|
Post by Lonnie Odom on Apr 20, 2002 9:04:31 GMT -5
Guess I will open another "can of worms".
What is your opinion of the 2000 BF&M???
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on Apr 20, 2002 9:40:59 GMT -5
I'm fer it.
|
|
|
Post by boB on Apr 21, 2002 7:19:03 GMT -5
Shilo, (hi again) Did it go far enough, is there anything else you think should be added to it?
|
|
|
Post by enoch on Apr 23, 2002 23:09:45 GMT -5
I'm afraid I really don't understand what all the complaining and fussing was all about. All that I read in the BF&M was in my KJV.
|
|
Dan
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Dan on Apr 24, 2002 11:54:27 GMT -5
Some folks just can't stand accountability !! If you can't stand up; well you know !!!! I'M FER IT TOO !! 8) ;D
|
|
|
Post by rtravelin on Apr 30, 2002 19:03:55 GMT -5
:oWellllll! I am (at least today) unashamedly SBC 8), If we would just "do" the Bible and quit arguing who is closer to the "Truth" and follow Jesus as close as we can everything would be ok. I FER it too ;D
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on Apr 30, 2002 23:18:37 GMT -5
Except how can two walk together unless they be agreed? Paul dealt with heresies and troublemakers so we have to argue and determine if we are doing the Bible correctly and exhort, reprove and rebuke those who t'ain't.
|
|
Sue
Full Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by Sue on May 1, 2002 7:24:46 GMT -5
OK, I know I am not a "pastor", and I am most likely opening myself up to some "wrist slapping" for putting in my "female" 2c worth here, but I can't stop myself. I just have to bring out something that came up in our Sunday School lesson this past week. Look at Titus 3:9-11. "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." Yes, I know it's NKJ, but it's understandable. How do these verses fit in when we find ourselves arguing with someone over and over about something we feel so strongly that they have the wrong idea about? Haven't we, in the long run, done more harm to our witness than good?? I am desperatly trying to teach the ladies in my class to "love one another" unconditionally and to proclaim themselves "Christ-followers", not christians, because there are too many "christians" and not enough "Christ-followers" these days. But it is extremely difficult to do when the "men of the church" (pastors I meet included) are spending their time arguing with everyone they run into that thinks a little different than they do with "that's not the way we do it"... In the commentary at the bottom of my Bible it states that Paul indicates that the church should "cut off" the church's relationship with any person who would not submit to correction after two warnings. I am not so sure I would go that far, but I do believe we should stop beating the person up and just let them know that we are praying for them and will not stoop to argument and trying to defend what God does not need defending. And if the BF&M truly is following the Word of God, then why do we feel we must always defend it? Just my 2c
|
|
|
Post by janis on May 1, 2002 8:41:36 GMT -5
I guess my biggest question about the 2000 version is, why? Why did the '63 (?) version have to be upgraded? I honestly do not know the huge difference. Shame on me for being so uninformed! Can you enlighten me, please? Is that asking for worms?
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 1, 2002 21:57:51 GMT -5
Actually, almost everything we believe has to be clarified in the age we live. With the androgynous trend in our society, unbiblical feminism, and the granting of same sex marriages, the Bible's teaching of the roles of men and women have to be made a tad more emphatic for folks to hear, both lost and saved.
Also, with a widening gap between groups within the SBC, the core Conservative beliefs the SBC was built on had to be reaffirmed. Does this mean that some will have to be more honest about their beliefs that are not in harmony with both Bible and SBC history? Yes. Will it help get rid of some of the blighters? Some, Yes. Others, No. Some will be like our former President and get more lawyer like and sign it with mental reservations or use definitions that make no logical sense questioning the logical definitions but will let them play verbal and mental gymnastics allowing them to stay in the SBC and cause more trouble later.
All, it did was reaffirm what the Bible says. If you are in line with that then it makes no difference if you clarify a different piece every year. If you are not, then the clarification makes it harder for you to hide and that will of course anger you and cause spoutings of "Neanderthal!", divisive and ad nauseum. Truth is always divisive and meant to be. Besides, a lot has happened since 1963, it is good to review and clarify. Some churches have not read their constitutions, bylaws or whatever since 1963. They would be surprised that they are functioning in a "illegal" and unconstitutional manner. Therefore it is good the the BF&M was read, clarified and reaffirmed at the beginning of a new millennium.
|
|
|
Post by enoch on May 3, 2002 0:17:14 GMT -5
If for no other reason, I am for the upgrade for the mere reason that it has generated study of the scriptures. Mayhap those who examined them the most were those who were trying to find a loophole, but God is faithful and true. He promises to bless His word (not ours) and those who read it will find Him in its pages. I do not believe that the BF&M is canonical. Therefore I do not believe that it should be used to measure others by and to make a "shiboleth" of to test others by. There are 7 fundamentals of Christianity which we hold true, and I think those will do us just fine. The deity of Christ. The virgin birth of Christ. The death, burial and resurrection. His vicarious blood sacrifice on the Cross. His Second Coming. The Bible is the Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible word of God. Salvation is through faith, by grace plus nothing!
