The Baptist Faith & Message

What do you all think? I go to a So. Baptist church that adheres to the Doctrines of Grace. Do you believe this theology to be consistent with the Baptist Faith & Message confession? Not having dotted all the "i's" and crossed all the "t's" with this Reformed Baptist issue (especially within the SBC), it raises questions.

Al Mohler is part of the committee on this by the way...

Thoughts?

__________________
Derek
Reformed Southern Baptist
Virginia

I always thought the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message was not as precise as I'd prefer - it certianly doesn't have the precision on it's own to serve as the sole confessional statement of a Reformed Baptist congregation, but nonetheless I do believe that it is at least compatible with a more Reformed confessional statement.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

I think the BFM is certainly watered down compared to previous confessions of faith of Baptists. Actually, if you trace the lineage of the BFM it goes back to the LBCF, but as I said, it's been watered down. Many SBC churches will supplement the BFM with another confession or one of their own. I know for sure that Dr. Mohler adheres to the Abstract of Principles, which was the first Southern Baptist confession of faith. It was written by the first president of the Southern Seminary and it's the one that all Southern Seminary professors must adhere to. It's very Calvinistic.

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

As I read the areas on salvation, for instance, it seems very vague... in such that the Calvinist can say, "I believe this" and the Arminian can also say "I believe this" as the impetus on salvation isn't necessarily discussed. I guess to be in the SBC it must be like this?? ...since it is a divisive issue and some within the Convention are at war with Calvinists (at least this is what they say).

Seems that the SBC is too political!

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 01:42:04 EST-----

Interesting. I'm not sure if most SBC churches are bullied into adhering to "their" (the SBC's) confession, or if they can do their own thing. You seem to believe they can do their own thing.

I'll check out the Abstract of Principles...

Indeed. However, that section of the BFM was written many years ago. People don't realize that this tension between Calvinists and Arminians has been in the SBC since its inception.

Actually the tension in my option comes closer to the 1890s, after we see non-Calvinistic people rising in power, such as with the office of president of the convention.

Most people within the SBC have no idea what their confession of faith is or what is says. I visited a large SBC church in Tucson and I asked the deacon what they thought of the 2000 edition of the Baptist faith and Message and he had no idea what it was. Let me remind you he was a deacon.

Personally as a reformed Baptist I think you can hold to both, I do as you can see in signature.

__________________
David Jolley
Currently SBC, may change
Confessions: 1680-SLBCF/ 2000-BFAM
Escondido, CA

It is very general which provides opportunity for everyone to interpret it however they want. See the section on election, God the Son (in regards to atonement), etc. Which explains a lot about the SBC. I was a pastor in an SBC church so I know. Most of the SBC churches I knew had never even read the BFM even though they subscribed to it.

I also don't like the section on the Lord's Day. "Activities on the Lord's Day should be commensurate with the Christian's conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ." This sounds like an excuse to throw out the moral law (at the least keeping the Sabbath holy).

Nor do I like the wording in the section on salvation:

"is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour."

Doesn't sound like irresistable grace to me. It sounds like you could "accept" Jesus and then turn down salvation. I don't believe in what is referred to as a "free offer" anyway.

__________________
John Lanier
Elder in Training
Reformed Baptist Church
Topeka, KS

Once you're in the big boys club in the SBC you have to be all political... I wonder if these committee's ever get contentious behind closed doors.

How can churches get members to read and become familiar with their confessions?? I recently joined the church, but researched the confession on my own. I guess you can have a new member's class... (we don't have one at the present, but it's in the works)

I'm not sayin' a thang!!

The funny thing is that the "little boys" don't care what the "big boys" say. Unless it is Charles Stanley or Billy Graham

I'm sure they have had some heated discussions. Personally, though, I think the only reason the BFM is there is to get away from the language used in the LBCF. If it wasn't so specific, then the current SBCers wouldn't have a problem with it. But since it is, it might hurt their numbers so they have to go to something a little more general.

I agree. I read it in full once because I was on a Pastoral Search committee and we were looking at folks that subscribed to the LBCF. There's nothing in there that is distinctively Arminian or Reformed. In that sense it is not a very unifying document on, what I believe, are very important Scriptural headers.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Very true on the fact of unifying. Is this part of the reason why there is so much confusion on what people believe (at least around here)? When two people can look at the BFM and both say "I agree with that" yet both be diametrically in opposition with each other in regard to how God saves, something is wrong. Me, I sat down with my pastor (future pastor at the time) and asked him some questions about their Theology... I wanted to at least make sure our soteriology was correct. I'm still studying all the "other stuff."

Isn't it a strange and almost counter-intuitive reality that a document intended to be broad enough to include "almost everybody" results in a divided house?

Even our forefathers knew better than that while devising our Constitution, albeit its context gets butchered nonstop.

I think it is just depraved man that messes everything up... or is it the Arminians and Democrats????