Why the SBC is no longer traditional Baptist

You guys basically told me it doesn’t work.

 

The SBC are mountain climbing people. At the moment they have a strange President just as the RCC has a strange Pope. I think that the SBC will trust God and end this pause and get back to climbing up the rough side of the mountain. No one can walk unless Jesus holds his hand. Someone told Chuck Smith that Jesus was just his crutch to which he agreed and said that he himself would be a stretcher case without Jesus.

 

I came from the RCC... all the brain washing, the dominating, the soliciting of money, the abuse, the rituals etc were enough for me thank you. I will never again expose my family and myself to that again... nor expose myself to worldly churches that are at war like the Hatfield and McCoy’s. Nope!

God has, in so many ways, given my family new lives and we are going to live it. To quote my wife recently as she joyfully runs throughout the house, “praise God from whom all blessings flow.”

 

Got to be the foot washing right.

 

I heard a Catholic theologian, perhaps Dr. Taylor Marshall on YouTube, say that the Virgin Mary was sinless. The Latin mass Catholics are among those trying to clean up things even to the extent of asking the DOJ to wield RICO laws against the American RCC, but they are strong on the rosary and praying to Mary and the saints. What are they thinking?

 

No. At times it has its problems.

 

So why go there, why tolerate them?

 

You obviously were not raised Catholic. Grandma was so in love with JFK that she went to the train station in Scranton to meet him but I know she would never accept Biden (the son of Scranton). Biden would not be considered a Roman Catholic do to his stance on abortion. She would have probably vote for Trump ( after writing him a letter telling him what a dirt bag he is)

 

The SBC does not tell my church what to do. We belong because of the Cooperative Missions program which is excellent.

 

If she loved Kennedy, she should have no problem with Trump. Kennedy was the biggest dirt bag of all.

 

Trump is not a RC and that makes all the difference.

 

I on the other hand have 0 interest in them.

 

We SBCers won't lose any sleep over not having your interest or your seal of approval.

 

Ask me if I care

 

Bruce Prescott, from the second link, circa 2001:

Morgan Edwards, from Customs of Primitive Churches (1768):
1. A covenant is the formal cause of a church: so that without a covenant, expressed or implied, a visible church there cannot be. Nor is there any other way in which a number of persons who are not a church may become such, but by entering into covenant one with the other to the Lord. The first christian church was formed out of the house of Judah in Jerusalem; the next was out of the house of Israel in Samaria. And all the gentile churches were built on the same plan, 1 Thes. ii. 14. And the constitutive cause was a new covenant. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah:- I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people. Heb. viii. 8-12.
2. This covenant or confederation bears a four-fold aspect. First, it hath respect to the Lord Christ; and then the meaning is, “We do engage henceforth to be the Lords people,” which is fulfilling this branch of the new covenant in Heb. viii. 10. They shall be to me a people; and an assumption of this overture, on Gods part, “Be ye separate and I will receive you, and will be to you a God.” They gave their own selves to the Lord. 2 Cor. viii. 5. Know ye not that ye are not your own, but God’s? 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20. That with purpose of heart they would cleave to the Lord, Act. xi. 23. Come out from among them and be ye separate—and I will receive you and will be to you a God and ye shall be to me a people, 2 Cor. vi. 16, 17. Heb. viii. 8-12
3. Next, it has a mutual respect to all the particular persons concerned in it. And then the meaning is, “We agree to be a church, viz. to coalesce into one body and cleave together, so at to be no longer our own, but the property one of another, and subject one to another, in the Lord.” Receive ye one another, Rom. xv. 7. Yea all of you be subject one to another, 1 Pet. v. 5. Onesimus—who is one of you—Epaphras, who is one of you, Col. iv. 9, 12. We being many are one body and everyone members one of another, Rom. xii. 5. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular, 1 Cor. xii. 12, 27. The whole body fitly joined together and compacted, Col. ii. 19. Eph. ii. 20, 21.
4. It hath respect to all the commandments of Christ; and then the meaning is, “all that the Lord hath said that will we do and be obedient;” which is a closure with an overture. If ye do all things whatsoever I have commanded you lo I am with you always. Math. xxviii. 20.
5. It hath respect to the officers of the church; then the meaning is, “we will know, obey, and submit to them that have the rule over us, and speak to us the word of God,” Heb xiii 7, 17. They gave their own selves to us according to the will of God. 2 Cor. viii. 5.These people are as they that strive with the priest. Hos. iv. 4.

 

I knew of this doctrine but did not know about it or its correct name. Thank you for posting this. I read of it as individual competency and read that it was an SBC distinctive. I read that God gave everyone the ability decide belief in Jesus and I believe that. I did not realize that 2000 undid that.

This not good. I tried to post on this a few years ago and no one knew what I writing about.

Thanks again.

 

You're welcome, but that is Bruce Prescott's opinion, not mine. According to the BFM 2000 page at SBC.net, the 2000 committee stated:

Article XVII on Religious Liberty states:

I am not SBC, so the BFM is not my statement. But I don't think it undoes individual competency.

I posted the clip of Prescott's statement in contrast to the much older statement of Morgan Edwards, long-time clerk of the Philadelphia Baptist Association. Edwards's statement shows, I believe, that individual accountability and accountability to other believers are not mutually exclusive, and that accountability to believers in church context is not some newfangled doctrine.

 

Okay, thanks again. I agree with you. I heard of the doctrine in a book about evangelism published about 1998 or so. I thought that it was called individual competence and posted a thread of that title wherein no one knew what I was talking about. From your post, it would be more correct to say that it is a Baptist distinctive, right? And would the correct name of the doctrine be soul competence?

I really appreciate your straightening me out on this doctrine.

 

Back in the early 70’s, I had to withdraw from contributing to the cooperative program. It is a long, ugly story, no longer worthy of telling. But the mistrust of the program still lingers in me to this day.

So, although I am SB I do not contribute to the cooperative program.

 

So what’s the attraction