before God one day.

The fact that Christ gave His life for us, worthless sinners, so that we could have everlasting life with Him, should be motivation enough for those churches to obey the Word of God. The SBC and other Baptist organizations realize that fact. To please Christ is the greatest and only motivation a christian should have for obeying God's Word. We do not believe we could offer any more motivation than that and we do not believe the Bible teaches us to do so. We are examples, not dictators.

~Lorelei

 

The church in Jerusalem required circumcision, the churches outside of Jerusalem, being gentile, did not practice or require circumcision.

Representatives from the Jerusalem church attempted to impose circumcision on the outlying churches, but were shown by the Holy Spirit and sound reasoning that if the outlying churches believed in the same Christ and received the same Holy Spirit that they themselves believe in and received, that there was no rationale to support manditory circumcision of those outside the lineage of the Children of Israel. Therefore the requirement was not imposed on the Non Jew Christians.

This seems to be a similar type of situation, though the issues at hand are sin and not covenents.

Yes, I believe that such a weak stance on the issue of sin does, in fact, open the door to schism just as it is happening in the United Methodist denomination, and the Presbyterian denomination, and it has some serious effect on the Catholic Denomination.

As for the Autonomy of the local churches? Keep them autonomous! That way their local elders and deacons retain control of who their individual shepherd is. They are not forced to "accept" a pastor sent to them by a central committee or politbureau.

 

Indeed, the SBC was founded, initially, as a pooling resource for the financing of missionaries, just as was the Triennial convention before them.

The "controversial" BF&M that a very vocal few complain so loudly about is merely a document to hold missionaries and seminary administrations accountable for the teachings they put forth. This insures the offering giving pew giver that their money is being used to promote doctrine agreeable with the giver. As to whether a new BF&M was required over the 1963 draft is, of course, debatable.

I, too, am SBC and despite an interest and some study on the subject, I still don't understand the entire workings of the convention. It is a slow moving monolith that has its fingers in publishing, advertizing, lobbying, and a myriad of other interests. Personally, I wish it would simplify its structure.

The fact that it made ANY statement, as cited in Grant's post, is, to my thinking unneccessary. It's kind of like when everyone in Hollywood made a comment on the war in Iraq. "How nice that you have an opinion, but ..."

 

GraceSaves quoted an article that said the SBC:

I can rougly translate this for you.

I am SBC and I vote!

Diane... SBC and proud!

 

The difference is that the actors represent themselves, and the SBC represents (most of) us SBCers. It really is kinda like a no-brainer though, but we do need to have an official stance on the subject. And if I'm not mistaken, can't we disfellowship a church that didn't follow that resolution and performed a same-sex marriage?

 

Sbc.net has moved the bylaws page so I am unable to answer you at the moment. I'm not home this evening so my resources are rather limited. I'll see what I can find tomorrow evening.

 

Are they saying that a gay person cannot join or that they cannot lead?

Thanks,
Kelly

 

Oh, there are or were never any schisms in the Roman Catholic Church?

 

I think you miss the point. If it is not binding then a local Church can go against it and still be called Southern Baptist. It can still be considered a part of the SBC without retribution it appears to me. That is what non-binding would imply. Schisms in the Catholic Church were caused because the cause was a binding statement in which the Church said if you teach contrary to this you are no longer a part of the Catholic Church. Thus the Orthodox are called Orthodox and not Catholic for rejecting the papacy.

 

Not necessarily. I won't answer for a few days, I will be out of town.

God Bless,
Neal

 

The Body of Christ is affirmed to be broken every time the Eucharist is celebrated, is it not? This is a good thing, is it not, for you and me and all us sinners saved, as your nom de guerre asserts, by grace?

 

Their site is back up and you are correct.

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/legal/constitution.asp

 

The resolution should read, "Christianity is the only path to salvation." Are there SBC members proclaiming "another gospel"? If so, why haven't they been expelled?