When will 'Modern' Baptists return to being Baptist

Like I said, you are mistaking what you grew up in for who are real baptists. You learned their false definition of what a Baptist is, took it as your own and now that Baptists have reclaimed their heritage from the impostors, you want us to accept your definition again. We won't.

Your idea that Biblical Baptists (what you call modern Baptists) are creedal is simply false. We have the BF&M, but within that we have calvinists and non-Calvinsts. We have pre-mills and a-mills and everything in between. You really ought to catch up with what Baptists are today rather than accept what the other liberals are saying.

And the idea that the SBC has a hierarchy is foolish. Morris Chapman, of the Executive Board is in trouble because he overstepped his bounds in his report to the SBC week before last.

The SBC is back to being real Biblical Baptists. Your kind of thinking is in the dim dark and unlamented past.

 

There are surely some here who applied-- or at least got the info-- to Baptist seminaries or Bible colleges before the "conservative resurgence" of the late 70's and 80's. Did the applications then not ask one to affirm the BF&M or state why one cannot affirm it in full? I had not seen such an application before 1982, and that is what it required then.

Also, if affirming the BF&M for a position makes it a "creed," then why do the churches and the recently-organized groups opposed to the current SBC leadership not abandon any version thereof, instead of stating their beliefs are in coherance with the 1963 statement?

 

I will go along with that not paying taxes idea!:thumbs:

 

Before Baptists became "respectable", that is cater to the culture of the time, they had Confessions of Faith. We need to adopt the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, with modern English of course.

 

I'm glad that employees' of SBC institutions, etc. are required to sign an agreement stating they are in agreement with the BFM 2000. That way men and women who believe like Crabtown Boy and those who are like minded won't be allowed to teach in our seminaries or work in other SBC institutions or entities that use Cooperative Program dollars. Thank God these folks are out and will be kept out.

 

Translation:


We liberals struggle to influence anyone with our agenda so we want to work to demonize those who hold such a biblical influence in our churches and in our government.

We do not like it that anyone runs on family values and wins so when someone fails we will broad brush all conservatives with hypocrisy and conflation of politics and religion. If there are no family values in our government then abortion is much easier to pass.

We do not like that we cannot openly influence the world so we need to attempt to belittle all conservative values and push them out of public influence as well so our agenda gets met when no one is looking.

We do not want people to believe the Bible is literally true so we distort what it means to understand scripture by means of literal interpretation.

If we can keep the church only about evangelism and our liberal agenda then we can further push our utilitarian religion so that we all can just be happy. Doctrine is of no importance to us but energy conservation is, We love Jesus but care little for Paul.

In the end we have a need to rewrite Baptist history so as to effect our agenda. We hate confessions of Faith because it holds us to doctrinally sound theology. We are more interested in our very own personal freedom than we are clear doctrine.

 

:thumbsup: :thumbs::wavey:

 

I am privileged to chair the board of trustees at a Baptist university in Western Kentucky. Okay, okay, I'll name it--Mid-Continent University.

Our by-laws state specifically that the university's world view springs from inerrant scripture. They also specifically state that MCU subscribes to the Baptist Faith and Message as its doctrinal statement. It requires all faculty to embrace the BF&M. Or, in the rare case of a non-Baptist faculty member, the requirement is that he or she agree not to teach contrary to the BF&M.

This is not a question of the priesthood of believers or soul competency. Not one single faculty member is forced to confess something he or she does not believe. Let's not confuse creeds with confessions. But call it what you want--creed, confession, doctrinal statement--but if you want to teach at this Baptist University, this is what you'll teach.

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.

 

Editor must have left, for a bit.

Uh- what exactly is a "[/qipte]" ??

Ed

 

FTR, Professors at Southern Seminary have been required to sign, abide and teach by the Abstract of Principles for more than a century. No one has to hold to 'the Abstract' and/or to the BF&M, but neither does anyone somehow have any 'God-given' right to teach there, either.

Today, unlike in 1860, the SBC 'owns' Southern, and as the 'owner' they (and Southern Seminary) certainly have the right to set standards for their employees. I do not recall them attempting to set standards for any non-employees, however, but I could be mistaken in this.

BTW, 'the Abstract' is 'binding' on Southern and Southeastern Seminaries, including being in the charter of Southeastern Seminary, but is not required in any manner for Golden Gate, New Orleans, Midwest, or Southwestern Seminaries.

Ed

 

Politicians are not dumb they have alliances on both sides of the fence.

 

Who held him accountable?

 

I was an employee at SWBTS and never signed any document other than hiring papers. So your information is wrong.

 

Bumping to ask once again, what is the "message of Christ" the O/P wants us to preach ?

 

Did you teach doctrine on any level?

 

I was an employee at SWBTS and never signed any document other than hiring papers. So your information is wrong.

I'm certainly glad you used the word "was."

 

Let me pose a hypothetical situation.

You are the president of a Baptist institution of higher learning. You have found a brilliant scholar, credentials a mile long.

But he is not a Baptist. He's not even an evangelical. Shoot, you learn that he's a professing atheist. And, he says you have no right to impose your beliefs on him. He's capable of teaching the material, even agrees to teach it from the Southern Baptist perspective--he just doesn't believe any of it.

Well, you might say, I see your point. I believe in soul competency, priesthood of believers, and I'm not creedal. Welcome aboard.

See where this anti-creed obsession can lead?

You think this is an extreme example? Yep. And I doubt if such a conversation would ever get past the professor's lack of membership in a Southern Baptist church. I'm just employing a little hyperbole to make a point.