Patterson = Martin Luther

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Thu May 02, 2013 7:13 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: More top down control as evidenced by the BF&M rewrites after 79. Including new interpretation of he BF&M's authority.


There has been no change in the structure of the SBC since the 2000 BFM was adopted, and there is no system of "top down control." I've heard this argument for years, and have yet to see one shred of proof. Baptist churches are still voluntarily affiliated with the convention, determine the level of their contribution and support, as well as their own doctrinal statement and theological perspective. The structure and parameters of defining cooperation in the SBC are not determined by the BFM, those come from the covention's bylaws and constitution. But the BFM does not contain any statement which changes the relationship between an independent, autonomous convention in which participation is completely voluntary, and its 45,000+ independent, autonomous churches.

Michael, I've seen that Texas Baptist document before, many, many times. I've read the comments. There are changes in the BFM 2000 from the 1963, as there are changes from the 1925 confession to the 1963. They generally apply to clarification of the wording, not major changes in theological perspective. I was in some of those convention sessions where many of those points in that document were discussed. The slant and bias of the document comes from a predetermined position of those involved on the various committees that composed it, and much of what they have written takes the interpretation of the wording of the 2000 document completely out of context. You probably remember cries of "They took Jesus out of the BFM 2000!" when the wording on the "Jesus criterion" was changed. Jesus was not removed, and if you read the document in context, you can clearly see that. What they did change was the nonsense and absolutely unjustifiable hermeneutic that is applied that if Jesus didn't say something about it, it's not important. That's a Campbellite, Church of Christ heresy. The "criterion statement" was misinterpreted and missaplied in a way that denied Jesus' Godhood and that certainly wasn't "historically Baptist." It is also hard to deny that inerrancy is anything but a historic Baptist principle, given that it appears in all three BFM statements. It is clearly stated, in the 2000 BFM, that it is neither binding nor a comprehensive statement of Baptist doctrine. To call it anything else is to distort the truth.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu May 02, 2013 8:51 am

Sandy wrote:The "criterion statement" was misinterpreted and missaplied in a way that denied Jesus' Godhood and that certainly wasn't "historically Baptist."


Sandy, I am intrigued by your statement. Can you cite examples of this that you know firsthand?
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Thu May 02, 2013 9:04 am

Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote:The "criterion statement" was misinterpreted and missaplied in a way that denied Jesus' Godhood and that certainly wasn't "historically Baptist."


Sandy, I am intrigued by your statement. Can you cite examples of this that you know firsthand?


Generally, the idea that if Jesus didn't directly address an issue, then other Biblical references to it are secondary or tertiary, and can be set aside. That was a common application of the "Jesus criterion" of the 1963 BFM.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu May 02, 2013 7:46 pm

Sandy wrote:
Generally, the idea that if Jesus didn't directly address an issue, then other Biblical references to it are secondary or tertiary, and can be set aside. That was a common application of the "Jesus criterion" of the 1963 BFM.


That's a fascinating accusation, Sandy, but I never heard that in the Baptist College or seminary I attended. In fact, the 1963 BFM was almost never mentioned in either place and was never used in the casuistic method you cite. Can you tell me who and where this was being taught.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Thu May 02, 2013 8:04 pm

Russ Moore, Southern Seminary Magazine, November 2000 wrote: Conservatives became alarmed, however, when they saw the "criterion" language being wielded to discard whole sections of Scripture that allegedly did not reflect the character of Jesus. In Baptists and the Bible (Broadman and Holman, 1999), L. Russ Bush and Tom Nettles, for instance, pointed to Clifton Allen's introduction to the controversial Broadman Bible Commentary as a grievous misapplication of the "criterion" language. Allen dismissed as "errors" or "falsehoods" such biblical passages as Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and 2 Samuel 21:1-9 because they are "out of harmony with [God's] nature as holy love and clearly in conflict with the example and teaching of Jesus." Such language became even clearer in the aftermath of the 2000 BF&M. Ronald Sisk, pastor of Crescent Hill Baptist Church in Louisville, criticized the new BF&M by noting, "Not all Scripture rises to the full level of Christ." Sisk pointed to various passages from the Old Testament and from the teachings of Paul as examples, Louisville's Courier-Journal reported on June 12, 2000.


