I have been fortunate to have joined this church in 2004 and began leading the men's Sunday School class in 2005. I have experience teaching Bible Studies for over 15 years, having worked as a layperson with the Navigators in the 1980s and 90s. I was blessed to have attended Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 2 full years.
If we are not creedal (ie) we do not believe that you must sign onto a creed to call yourself a Baptist, what is the role of the Baptist Faith and Message.
Jim F., thanks for setting this up. Very cool to have our own blog instead of doing long email trains!
The term we should be using is "confessionalism:, not "creedalism" when referring to the Baptist F&M. Below is an article that came out a few years ago when the IMB & NAMB missionaries were asked to affirm the Baptist F&M. Lots of good Baptist historical quotes in here....
"Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice."
Here is another good article on the subject: http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=101
www.baptist2baptist.net has lots of good articles from the last 7 years since the Baptist F&M was affirmed....makes for interesting reading if you do not know much about the controversies
I think that this is still walking a very fine tightrope. Here is a basic definition that I copied.
Creedalism vs. Confessionalism
A. Creedalism - What all persons must believe at all times to be orthodox - a creed is a test of faith
B. Confessionalism - What a particular person or group believes at a particular time - a confession is a result of faith. It is what it says it is: a “confession” of faith.
So as best that I can tell, creeds are a test of the individual, but confessions are a test of the group. But isn't the group, composed of many individuals. And if an individual decides to break from some of the core confessions, would we not say that he/she is not orthodox. For example, if an individual decided to disavow the trinity, would we not say that they are not orthodox in their beliefs, and have failed this test?
"Those who are excluded from service because of their refusal to subscribe to a summary of Scripture truth retain their freedom also," he writes. "The churches and conventions do not seek to impose their beliefs on them. They do not seek to coerce them or injure them in their person, property or free movement. Persons ought to be free in human society to believe error; the churches are free to refuse to elect such persons to teach and preach the gospel." Dr. Gregory Wills
The Baptist Faith and Message is required for potential employees to any Southern Baptist Convention institution (Seminary, LifeWay, IMB, NAMB). Why would anyone in a ministry position want to work somewhere where they did not agree with the fundamentals of faith?
Confessions are not the best thing, but they are a solution to an imperfect universal church...one that is seperated by differences in Biblical interpretation; thus the existance of denominations. If every Christian interpreted the Bible perfectly, then there would not be a need for denominations, creeds, confessions, etc. It is because of the human-induced error through interpretation that we are forced to clarify what we believe.
Good clarification Jonathan. I agree with all of that. It comes back to something that Al and I were talking about on Sunday. If someone wished to call themselves a Southern Baptist, but disavow key components of the Baptist Faith and message (ie Trinity, Deity of Christ) should we not consider excommunicating such a person.
"Excommunication" is probably not the term we should use, but I get the point you are making....
For churches that are clearly not speaking the truth as affirmed by the SBC or by the state conventions, they should be expelled from the local association, state convention, or national convention. I believe you almost always see this at the state and local level and seldom at the national level. There is a process that should be followed though, seeking to Biblically restore them to the truth before seeking to seperate them.
As for individuals within the church, we should probably use the term "church discipline". I think this is something the church of today seldom practices. I heard a statistic the other day that 1-2% of members used to annually fall under church discipline. I personally have not seen this done within a church I have attended.
Like the association/convention methodology, the church should seek to restore the individual to a right understanding of the Scripture. Should that fail, the individual should be progressively be removed from leadership and membership within the local congregation. 1 Corinthians 5 gives us great guidance on this.
Why practice church discipline?
1. to restore the wayward ("hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord")
2. avoid disrepute in the church (light in the darkness - "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler")
3. maintain purity of the church (right teachings - "bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth")
Wanted to respond to something Johnathan said: ========== If every Christian interpreted the Bible perfectly, then there would not be a need for denominations, creeds, confessions, etc. It is because of the human-induced error through interpretation that we are forced to clarify what we believe. ============
Don't know if I go along with that. He made each of us as individuals, with our own worldviews, experiences, etc. We each have a 'perfect' interpretation that speaks to us. For whatever reasons, some prefer KJV over NIV, hymn #1 vs the praise band, etc. I think we're supposed to have different denominations so that like-minded believers can work together better.
Even Paul's letters talked about the specific problems each church was having.
Now to answer the original question - and a good one it is. I wanted to first understand the terms, I found this little quote:
Creeds are not merely statements of faith, but particularly statements of what makes one’s faith unique or distinct from others.
That was at http://www.answers.org/theology/i_believe_the_creeds.html
So the F&M is what makes one a Baptist, essentially. If a person does not want to be creedal, that doesn't mean they can't worship with or (as far as I'm concerned) join the church. I do agree that it should limit them from receiving things from the organization, like jobs.
dennis. I like what you said, and fully support it. The only thing I would add is that we are in a precarious position when we decide that we are not going to compel people to agree to a set of beliefs but still allow them to call themselves Baptists. That, to me is the danger of this loyalty to soul freedom. And I think that is where Jonathan would say we should work more on church discipline, which the 20th and 21st century churches do not do.