These pretty well sum things up for me. If someone believes these 7 fundamentals, I recognize them as Christians. If not, they are fair game and I will do what I can to show them Jesus Christ!
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 3, 2002 23:11:51 GMT -5
The Magnificent Seven is very much like what Jesus said about the whole law hanging on two prime principles. There is a lot of ground to be covered under those seven topics. How many heresies does a person have to hold before you separate from him/her? Departing from heretics and separation from evil are taught, which might fall under the point of an infallible Bible. If all the Bible is inspired then how do you make one issue a "shiboleth" and not another? Who defines what is essential and what is not, if all truth is to be held as God's and all Christians are to be of one heart and accord and all say the same thing as that infallible Bible teaches us to be and do? The two prime directives are the sum of the whole law and all the rest are details showing how those directives are to be made effective. If you deny any of the truth of the Scripture do you not deny its infalliblity? Do you not in a sense deny the deity of Christ because if He taught it or had it written can you decide which of the King's edicts or sayings are to be heeded and which are not? To whom much is given much is required and we now have it all, so can we pick and choose? Is the Word a buffet from which we can pick what we like and haggle over the rest or allow it to be wasted? Is the essential/nonessential philosphy a heresy in itself since we are to live by EVERY Word of God and it deems some words required to be lived by and others to be ignored if they do not fit our culture or prick our conscience and hence are of some lesser value? Praise God that our salvation is by faith or the Second Coming would not be a blessing for anyone. No one is perfect in living by every word, but should that not be at least a goal? Is tithing, evangelism, church attendence, love and all the other issues really on a lower level than the 7? Is the Word of God primarily a fire escape? After that, everyting else can be willy nilly? I have severe problems with the concept and I am not trying to hammer you Enoch. I have heard it for 27 years, but it still does not sit well. It appears to make us judges of the Word versus those who are just supposed to obey it. If the Holy Spirit is to lead us into ALL truth can we just be thrilled about 7 truths and throw the rest into some little drawer called nonessential that can be debated by theologians, but are just truths of a lesser kind?
|
|
|
Post by enoch on May 4, 2002 15:13:21 GMT -5
Dear Shiloh, brother, We can and must measure by God's infallible word. But when the BF&M expresses commentary on the divine scriptures and we try to use it as a "shiboleth" we do err. God's word is the only canon which we can ultimately measure by. And then we are to start with ourselves. God's word is the absolute moral and guide for all of creation. We are not to take a portion of it and apply it to our own end I agree with the BF&M do not get me wrong. But we cannot use it as canon, only God's word. The "magnificent 7" pretty well sum it up. The Bible as God's infallibly, inerrant word is applicable to all. All of His word is applicable to all. Not just the parts that some would like to keep and others to omit, but ALL OF HIS WORD! Amen!!!
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 5, 2002 17:10:31 GMT -5
I hear what you are saying, but I am not calling it a canon. It is a statement of faith of what we believe the Bible is teaching. Hence as long as it is in accord with Scripture and based on Scripture it can be used as a "affirmation of agreement and fellowship." When I graduated from college, I had to sign a doctrinal statement that I was in agreement with what I was taught. I had no problem with that. I do not know if they did not issue a degeree to those who did not agree or how many people lied and signed while not being in agreement. The last church I was with had people completing the New Member's Class sign a covenant of fellowship and service or what have you. I would have to find my book to see what exactly it was called. The idea is that to be a voting member of the church you needed to be in agreement with doctrine and mission of the church. If you are going to work for the SBC or with the SBC or however you want to state that, I see no problem in outlining your beliefs and having people sign that they are in agreement. Even secular jobs make you sign various things that you agree to do or not to do or your employment is terminated. Why not sign that you are in agreement with a ministry? If you are not then be honest and go find a ministry you ae in agreement with. If you are in agreement, then you should be thrilled to be able to align yourself with them in ink. The only reason that I see people would have a problem is that they are horntoads that want to infilitrate an organization and slowly poison it while smiling in agreement with "mental reservations." I am in a war and I like to know that the lad next to me is really on my side and not wanting for the first opportunity to shoot me in the back and let the enemy hordes into the camp. It is not an ironclad preventative by requiring a signature, but at least if they start pumping poison I have proof that they are liars and can fire them. I had to affirm my loyalty to the Consitution when I signed up for the military and reaffirm it each time I re-enlisted and swore to defend it from enemies at home and abroad. I see no problem in doing the same for the Word by signing a systematic synopsis of it laid out according to the faith of the people I am serving with. It keeps me and them more accountable. If I swerve, they can can me an if they swerve I can can them.
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 6, 2002 19:29:53 GMT -5
Hmm, some want it both ways. Per my "Southern Baptist TEXAN" magazine I received to today under the thumbs down article.
"Thumbs down to the new Baptist General Convention of Missouri for requiring participants to sign a belief or loyalty statement; all the while condemning SBC agencies for requiring accountability from teaching and ministry leaders. You can't have it both ways."
10-4 on that good Buddy!
|
|