Here's the link to the whole article.

http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?id=43
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Fri May 03, 2013 4:47 am

Sandy wrote:
Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: More top down control as evidenced by the BF&M rewrites after 79. Including new interpretation of he BF&M's authority.


There has been no change in the structure of the SBC since the 2000 BFM was adopted, and there is no system of "top down control." I've heard this argument for years, and have yet to see one shred of proof. Baptist churches are still voluntarily affiliated with the convention, determine the level of their contribution and support, as well as their own doctrinal statement and theological perspective. The structure and parameters of defining cooperation in the SBC are not determined by the BFM, those come from the covention's bylaws and constitution. But the BFM does not contain any statement which changes the relationship between an independent, autonomous convention in which participation is completely voluntary, and its 45,000+ independent, autonomous churches.

Michael, I've seen that Texas Baptist document before, many, many times. I've read the comments. There are changes in the BFM 2000 from the 1963, as there are changes from the 1925 confession to the 1963. They generally apply to clarification of the wording, not major changes in theological perspective. I was in some of those convention sessions where many of those points in that document were discussed. The slant and bias of the document comes from a predetermined position of those involved on the various committees that composed it, and much of what they have written takes the interpretation of the wording of the 2000 document completely out of context. You probably remember cries of "They took Jesus out of the BFM 2000!" when the wording on the "Jesus criterion" was changed. Jesus was not removed, and if you read the document in context, you can clearly see that. What they did change was the nonsense and absolutely unjustifiable hermeneutic that is applied that if Jesus didn't say something about it, it's not important. That's a Campbellite, Church of Christ heresy. The "criterion statement" was misinterpreted and missaplied in a way that denied Jesus' Godhood and that certainly wasn't "historically Baptist." It is also hard to deny that inerrancy is anything but a historic Baptist principle, given that it appears in all three BFM statements. It is clearly stated, in the 2000 BFM, that it is neither binding nor a comprehensive statement of Baptist doctrine. To call it anything else is to distort the truth.


A couple of questions: Why do you suppose those who drafted the 2000 BF&M thought it necessary to state that women are not allowed to be pastors. Why didn't they leave this up to the local churches? Those who produced the previous confessions did not see the need to add this.

Secondly, do you think a person could disagree with the BF&M 2000 and still be a Southern Baptist? I've had fundamentalists tell me that if i couldn't agree with the 2000 BF&M, that I should not be attending a SBC church.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Fri May 03, 2013 8:29 am

Michael Wrenn wrote:A couple of questions: Why do you suppose those who drafted the 2000 BF&M thought it necessary to state that women are not allowed to be pastors. Why didn't they leave this up to the local churches? Those who produced the previous confessions did not see the need to add this.

Secondly, do you think a person could disagree with the BF&M 2000 and still be a Southern Baptist? I've had fundamentalists tell me that if i couldn't agree with the 2000 BF&M, that I should not be attending a SBC church.


It is left up to local churches. I think the last estimate I saw from Lifeway is that there are about 200 churches in the SBC which have women as pastors. The BFM is not applied to the definition of "cooperating church" in the SBC, that is a provision of the constutition and bylaws, which do not restrict churches with women pastors from cooperation. The BFM is the doctrinal statement of the convention which applies to its entities. So employees of entities or agencies directly related to the SBC can't be members of churches with a female pastor. Prior to 1963, there was very little, if any, thought given to a church ever calling a female pastor. Baptists have historically and traditionally held to the belief that the pastor is an elder, and therefore is qualified by the list in Timothy. Hence, they didn't consider calling women and very rarely called single men, given that being a husband is hard to do if you aren't married.

The BFM 2000 states in its preamble that it is not a comprehensive or conclusive doctrinal statement, and is intended to define only the parameters of doctrinal cooperation for the convention. It is not adequate if it is intended to serve as a doctrinal statement for a local church, and its authors clearly didn't intend for it to do so. I don't know where Southern Baptists get the idea that they have to do what the convention tells them (maybe they've hung around with Methodists too long :wink: ) but there's no expectation that a local church would require its members to agree completely with the BFM or they shouldn't go to an SBC church. Depending on what part of the country you are in, you might find local churches that have adopted it as their doctrinal statement, and a few might require adherence to it if you wanted to be in a leadership position. But I would say that isn't even the majority of SBC churches. Not all of the state conventions have adopted it as their statement of faith, and many of them have their own.

