I would argue that Paul exercised authority over local churches. Whether official or not, he was the bishop in charge of discipline, encouragement, and often expositional preaching. Also, as a Southern Baptist, I have observed that some churches have elders and deacons, deacons only, and occasionally elders only. Yet, the NT is clear about the structure of authority within the local body. Even the application of the BFM 2000 varies greatly from congregation to congregation. I've watched as many of the annual conventions as I could find on TH-cam, and I see enormous division within the body with a strong push from the more liberal element. Churches are being disfellowshipped for having female pastors while others are not. Personally, I think the BFM 2000 is a very good document, but it seems like more and more churches look at it as a list of suggestions. Our Pastor is doing a series on them and takes them seriously. I have been a member of my church for three years, did an internship at another one for one year, and have attended others over the years. My observation is that it comes down to the leadership, theology, and heart of the local pastor. Right now, I think there is a growing disparity among the pastors being produced by the six seminaries in each of those categories. The tent is large and becoming much larger at breakneck speed.
That's why we are a convention, not a denomination. We keep the tent big on purpose. Without a big tent, NAMB, the IMB, and the cooperative program at large would not be what it is. There is a reason that the SBC is the biggest evangelical sending organization on the planet, and it's not even close. To be a Southern Baptist is to be clear where Scripture is clear, and to not be dogmatic where Scripture is not dogmatic. Also, I have actually been to the SBC and can promise there is not a drift to liberalism. The votes of our last several conventions can overwhelmingly prove that.
@@93jabob I agree conceptually. The votes are favorable but not overwhelmingly so. In fact, the margin is shrinking at an alarming rate. On one issue alone this year, it went from the 80th percentile to the 60th in just one year. Your comment about Scriptural clarity sounds reasonable at the surface, but there are serious arguments on what constitutes "clear." From my perspective, the BFM provides clarity. The real issue in the debate is not clarity but interpretation. I have researched enough to know that prominent Southern Baptist leaders have serious concerns about the convention's future. The good news is, as you said, it is a convention and not a denomination. 7000 churches have pulled out of the UMC where separation is a serious challenge. It is far easier for churches associated with the SBC to jump ship if necessary. Let's hope it doesn't come to that and that conservative orthodoxy prevails.
"A commitment to traditional, Christian, protestant, Augustinian theology . . ." Really? I have not been to a Southern Baptist Church that is committed to Augustinian theology. I have been to PCA churches that are thus committed. Why not take your theological foundation back about 400 years to the first century? What exactly is wrong with Apostolic theology? Many reformed protestants hold him as sacrosanct, but I don't see an ounce of Baptist theology as laid out in the BFM in his thought. In fact, he aligns far more with Catholic doctrine. Can you see Augustine if he had lived during the Reformation, persecuting the Anabaptists?
I would argue that Paul exercised authority over local churches. Whether official or not, he was the bishop in charge of discipline, encouragement, and often expositional preaching. Also, as a Southern Baptist, I have observed that some churches have elders and deacons, deacons only, and occasionally elders only. Yet, the NT is clear about the structure of authority within the local body. Even the application of the BFM 2000 varies greatly from congregation to congregation. I've watched as many of the annual conventions as I could find on TH-cam, and I see enormous division within the body with a strong push from the more liberal element. Churches are being disfellowshipped for having female pastors while others are not. Personally, I think the BFM 2000 is a very good document, but it seems like more and more churches look at it as a list of suggestions. Our Pastor is doing a series on them and takes them seriously. I have been a member of my church for three years, did an internship at another one for one year, and have attended others over the years. My observation is that it comes down to the leadership, theology, and heart of the local pastor. Right now, I think there is a growing disparity among the pastors being produced by the six seminaries in each of those categories. The tent is large and becoming much larger at breakneck speed.
Yes, and the Jerusalem council.
That's why we are a convention, not a denomination. We keep the tent big on purpose. Without a big tent, NAMB, the IMB, and the cooperative program at large would not be what it is. There is a reason that the SBC is the biggest evangelical sending organization on the planet, and it's not even close. To be a Southern Baptist is to be clear where Scripture is clear, and to not be dogmatic where Scripture is not dogmatic. Also, I have actually been to the SBC and can promise there is not a drift to liberalism. The votes of our last several conventions can overwhelmingly prove that.
@@93jabob I agree conceptually. The votes are favorable but not overwhelmingly so. In fact, the margin is shrinking at an alarming rate. On one issue alone this year, it went from the 80th percentile to the 60th in just one year. Your comment about Scriptural clarity sounds reasonable at the surface, but there are serious arguments on what constitutes "clear." From my perspective, the BFM provides clarity. The real issue in the debate is not clarity but interpretation. I have researched enough to know that prominent Southern Baptist leaders have serious concerns about the convention's future. The good news is, as you said, it is a convention and not a denomination. 7000 churches have pulled out of the UMC where separation is a serious challenge. It is far easier for churches associated with the SBC to jump ship if necessary. Let's hope it doesn't come to that and that conservative orthodoxy prevails.
"A commitment to traditional, Christian, protestant, Augustinian theology . . ." Really? I have not been to a Southern Baptist Church that is committed to Augustinian theology. I have been to PCA churches that are thus committed. Why not take your theological foundation back about 400 years to the first century? What exactly is wrong with Apostolic theology? Many reformed protestants hold him as sacrosanct, but I don't see an ounce of Baptist theology as laid out in the BFM in his thought. In fact, he aligns far more with Catholic doctrine. Can you see Augustine if he had lived during the Reformation, persecuting the Anabaptists?