BF&M 2000 vs 1963

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Salty, Apr 27, 2013.

?

BF&M

  1. 1963 is too conservative

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. 1963 is sufficient

    53.3%
  3. 2000 is too liberal

    6.7%
  4. 2000 is sufficient

    53.3%
  5. 2000 needs additional articles

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Other answer

    13.3%
  7. I am not SBC, just wanted to see results

    6.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    In another thread Thomas stated "BF&M 2000 which abandons historic Baptist principles, including those affirmed in the BF&M 1963."


    Tom, exactly what historic principles were abandoned in the BFM 2000?
     
  2. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a comparison of the two with statements by Texas Baptists; I will post two links in case one doesn't work; these are converted from pdf files. The commentary is in the far right column:

    http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html...ists.org/files/2010/08/bfmcomp.pdf&images=yes


    http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html...w.texasbaptists.org/files/2010/08/bfmcomp.pdf
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    I am pretty sure, I could have found both editions

    How about you telling us specifically what you don't like about the 2000 BF&M?
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    First, are you even Southern Baptist?
    Second, if you are - you do realize that a local independent church is not obliged to follow - of course you know that, since some of the CC churches use the outdated 1963.
     
    #4 Salty, Apr 27, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2013
  5. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of the objections raised in that commentary describe what I don't like about the 2000 version.
     
  6. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Used to be Southern Baptist, now I'm independent Baptist (not independent fundamental Baptist).

    Yes, I know a local SBC church is not obligated to follow it, but most obviously do, or do have evidence otherwise? Since it was approved by messengers from local churches, one would assume that the churches which sent the messengers approve of the statement.
     
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    I am currently SBC and independent -!!!

    Are you afraid to give us specifics?
     
    #7 Salty, Apr 27, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2013
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    NOT a Sbc, but didn't the new one seem to affirm that we are sinners NOT in sight of God due to original Sin, but more like when we make the choice to sin?

    And that it was wriiten in a way to make it seem pro Arminian, instead of 'neutral?"
     
  9. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am afraid of nothing.

    It seems easier for people to read the commentary, and then they will know what my objections are instead of my having to list them.
     
  10. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    No..............
     
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    why was there such a big response then to the new wording it seemed in SBC circles?
     
    #11 Yeshua1, Apr 27, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2013
  12. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    This summarizes why some have objected to the 2000 BF&M:

    My question for Thomas, and others who object to this...is:

    Is it the fact that there is ANY doctrinal agreement required for SBC employment for Seminary professors, missionaries, etc...or is it that the BF&M is much to detailed to function that way, and contains things you believe to not be essential to baptist identity, and if they were only required to affirm a much smaller, more basic doctinal statement (apostle's creed, for example)...you would have no problem with that?
     
  13. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Other major issues the article has in disagreement with the 2000:

    -1963 says the bible is "the record of" God's revelation. 2000 says it "IS God's revelation. (author doesn't like this, and says it elevates the bible above Christ...which I think is an exageration).

    -2000 adds the word "substitutionary" to the section about Jesus' death on the cross. (author doesn't like the focused emphasis on this aspect to the neglect of the others)

    -2000 has specifics about Pastors being men, and about wifely submission in the home. (author thinks this should be a local church/family decision).

    ALSO...2000 adds language emphasising God's perfect knowledge of past, present and future (no doubt in response to rising open theism)...but the author of this article has no comments on that section.
     
  14. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    ALSO, THE POLL IS FLAWED...

    In most circles...it is the 2000 that is viewed by some to be too CONSERVATIVE (too restrictive) ...and the 1963 that is viewed by some to be too LIBERAL.
     
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    So you are saying you agree with EVERY objection?
     
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47

    Well, based upon tht...

    Would stick with the 2000 editions, read more biblcally correct!
     
  17. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0

    Not exactly...at least in the examples I've given, The 1963 says nothing incorrect biblically about Jesus' death, female pastors, or husband-wife relationships...it simply says less, or nothing at all.

    On the issue of the bible being "the record of God's revelation." Or simply "God's revelation...either phrase could be taken and defined in a way that could either be entirely fine, or twisted in a way that could be described as incorrect...but I'm fine with either phrase...if a non-Christian asked me if I believed the bible was God's revelation, I would say yes...if they asked me if it was the record of God's revelation, I would say yes.
     
  18. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    The 2000 changes overreach. The article on scripture is a disaster, the article on women in ministry should be an issue left up to each church. The preamble is changed as well. Instead of being a document of what we do believe it has become a document of what you must believe. Some are fine with this, but it i am not.
     
  19. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what's your answer to this question I previously asked:

     
  20. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    The 2000 is now used as a creed, except at Southern Seminary. I would take the approach of finding out what one believes and then determine if take will work. There is room for differences.

    Soul freedom, bible freedom, church freedom and religious freedom for me would be essential for someone to affirm.

    Also, record of revelation to me is way different then just revelation. Jesus is the revelation, the bible is the record of God revealing himself. To me this is a huge difference.
     
    #20 go2church, Apr 27, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...