If you want to work at an SBC entity, teach at an SBC seminary, or serve as an SBC missionary, you have to affirm the BFM 2000. That's the full extent of the SBC's authority to require it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Fri May 03, 2013 8:48 am

Sandy wrote:
Michael Wrenn wrote:A couple of questions: Why do you suppose those who drafted the 2000 BF&M thought it necessary to state that women are not allowed to be pastors. Why didn't they leave this up to the local churches? Those who produced the previous confessions did not see the need to add this.

Secondly, do you think a person could disagree with the BF&M 2000 and still be a Southern Baptist? I've had fundamentalists tell me that if i couldn't agree with the 2000 BF&M, that I should not be attending a SBC church.


It is left up to local churches. I think the last estimate I saw from Lifeway is that there are about 200 churches in the SBC which have women as pastors. The BFM is not applied to the definition of "cooperating church" in the SBC, that is a provision of the constutition and bylaws, which do not restrict churches with women pastors from cooperation. The BFM is the doctrinal statement of the convention which applies to its entities. So employees of entities or agencies directly related to the SBC can't be members of churches with a female pastor. Prior to 1963, there was very little, if any, thought given to a church ever calling a female pastor. Baptists have historically and traditionally held to the belief that the pastor is an elder, and therefore is qualified by the list in Timothy. Hence, they didn't consider calling women and very rarely called single men, given that being a husband is hard to do if you aren't married.

The BFM 2000 states in its preamble that it is not a comprehensive or conclusive doctrinal statement, and is intended to define only the parameters of doctrinal cooperation for the convention. It is not adequate if it is intended to serve as a doctrinal statement for a local church, and its authors clearly didn't intend for it to do so. I don't know where Southern Baptists get the idea that they have to do what the convention tells them (maybe they've hung around with Methodists too long :wink: ) but there's no expectation that a local church would require its members to agree completely with the BFM or they shouldn't go to an SBC church. Depending on what part of the country you are in, you might find local churches that have adopted it as their doctrinal statement, and a few might require adherence to it if you wanted to be in a leadership position. But I would say that isn't even the majority of SBC churches. Not all of the state conventions have adopted it as their statement of faith, and many of them have their own.

If you want to work at an SBC entity, teach at an SBC seminary, or serve as an SBC missionary, you have to affirm the BFM 2000. That's the full extent of the SBC's authority to require it.



Thank you for your reply.

I would hate to think that I could be a member of a SBC church but could not teach at my own denomination's seminaries or serve as a missionary in my own denomination if I could not fully affirm the 2000 BF&M.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Haruo » Fri May 03, 2013 10:06 am

Sandy wrote:I don't know where Southern Baptists get the idea that they have to do what the convention tells them (maybe they've hung around with Methodists too long :wink: )

Touché! ;-)
Sandy wrote:If you want to work at an SBC entity, teach at an SBC seminary, or serve as an SBC missionary, you have to affirm the BFM 2000. That's the full extent of the SBC's authority to require it.

I wonder if this applies to janitors and dishwashers, or only to executive types. I once applied for some sort of menial position at Seattle Pacific University (a Free Methodist school; note: the Free Methodists left the forebears of the United Methodists because they objected to the latter's practice of selling pews! They believed in "pew freedom") and I was positively grilled on my salvation and theology. This was after I had been saved but before I had decided to admit to being Christian, and I didn't pass muster with the Free Methodists. I smoked in those days, too, but that wouldn't have been a bar to employment with them as long as I didn't do it on school property.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Fri May 03, 2013 10:46 am

Michael Wrenn wrote:I would hate to think that I could be a member of a SBC church but could not teach at my own denomination's seminaries or serve as a missionary in my own denomination if I could not fully affirm the 2000 BF&M.


Understanding congregational authority, church independence and autonomy, and the resulting independence and autonomy of the denominational body itself is historically and traditionally Baptist. The BFM is an extremely general, and very limited document when it comes to a confession of Christian affirmation, compared to what just about any other denomination or seminary would require you to affirm in order to teach. A decade or so back, I looked into the possibility of ordination with the Disciples of Christ, another denomination which is built around local church autonomy. In addition to a year's worth of training and watchcare they required, their document of doctrinal affirmation was lengthy and detailed, and contained additions and addendums related to their cooperative clergy sharing with other denominations. The BFM gives a whole lot more personal interpretive freedom than that. Ironically, I found out that a lot of D of C churches do not go through their denominational structure to find their pastors, but call their own. In Houston, at my last church, I worked closely in a community ministry with the D of C church down the street, and their pastor was a Southwestern grad, and had been ordained in an SBC church. Have you ever looked at what the various Lutheran denominations require you to affirm to even start their clergy approval process?

