re 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (unamended)

WOW you have inserted more twists and turns into this thread than a greased pig at the county fair.

1. Nobody that I'm aware of in the SBC has suggested that the BF&M (any version) is a substitute for Jesus Christ being the sole head of the church.

2. And you're attending SS in one church and preaching in another? Care to explain why that bizarre behavior? Feud with pastor? or totally opposed to Calvinism?

3. If you were handed a copy of the Church Covenant and a copy of the Trail of Blood how is that different from being handed a copy of the BF&M 2000 or 1963?

4. Why would you say you were always going to be a SB when you don't even attend preaching in the church where you're a member?

I'd be interested in your answers and reasoning behind them.

 

Sorry, I couldn't get passed that you abbreviated association with "ass'n".

 

Just so you will know, I am not attempting to pick on you by posting, here, but perhaps clarifying some things posted, or at least that is my attempt.

I'm not so sure that this "HUGE difference" is maybe as well defined, as you seem to see it. This document makes some reference to both.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcprhdres.html

In I Pet. 2:5, 9 both refer to a collective priestood. And Rev. 1:6 seems to speak to the 'collective' here, as well.

The majority of texts (Rev. 1:6) seems to lean to a fair degree toward the singular kingdom and the plural of priests, from what I read, hence I suggest that while either is premissible, "the priesthood of believers" is somewhat more likely in view, here.

OH yeah, FTR also, we have the 1963 BFM in our Church constitution, and have since 1967. The 'Statement of Faith" in our church constitution has not changed, so we officially have neither the 1998 Amendment on the Family nor the 2000 BFM as part of our beliefs.

Yet I am not aware of any financial support our church has contributed to any "Southern Baptist" causes (or any other causes, for that matter) ever being refused.

Somehow, the checks seem to all get cashed, showing two other long-standing cherished Baptist principles - one, the autonomy of the local church - :thumbs:

and two, "Never look a 'gift horse' in the mouth!" by turning down the cash! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

"Since you mentioned it, I have a suggestion. Bring it up for a vote and it just might get 'passed'!" :thumbs:



Signed, Language Cop

 

From an article here http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=155

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Only Colorado's changes clearly state that a church seeking affiliation with that state convention must have adopted the BFM as approved by the SBC last June in Orlando, Fla. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]In the newest state convention, SBTC Executive Director Jim Richards explained, "The adoption of the BFM 2000 says unequivocally that churches that cooperate must have some theological agreements, and these agreements are expressed well in the BFM 2000." [/SIZE][/FONT]


Also from an article here http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/2_11/pages/association.html

Last October, Bluebonnet voted to amend its constitution to require affirmation of the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith & Message. That faith statement, drafted by the Southern Baptist Convention, has been controversial across Texas and has been rejected by messengers to two BGCT annual sessions.


Both of these articles are fairly "old" considering the pace of news these days, but should serve to show that indeed this it was happening years ago and I can promise you it is not less today.

 

But as of yet you don't have any proof that any church has been kicked out of State Convention in the SBC Because they didn't sign off on the BF&M 2000?

Right?

 

"PS to Hardsheller: My dear aunt calls herself a "hard shall, not hard shell, Baptist." Are they the same?"

Probably so. It generally means primitive Baptist in the south where I'm from. I use the handle because my deceased Uncle used to tell folks he was a Hard Shell Baptist so I use it to honor his memory.

 

1963 Baptist Faith and Message (unamended)

The 1963 BF&M was an amended version of the 1922 (?) statement. So don't get the idea that the BF&M hadn't been amended before this "conservative takeover."

 

No, I have a problem with them adding law requirements into the BFM after better than 300 years of baptist people knowing we aren't under tithe laws. If you don't think the SBC says to teach tithing, read the Position Paper that employess of the SBC have to agree to.

"The "Covenant for a New Century" adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in June 1997 assigned stewardship education to the Sunday School Board as a new area for our ministry to the churches. With this new assignment, Lifeway Christian Resources, formerly the Sunday School Board, wants to identify clearly the biblical stance related to stewardship and tithing that will form the basis for our ministry in stewardship education. This basis will guide those working in the area of stewardship education as well as employees who produce programs, materials, and other resources for the churches."

"Tithing is the biblical standard for the stewardship of possessions. Giving the first and the best of possessions to God is a biblical model that must not be supplanted by any other standard. Believers may fall short of biblical standards, but the standards themselves must not be compromised by implying that something short of the standards is acceptable and pleasing to God. We will focus stewardship education on tithing as the standard and the beginning point that God has established for believers in their stewardship of possessions.Tithing is an act of obedience to God. Like all of God’s commands in the Bible, it is meant for the believer’s good. Tithing is not a legalistic standard that is pre-gospel, pre-Christian, or sub-Christian. Instead, it is a means by which God’s people acknowledge that everything ultimately belongs to God and that what we have, we receive from God’s gracious hand. We will focus stewardship education on tithing as an expectation God has for obedient believers."

 

No NCTentmaker, I don't have a problem with God's word. I have a problem with the SBC adding to God's word.

 

OK JerryL. I agree with you that we are not under the law and a 10% tithe is not taught in the NT. And you may be right that some SBC organizations teach that it is anyway. Now my church does not and I don't think that the BFM does, but I think it is a pretty minor deal anyway.