re 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (unamended)

The problem I had as a SB with the 1963 was the sentence, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."

I never could understand what we could know about Christ that we didn't find in Scripture and found that this statement gave a lot of wiggle room for the WWJD crowd who wanted to be very subjective in their doctrine.

If your "Jesus" wouldn't speak against homosexuality, then you would take that view of "Jesus" to the Bible and interpret it through that filter. Same went for Women Pastors and any other liberal stance you wanted to hold.

The 2000 effectively shut that subjective gate.

 

With respect to both Zenus and Revmitchell I would say that very few Christians, regardless of denomination or affiliation, pay attention to matters of doctrine.

I have pastored both independent and sbc churches and my experience is that this problem is worse in ifb circles than in the sbc but I also know excellent pastors in both worlds. Sometimes I think this is an issue of apathy with the congregation which is bad, but other times it is ignorance on the part of the pastor and is inexcusable.

 

I have been a member of a 1,000+ member SBC church more than 30 years where I have taught Sunday School to adults more than 25 years and served as a deacon more than 18 years. Before that, I was a member of a small SBC church in another association for 21 years. I have several close relatives who have graduated from Baptist colleges. I have also been active in associational missions efforts, so my experience is not limited. We do a good job of teaching our young people the fundamentals of the Christian faith (mere Christianity), but we do a miserable job of teaching Baptist distinctives. I am convinced that is why so many of our young people grow up and leave to join other denominations. Also, I can't remember when one of our young people married someone of another denomination and the non Baptist joined our church. I've been beating my head against a wall for years and no one seems interested. In fact, I have in my personal acquaintenance not more than five or six people who are interested in topics like those discussed on this board.

 

So your experience is two churches and a few relatives. Gotchya!:thumbs:

 

Uh, what exactly or how exactly do you figure any state convention can "require" any church to use the 2000 BFM, or any thing else, for that matter?

"Lucy!! You got some serious 'splainin' to do!"

Ed

 

Welcome to the Baptist Board, from someone else not all that computer savvy!

Ed

 

Outta' curiosity, since you brought up the subject of 'experience', exactly what is your experience, here?

Ed

 

They are required to affirm the 2000 BFM or they are kicked out of the convention, this is true in many cases on the associational level as well.

 

Oh, good grief.

 

If not Jesus, then what do you use to interpret scripture? If there is a question or you find a scripture that contradicts another scripture what do you turn to understand what is being said?

 

For those who are interested.

Here is a pdf version of the 1963 BF&M.

The Montana Southern Baptist Convention made this available on diskette to all SBC Agency and institution Presidents back in the 1990's. I still have all the letters from all of them thanking me for the disk.

1963 Baptist Faith and Message Statement

 

FTR, my home church has chosen to identify herself with the Southern Baptist Convention, since the earliest days of the SBC, although we are not, nor have we ever actually 'been' a Southern Baptist church.

It was kinda' hard to be a Southern Baptist church, back in 1782, when the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church was constituted, here in KY, when there would be no such thing as a "Southern Baptist Church", for another 63 years, and even the "Triennial Convention", the first 'national convention' of Baptists would not exist for another 32 years, itself, being organized in 1814. Interestingly enough, the first pastor of the Forks Church was still around when the Triennial Convention was organized, for he served for 34 years, until sometime around the end of 1816.

In fact, our church did not even have an official "Constitution and By-laws" of her organization prior to 1967, making a total of 185 years without any kind of 'official' Statement of Faith, or practice, save the use of the 'Church Covenant', which I do recall having heard referred to before 1967.

Ed

 

You go to Other Scripture. Check out the 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith. It has the best article on the Scripture of any Baptist Confession. ( of course it is a copy of the 1689 London Confession with 2 additional articles)

it says in paragraph 10 -

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.

 

Having applied for church at large status with the Florida Baptist covention the FBC does require that the church sign an agreement that they hold to the 2000 bfm.

 

I know of NO STATE CONVENTION where this has happened.

Can you provide Facts?

 

It's a good thing my SBC Church is not in Florida or else we would be leaving the Florida Baptist Convention.

My SBC Church holds to the original Articles of Faith that the Church voted to organize around in 1826.

So far neither the SBC nor the MBC (Missouri Baptist Convention) has refused any of our contributions.

Should either of those entities tell us we have to "sign" a specific Baptist Confession of Faith then we will cease to be affiliated with them.

 

Each level of SBC life is autonomous.

• A church can require and believe anything they choose. If the church chooses, no one can say they can't be a church.
• An association can require anything they choose for a church to be a member... And no one can say they can't do that. But an ass'n can say, this is what we believe you have to be to be a part of the ass'n. Then it is up to the church to decide if they want to be a part of the ass'n
• A state convention can require anything they choose. If they say, you must sign ther 2000 or at least the 1963 BF&M to be a member, a chuch can choose to sign and be a part or not to sign and not be a part.

There is no breaking of the autonomous-ness of a Baptist church for a convention to say if you believe and/or practice this, you can't be a part.

A church is free to accept homosexuals as members. An Ass'n is free to not accept them as a cooperating church. It doesn't in any way stop them, nor can it stop them, from being a church.

This applies to almost every issue. Don't sign the BF&M or sign the BF&M, that is a church free autonomous choice. It's also the choice of the Ass'n and the state convention to accept them as a member.

 

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

It might not get any clearer than that but it sure gets a lot more Practical than that.

Most State Conventions and Associations do not kick out any churches unless there are grievous differences. Every church lost is a decrease in Cooperative Program Giving and the powers that be in any SBC bureauracy knows that they live and die by CP Giving.