If I were a member of an SBC church (and I was for most of my life) committing a fair percentage of the money that comes in to the collection plate for missions and theological education, I wouldn't want them to hire someone who couldn't completely affirm the BFM 2000.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Fri May 03, 2013 10:53 am

Sandy wrote:
Michael Wrenn wrote:I would hate to think that I could be a member of a SBC church but could not teach at my own denomination's seminaries or serve as a missionary in my own denomination if I could not fully affirm the 2000 BF&M.


Understanding congregational authority, church independence and autonomy, and the resulting independence and autonomy of the denominational body itself is historically and traditionally Baptist. The BFM is an extremely general, and very limited document when it comes to a confession of Christian affirmation, compared to what just about any other denomination or seminary would require you to affirm in order to teach. A decade or so back, I looked into the possibility of ordination with the Disciples of Christ, another denomination which is built around local church autonomy. In addition to a year's worth of training and watchcare they required, their document of doctrinal affirmation was lengthy and detailed, and contained additions and addendums related to their cooperative clergy sharing with other denominations. The BFM gives a whole lot more personal interpretive freedom than that. Ironically, I found out that a lot of D of C churches do not go through their denominational structure to find their pastors, but call their own. In Houston, at my last church, I worked closely in a community ministry with the D of C church down the street, and their pastor was a Southwestern grad, and had been ordained in an SBC church. Have you ever looked at what the various Lutheran denominations require you to affirm to even start their clergy approval process?

If I were a member of an SBC church (and I was for most of my life) committing a fair percentage of the money that comes in to the collection plate for missions and theological education, I wouldn't want them to hire someone who couldn't completely affirm the BFM 2000.


And that's where I would disagree with you -- but you knew I would.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Fri May 03, 2013 11:00 am

Michael Wrenn wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Michael Wrenn wrote:I would hate to think that I could be a member of a SBC church but could not teach at my own denomination's seminaries or serve as a missionary in my own denomination if I could not fully affirm the 2000 BF&M.


Understanding congregational authority, church independence and autonomy, and the resulting independence and autonomy of the denominational body itself is historically and traditionally Baptist. The BFM is an extremely general, and very limited document when it comes to a confession of Christian affirmation, compared to what just about any other denomination or seminary would require you to affirm in order to teach. A decade or so back, I looked into the possibility of ordination with the Disciples of Christ, another denomination which is built around local church autonomy. In addition to a year's worth of training and watchcare they required, their document of doctrinal affirmation was lengthy and detailed, and contained additions and addendums related to their cooperative clergy sharing with other denominations. The BFM gives a whole lot more personal interpretive freedom than that. Ironically, I found out that a lot of D of C churches do not go through their denominational structure to find their pastors, but call their own. In Houston, at my last church, I worked closely in a community ministry with the D of C church down the street, and their pastor was a Southwestern grad, and had been ordained in an SBC church. Have you ever looked at what the various Lutheran denominations require you to affirm to even start their clergy approval process?

If I were a member of an SBC church (and I was for most of my life) committing a fair percentage of the money that comes in to the collection plate for missions and theological education, I wouldn't want them to hire someone who couldn't completely affirm the BFM 2000.


And that's where I would disagree with you -- but you knew I would.


I'm assuming you're Baptist. Regardless, what is there in the BFM 2000 that you could not affirm? It's a pretty general document and the foundational scripture passages are cited at every point.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Fri May 03, 2013 11:19 am

Sandy wrote:
I'm assuming you're Baptist. Regardless, what is there in the BFM 2000 that you could not affirm? It's a pretty general document and the foundational scripture passages are cited at every point.


I am a member of a Baptist church, and I hold Baptist principles. I am the founder of a new Communion.

The problems I have with the 2000 BF&M are the things that the Texas Baptists talk about in their comparison of the '63 and 2000 versions. Beyond that, I cannot affirm eternal security/OSAS, and I realize that is not just in the 2000 version. I also cannot affirm an unconditional eternal hell.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Fri May 03, 2013 12:04 pm

Michael Wrenn wrote:
Sandy wrote:
I'm assuming you're Baptist. Regardless, what is there in the BFM 2000 that you could not affirm? It's a pretty general document and the foundational scripture passages are cited at every point.


