Featured BF&M 2000 vs 1963

Hmmm....Always thought the most superior one of the three was the 1925....I don't personally care for either 63 or 2000 :laugh:

 

What do you like about the 1925 and what don't you like about the 1963?

 

Actually, you can find the abstract of principles easily online.

 

And? If there is no standard by which they will teach or be fired they can claim whatever they like as that did before the resurgence.

 

So you believe there should be ZERO uniformity of doctrine in an association of baptist Churches? No guiding principles or basic set of beliefs to be a seminary professor or a missionary?

Why not just admit that it's not the way the 2000 is used, but rather it's content that bothers you...and that if it were less stringent, you would have no problem using it as a criteria for hiring seminary professors?

(or if the above is not true, explain why).

 

I guess I don't understand...isn't that standard the abstract or principles?

 

Well I have never seen it but the words "abstract" and "principles" are far to vague for me.

 

I think this is quite an exaggeration. I've never heard any SBCer say the Bible can save you without Jesus, or even imply the possibility. Don't forget this sentance is IN THE SECTION ON SCRIPTURE, not Christ. Revelation means to reveal something...The Bible reveals God, Reveals Jesus. Therefore it is a revelation.

Agreed. The historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, and resurection gives us confidence that what the Gospels say about him is true...that what the epistles say is true...Jesus' own words give us confidence that the OT is true...but none of that means it is somehow incorrect to say the Bible is the revelation of God.

The Bible has revealed God to multitudes of people...especially after the invention of the printing press, which revealed what was lacking in the middle ages when the average person did NOT have access to the Bible, was had to rely on a priest's teaching alone.

 

It's simply the old language from 1858...Here it is for those interested...the parts that cause it to be controversial are highlighted, and essentially put forth what might be considered a 4-point calvinistic doctrine.

"...the Abstract of Principles which currently serves, along with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, as the doctrinal standard at Southern and Southeastern."

 

Record of the revelation is more accurate and less confusing. I don't want any thought of the possibility of a maybe that the bible and Jesus are on the same plain, they aren't.

 

How so? BOTH would be from and of God, and jesus and the originals are BOTH fully correct!

 

they are in the sense of BOTH being fully a revelation of God to man, as jesus was the Word become flesh, while the originals were the word put down to written form!

So BOTH were perfect reveltions from God to us, but we ONLY worship the one who was God incarnated, jesus!

 

Jesus wasn't just FROM God, he was God

In theory the originals are fully correct, we don't actually have them so no one really knows. It is at this point a statement of faith.

Can the bible save you? No

Now you see why it is important to keep a clear distinction between what can save and what cannot.

 

Where did I say that?

If anyone claims to be Baptist, either an individual or a body of believers, they should hold to Baptist principles. The 2000 BF&M does not.

 

You just did what theb person you replied to said she/he was afraid of, made the Bible and Jesus equal, thus deifying the Bible.

 

No, rather that they BOTH are the perfect revealtion of God to us, its just that Jesus IS Gid in the human flesh , so he revealed perfectly to us who God is, while the originals Perfectly gave us the thoughts He had for us!

We worship JUST the creator/saviour, but BOTH equally in the sense of perfect!

 

BOTh, again, were perfect in what they revealed to us about God...

jesus IS God in human flesh, while the originals were his thoughts in written form!

both totally perfect, but we worship the lord jesus, not his book to us!

 

Hi Thomas, I'm trying to reconcile the following:

What I'm reading here: "There SHOULD BE a standard by which Baptists agree with in order to work together, and those who don't hold to such Baptist principles should leave."

What I'm reading here: "It is UN-BAPTIST to require someone to conform to some standard in order to work together."

THESE SEEM CONTRADICTORY....what am I missing?