Featured BF&M 2000 vs 1963

I wouldn't have a problem if they were asked to affirm the 1963 BF&M or any earlier confession since these were not used as creeds to bludgeon people with and cost them their jobs. And by affirm I don't mean affirmation with every letter and punctuation mark, either.

 

Quite so. I agree.

 

You want a creed, I'm fine with confessions of faith. Diversity is and always has been a hallmark of baptists. I'm fine with not everyone believing exactly like me and still being willing to work on things together.

How does a church in another state, city or even down the street with a women pastor effect what your church is doing exactly?

Is it possible to be a Christian and not adhere to any BF&M? If yes, then they are my brother or sister in Christ and I should seek to work with and encourage them in their calling and gifts as much as possible. If no, well then I guess that makes the SBC perfect. You don't think he SBC is perfect do you?

 

It's all about control and denial of liberty of conscience and other Baptist distinctives for the "conservative resurgence". That's why the '63 BF&M wasn't good enough for them. It wasn't controlling enough.

I'll guarantee you that Herschell Hobbs and E.Y. Mullins would not be welcome in today's SBC.

 

Our church voted to use the 2000 BFM as part of our Constitution and Bylaws. It replaced a section of the old document. The old document had abstaining from the sale and use of alcohol. When we replaced it with the BFM 2000, article XV does not refer directly to the use of alcohol, but that we should "oppose all forms of vice." Pg 19. In essence, we repealed the prohibition on the use of alcohol, and honestly do not believe most even realize it.

 

Would it not be better to say Jesus is the ultimate/fullest expression of the revelation of God...but the Bible is the revelation of God as well? Are you saying the bible doesn't reveal God? Isn't that what revelation IS?

 

AND ALSO...

So to clarify, if I were educationally qualified to teach theology at Southern Seminary (I'm not)...should there, or shouldn't there, be some minumum creed, confession of faith, statement of faith (name doesn't matter) that I should have to agree to in order to obtain, or retain a position there, or to be an SBC Missionary. Should such a thing exist or not?

It sounds as though Thomas, on the one hand, you would ask them to affirm 1963, but then on the other hand, not make it cost them their job, so why ask at all?

I suppose the alternative would be to say, "Here's our statement of beliefs, It would be nice if you agreed with them, but if you don't we'll still hire you...you can believe and teach our future pastors, or new converts on the mission field, that Jesus was a created being, and we won't fire you...but we will teach the opposite and tell people we disagree with you."

 

This is not relevant. Southern Baptists believe lots of Presbyterians are Christians, but we don't want them teaching paedobaptism at our seminaries.

 

Southern Baptist School Professors should stick to the current BF&M or not teach. Period. Failure to do so is how the convention leaned liberal to begin with.

 

Your denial of liberty of conscience fits right in with the current SBC cabal, but not with traditional Baptist principles.

Were Hobbs and Mullins liberal, by your definition?

 

I'm saying a general agreement would be sufficient.

Are you saying that Baptists should not be allowed ANY disagreement on doctrinal matters?

 

What does "a general agreement" mean?

I'm trying get at whether you and those with your view of creeds REALLY mean NO CREEDS, or just that you disagree with the specificity in the 2000 more than the way it is used.

Ie, if we SBC'ers said "No creed but the bible." And we are hiring a seminary professor to teach future pastors, or a missionary to teach new converts...and they tell us, "I believe the bible." but you find out they believe the bible teaches that Jesus was not really God, but the highest created being, would you not wish you had some basic statement of beliefs you ask people in those positions to agree to. (actual agreement, not "general agreement.")

There should be agreement on lots of doctrinal matters in any group of churches associating for missions and training of pastors for those same churches, but there can be disagreement on some areas...for example, I feel the SBC missionaries who believed in a private prayer language should not have been dismissed.

 

In general the BFM 2000 is the best of the three. However, the greatest gem of the 1925 document was left out of both the 1963 and 2000 documents. I hope it can be reinstated once the neocalvinists get over their hissyfits and accept the pure truth:

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your miss application of this liberty leads to liberalism.

 

In other words, conform to our creedal coercion and believe like I/we do or leave. Such non-Baptist thinking didn't happen until the fundamentalist cabal took over.

 

Very well, I would say that I would have no problem with required agreement with an orthodox Baptist confession such as the BF&M 1963 which upholds Baptist principles. But the 2000 version does not do that.

 

Are you aware of what was being taught in our schools?