I am a member of a Baptist church, and I hold Baptist principles. I am the founder of a new Communion.

The problems I have with the 2000 BF&M are the things that the Texas Baptists talk about in their comparison of the '63 and 2000 versions. Beyond that, I cannot affirm eternal security/OSAS, and I realize that is not just in the 2000 version. I also cannot affirm an unconditional eternal hell.


Actually, I consider most of the Texas Baptist disagreements as semantics and language, mainly to create the illusion that there were significant differences which justified their decision to cut their Cooperative Program giving. That eventually led to the formation of the SBCT, the exodus of over 2,000 churches from the BGCT and the Cooperative Program now getting about $6 million a year more from Texas Baptists than they did when there was just one convention.

I wouldn't be able to support someone teaching at an SBC seminary who didn't believe in eternal security, particularly if you believe you can be saved again after losing it at some point. The seminaries are reflective of the theology that is taught and practiced by its supporting churches, and eternal security is an almost universally accepted doctrine among Southern Baptists.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Fri May 03, 2013 12:08 pm

Sandy wrote:
Michael Wrenn wrote:
Sandy wrote:
I'm assuming you're Baptist. Regardless, what is there in the BFM 2000 that you could not affirm? It's a pretty general document and the foundational scripture passages are cited at every point.


I am a member of a Baptist church, and I hold Baptist principles. I am the founder of a new Communion.

The problems I have with the 2000 BF&M are the things that the Texas Baptists talk about in their comparison of the '63 and 2000 versions. Beyond that, I cannot affirm eternal security/OSAS, and I realize that is not just in the 2000 version. I also cannot affirm an unconditional eternal hell.


Actually, I consider most of the Texas Baptist disagreements as semantics and language, mainly to create the illusion that there were significant differences which justified their decision to cut their Cooperative Program giving. That eventually led to the formation of the SBCT, the exodus of over 2,000 churches from the BGCT and the Cooperative Program now getting about $6 million a year more from Texas Baptists than they did when there was just one convention.

I wouldn't be able to support someone teaching at an SBC seminary who didn't believe in eternal security, particularly if you believe you can be saved again after losing it at some point. The seminaries are reflective of the theology that is taught and practiced by its supporting churches, and eternal security is an almost universally accepted doctrine among Southern Baptists.


Yes, I know, and when I was looking for a local Baptist church to join, I would always ask if someone who didn't believe in that could be a member. Most said yes.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Fri May 03, 2013 12:18 pm

Well, Michael, there's a difference between being a member of a church and not agreeing completely with the stated theological perspective, and teaching on behalf of the denomination's churches in one of its seminaries. A church's theological perspective is much more detailed, and more flexible. The seminary's commitment to a statement of faith is built around principles that its supporting constituents have determined are essential and relatively non-negotiable. In a church, or should I say in a Baptist church, the membership is the highest level of authority. The seminary's curriculum and objectives are aimed at a specific student outcome.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Fri May 03, 2013 12:33 pm

Sandy wrote:Well, Michael, there's a difference between being a member of a church and not agreeing completely with the stated theological perspective, and teaching on behalf of the denomination's churches in one of its seminaries. A church's theological perspective is much more detailed, and more flexible. The seminary's commitment to a statement of faith is built around principles that its supporting constituents have determined are essential and relatively non-negotiable. In a church, or should I say in a Baptist church, the membership is the highest level of authority. The seminary's curriculum and objectives are aimed at a specific student outcome.


Yes, I realize that.

But I was always uncomfortable knowing that I could in effect not support the missions agency or seminaries of the denomination whose local church I was a member of. Didn't seem right, somehow.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Fri May 03, 2013 4:15 pm

You're critical of some of the wording in the BFM 2000 because you think the SBC is too dogmatic, but a couple of secondary, or tertiary doctrinal points determines your ability to support a missions agency or a seminary through a local church?

:?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Fri May 03, 2013 4:20 pm

Sandy wrote:You're critical of some of the wording in the BFM 2000 because you think the SBC is too dogmatic, but a couple of secondary, or tertiary doctrinal points determines your ability to support a missions agency or a seminary through a local church?

:?


The doctrinal points are not secondary, and neither is the shift away from Baptist principles.

