Quote:
Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist  Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis Quote:
Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist
Why? It would be inconsistent with an independent church if a larger body could exercise influence in doctrine or practice against the will of the local body. That local bodies of like-mind come together to further the work of the gospel and strengthen one another is in no way inconsistent. Would we call the 1689 LBC inconsistent with Baptist practice or theology? I suppose some would.
| I meant in the manner that the context was speaking of. In other words, "We Southern Baptists..." or "...this is not the Southern Baptist way..." is not consistent with independent ecclesiology. | I can see that. But I can also see, say members of ARBCA, all agreeing on a number of doctrinal points, then saying, "We ARBCA churches agree on...." It's not that ARBCA has superseded the the local church; it's that the commonality of doctrine or practice creates a common bond or identity. |
I too can understand why this would be confusing. When I was previously part of a Baptist church, it was truly independent and only "cooperated" with other like minded churches in hosting a Bible conference three times per year. Although I've been fairly well acquainted with how things are done in the SBC, I've never been a member of a Southern Baptist church and question whether or not I would prefer a church that is independent, all things being equal. Sometimes I think I would prefer independency and wonder whether all of the bureaucracy on the various levels is the best way to do things (much less the Biblical way.) Judging from what I quoted in the OP, Dever would probably say that I just spend too much time reading about denominational politics.
My understanding is that one reason why many Southern Baptists opposed the creation of the Sunday School Board (now called Lifeway) about 100 years ago is because they feared the kind of programmatic uniformity that resulted. In other words, they were concerned with a top down influence on the churches.
I agree with Bill in that I see no problem with ARBCA, the SBC or any other Baptist or Independent association or convention of churches cooperating together and saying "We proclaim..." or "We believe...." As to Rich's second point about people who will say "it's not Baptist," the problem with it is usually the person can provide no basis as to why they disagree with something other than "that's not how mama and daddy did it" and that we've "always done it this way," which is nothing more than the kind of traditionalism that they decry in Roman Catholicism and other groups. I'm sure it's not too hard to find people who will charge Presbyterians with baptizing babies because of tradition but will be blind to unbiblical traditions and beliefs within their own churches.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones (who was no Presbyterian) said that when the foundations are sure, Presbyterianism is probably the best form of church government. But what happens, as in ML-J's day, when the foundations are anything but sure? What happens when instead of hidebound church members it's the Presbytery or the GA that says "that's the way we've always done it" or seeks to enforce some unbiblical practice or ruling?