9 comments:
Thanks for setting this up!!
Jim D.
Jim F., thanks for setting this up. Very cool to have our own blog instead of doing long email trains!
The term we should be using is "confessionalism:, not "creedalism" when referring to the Baptist F&M. Below is an article that came out a few years ago when the IMB & NAMB missionaries were asked to affirm the Baptist F&M. Lots of good Baptist historical quotes in here....
http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=100
From the Baptist F&M itself...in the introduction
"Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice."
Here is another good article on the subject:
http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=101
www.baptist2baptist.net has lots of good articles from the last 7 years since the Baptist F&M was affirmed....makes for interesting reading if you do not know much about the controversies
I think that this is still walking a very fine tightrope. Here is a basic definition that I copied.
Creedalism vs. Confessionalism
A. Creedalism - What all persons must believe at all times to be orthodox - a creed is a test of faith
B. Confessionalism - What a particular person or group believes at a particular time - a confession is a result of faith. It is what it says it is: a “confession” of faith.
So as best that I can tell, creeds are a test of the individual, but confessions are a test of the group. But isn't the group, composed of many individuals. And if an individual decides to break from some of the core confessions, would we not say that he/she is not orthodox. For example, if an individual decided to disavow the trinity, would we not say that they are not orthodox in their beliefs, and have failed this test?
Here is a quote that I think is helpful:
"Those who are excluded from service because of their refusal to
subscribe to a summary of Scripture truth retain their freedom
also," he writes. "The churches and conventions do not seek to
impose their beliefs on them. They do not seek to coerce them or
injure them in their person, property or free movement. Persons
ought to be free in human society to believe error; the churches are
free to refuse to elect such persons to teach and preach the gospel." Dr. Gregory Wills
The Baptist Faith and Message is required for potential employees to any Southern Baptist Convention institution (Seminary, LifeWay, IMB, NAMB). Why would anyone in a ministry position want to work somewhere where they did not agree with the fundamentals of faith?
Confessions are not the best thing, but they are a solution to an imperfect universal church...one that is seperated by differences in Biblical interpretation; thus the existance of denominations. If every Christian interpreted the Bible perfectly, then there would not be a need for denominations, creeds, confessions, etc. It is because of the human-induced error through interpretation that we are forced to clarify what we believe.
Good clarification Jonathan. I agree with all of that. It comes back to something that Al and I were talking about on Sunday. If someone wished to call themselves a Southern Baptist, but disavow key components of the Baptist Faith and message (ie Trinity, Deity of Christ) should we not consider excommunicating such a person.
"Excommunication" is probably not the term we should use, but I get the point you are making....
For churches that are clearly not speaking the truth as affirmed by the SBC or by the state conventions, they should be expelled from the local association, state convention, or national convention. I believe you almost always see this at the state and local level and seldom at the national level. There is a process that should be followed though, seeking to Biblically restore them to the truth before seeking to seperate them.
As for individuals within the church, we should probably use the term "church discipline". I think this is something the church of today seldom practices. I heard a statistic the other day that 1-2% of members used to annually fall under church discipline. I personally have not seen this done within a church I have attended.
Like the association/convention methodology, the church should seek to restore the individual to a right understanding of the Scripture. Should that fail, the individual should be progressively be removed from leadership and membership within the local congregation. 1 Corinthians 5 gives us great guidance on this.
Why practice church discipline?
1. to restore the wayward ("hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord")
2. avoid disrepute in the church (light in the darkness - "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler")
3. maintain purity of the church (right teachings - "bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth")
Wanted to respond to something Johnathan said:
==========
If every Christian interpreted the Bible perfectly, then there would not be a need for denominations, creeds, confessions, etc. It is because of the human-induced error through interpretation that we are forced to clarify what we believe.
============
Don't know if I go along with that. He made each of us as individuals, with our own worldviews, experiences, etc. We each have a 'perfect' interpretation that speaks to us. For whatever reasons, some prefer KJV over NIV, hymn #1 vs the praise band, etc. I think we're supposed to have different denominations so that like-minded believers can work together better.
Even Paul's letters talked about the specific problems each church was having.
Now to answer the original question - and a good one it is. I wanted to first understand the terms, I found this little quote:
Creeds are not merely statements of faith, but particularly statements of what makes one’s faith unique or distinct from others.
That was at http://www.answers.org/theology/i_believe_the_creeds.html
So the F&M is what makes one a Baptist, essentially. If a person does not want to be creedal, that doesn't mean they can't worship with or (as far as I'm concerned) join the church. I do agree that it should limit them from receiving things from the organization, like jobs.
dennis. I like what you said, and fully support it. The only thing I would add is that we are in a precarious position when we decide that we are not going to compel people to agree to a set of beliefs but still allow them to call themselves Baptists. That, to me is the danger of this loyalty to soul freedom. And I think that is where Jonathan would say we should work more on church discipline, which the 20th and 21st century churches do not do.
Post a Comment