Could you support something where you and people who believed like you were prohibited from serving?

For instance, I wouldn't go to a local church which had a blanket prohibition on divorced people being pastors, without considering cases on an individual basis.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Fri May 03, 2013 8:39 pm

Michael Wrenn wrote:
Sandy wrote:You're critical of some of the wording in the BFM 2000 because you think the SBC is too dogmatic, but a couple of secondary, or tertiary doctrinal points determines your ability to support a missions agency or a seminary through a local church?

:?


The doctrinal points are not secondary, and neither is the shift away from Baptist principles.

Could you support something where you and people who believed like you were prohibited from serving?

For instance, I wouldn't go to a local church which had a blanket prohibition on divorced people being pastors, without considering cases on an individual basis.


None of the nit picking you referenced in the Texas Baptist response relates to any primary, or essential, doctrine of the Christian faith. There are a few secondary points, the rest are just quibbling over language.

Once saved, always saved is a historic and traditional Baptist principle, so it doesn't seem like that bothers you too much when it comes to your beliefs.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Sat May 04, 2013 8:37 am

Sandy wrote:
Michael Wrenn wrote:
Sandy wrote:You're critical of some of the wording in the BFM 2000 because you think the SBC is too dogmatic, but a couple of secondary, or tertiary doctrinal points determines your ability to support a missions agency or a seminary through a local church?

:?


The doctrinal points are not secondary, and neither is the shift away from Baptist principles.

Could you support something where you and people who believed like you were prohibited from serving?

For instance, I wouldn't go to a local church which had a blanket prohibition on divorced people being pastors, without considering cases on an individual basis.


None of the nit picking you referenced in the Texas Baptist response relates to any primary, or essential, doctrine of the Christian faith. There are a few secondary points, the rest are just quibbling over language.

Once saved, always saved is a historic and traditional Baptist principle, so it doesn't seem like that bothers you too much when it comes to your beliefs.


Actually, it does bother me.

BTW, the original Baptists, the first Baptists in England, Thomas Helwys and followers, were General Baptists who did not believe in OSAS.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Sat May 04, 2013 8:59 am

Oh, yeah, it's part of the Baptist heritage, but OSAS is overwhelmingly the preference of all but a small segment of the Baptist family, and has been since shortly after Helwys' day. It hasn't had the effect that OSAS has had in denominational formation, and would not be considered as a Baptist distinctive, or a traditional Baptist view. It's like speaking in tongues. Some Baptists believe in it, but it's not a Baptist distinctive.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Haruo » Sat May 04, 2013 9:32 am

Sandy (and everybody else for that matter), it might be a good idea (in another thread, probably, to be erected for the purpose) to list what you/we each think of as Baptist distinctives, and what we think of as Baptist universals (if any). I had never thought of OSAS as a Baptist distinctive (even though obviously lots of Baptists believe it and lots of Baptist churches treat it as fundamental), but then I learned my Baptist Distinctives from the GARBC website, and none of the initials is an O or an E:
B - ible-believing
A - utonomy of the local congregation
P - riesthood of the believer
T - wo ordinances
I - ndividual soul liberty
S - aved, baptized church membership
T - wo offices
S - eparation of church and state
Note that if the convention is more central to your thinking than the congregation, you can simply change A to "Associational principle" and still remain Baptist. Likewise, if you want to have foot-washing, or elders, it's easy to change the T's to "Three..." and still be BAPTISTS. And if you want the baptismal mode to have constitutional authority, change the first S to "Submerged, regenerate church membership"...
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12201
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Tim Bonney » Sat May 04, 2013 9:47 am

Hauro,

I'm not going to try to list Baptist distinctives as an outsider. But many American Baptists do not believe in OSAS. In this part of the country Northern Baptists and Free Will Baptists merged after the turn of the 20th century. There is very much a Free Will Baptist theology here.

The first time I explained Calvinism, predestinated, and OSAS to a large Wednesday night study group at FBC Des Moines they had a hard time believing that anyone actually believed any of that. They were incredulous. Some of them had never heard of idea of OSAS.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5933
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Sat May 04, 2013 10:23 am

Yeah, perhaps another thread to list historic or traditional Baptist doctrines, essential, secondary and tertiary if someone wants to go down the list that far, would be a good idea, since it would be buried in this one at this point.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8793
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

PreviousNext

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron