Posted on 12/31/2012 9:02:53 AM PST by wonkowasright
In most cases there is a single state level organization that itself is then part of the SBC. Virginia and Texas are the two exceptions.
The Baptist General Association of Virginia (BGAV) had a schism and Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia (SBCV) broke away. Both the BGAV and SBCV are part of the SBC. The BGAV is by far the larger of the two groups, so the SBC can’t exactly saw off the BGAV without loosing most of Virginia. A similar scenario played out in TX
I noticed this when a story of a BGAV church being expelled for calling an openly homosexual man to the pulpit came out a couple weeks ago. The thing that caught my eye was the church being expelled, or another leaving in sympathy with it, was pastored by a woman. The takeaway was the BGAV was ok with women pastors but not homosexual pastors.
Its been a very quiet development and is completely at odds with the official SBC positions. You will note that all the churches with women pastors I list above ( save 3 i think ) are listed on the official SBC website as SBC churches.
It seems SBC is changing and its doing it by simply ignoring what is happening so it doesn’t have to loose churches/members.
Nothing about anyone else other than the original eleven. Last time I checked, they were all dead. So by your reasoning, going out to the nations died with them.
Do you really want to play that game? Based on your reasoning, one could surmise also that the Lord's Prayer is for men only, and that women should be prohibited from reciting it. Do you see how silly that sounds?
I will ask again, out of the five folds of ministry that Paul outlined to the church at Ephesus, which of the five are open to women?
GOD intended it to become scripture.
Look - if you want to reject scripture and make up your own rules and own church, go ahead. Millions have gone before you. But Paul’s authority and the scriptural status of his letters haven’t been in doubt for well over 1900 years...
The apostles selected their successors. All men according to scripture and the history of the Church until this day. This is what is meant by the one holy apostolic church.
Your post is very interesting. I have attended a Southern Baptist church for many years until about 5-6 years ago when I moved to a PCA church for personal needs. But I have warm feelings toward the Southern Baptists.
The SBC has troubles just about the same as every other group-sound doctrine. The problem with the SBC is that they don't want to admit it. There have been tensions between the Reformed and Aminians members for years. Rather than trying to solve their doctrinal dispute, they just want everyone to pretend that the most important issue is evangelism and ignore sound doctrine. I personnally believe they have this backwards. They need to return to the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. They may be forced to break into a smaller group like the Presbyterians or Lutherans, but in the end they'll be better off for it. Apparently they just want to look the other way. They need to return to their confession.
Can you please identify the twelve apostles living today? Thanks in advance.
My experience is very similar to yours. I was raised SBC(most of my relatives still are) and I still retain great affection for it. However, I discovered the Reformation and Westminster Confession of Faith many years ago via a Ligonier Conference. I’m now in the PCA. I think since the SBC is either the largest or one of the largest Evangelical Protestant denominations, there is a tendency to “not rock the boat” to keep their numbers big. If they had returned to the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, I might’ve stayed. Many would be surprised to learn how similar it is to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Here’s a list of the apostolic successors in the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_Catholic_bishops_of_the_United_States
There are more than 12 on that list. When did man take it upon himself to divert from the original tradition by adding to the number of apostles?
And I’m still waiting to hear which of the five folds of ministry are open to women.
The Church did not die or become invisible only upon the death of the Apostles. It continues to this day. It has grown in size and requires more bishops.
The universal priesthood is of all believers. The ordained priesthood in apostolic succession is male only. So to answer your question: pretty much everything except what is reserved for the ordained priesthood, primarily sacramental in nature - with exceptions in certain cases.
For reference, the catechism on the topic of the Sacrament of Holy Orders:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm
For reference, the catechism on the topic of the Sacrament of Holy Orders:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm
Apostolic succession is a bit different than what you may be thinking of as “adding to the number of apostles.” So I think your question is not applicable. Bishops of the Church are successors to the apostles, hence apostolic succession and the “apostolic church” of the creeds. It is part of how the Church maintains the teaching of Christ in His Church down through the ages. It not necessary to restrict the number of bishops to twelve.
Another difference is, perhaps, the Church is given authority from Christ for His Church on earth. This is different from Protestant thinking. She needs bishops throughout the world and has authority to ordain them.
I think I answered that one previously. You may have some terminology specific to your beliefs in this area. I answered to indicate that every function and role not reserved for ordained priesthood is open to women and all believers. Subject to relevant conditions that may apply to other holy orders and exceptions for sacraments under certain conditions.
What follows is thread drift. Non-Reformed people won't be interested, but Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, and Reformed Congregationalists will be. But if there's interest in further discussion, let's move to a new thread rather than derailing a women-in-office discussion among Baptists.
(BTW, I wish the Southern Baptists well in their fight against women's ordination. I Timothy and Titus are clear on the qualifications for elders, and they include being male.)
Back to ReformationFan’s post — You probably already know this, but the Baptist confession to which you refer is an emendation of the 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, which was the Congregational revision of the version of the Westminster Confession which had been adopted by Parliament for the English churches, and which was itself somewhat different from what the Westminster Assembly itself originally produced. John Owen was a key factor in the production of the Savoy Declaration once Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector and it became clear that Presbyterianism was not going to be forced by Parliament on the English churches.
You'll find that many of what you see as differences between the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of Faith are actually not due to Baptist changes, but rather changes made earlier by Parliament or the Congregationalists and simply accepted by the Baptists in England, since at that time only the Scots Kirk was using the original and unamended Assembly version of the Westminster Confession.
The main differences between the Savoy Declaration and both the original and the Parliamentary versions of the Westminster Confession have to do with church government, and since historic Congregationalism agreed with the Baptists on the rule of elders in local churches without an authoritative presbytery, synod or general assembly above the local elders, the Baptists didn't have to reinvent the wheel there. Obviously the Baptists **DID** need to amend the Savoy Declaration on infant baptism.
The Scots Kirk adopted the original version of the Westminster Confession produced by the Westminster Assembly, not the version adopted by the English Parliament. The version used today by the PCA and OPC and most (not all) conservative American Presbyterian bodies is a minor American revision of the Assembly's original version of the Westminster Confession, used originally by Scots and Scots-Irish immigrant churches and then adopted formally at the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America at which Rev. John Witherspoon was elected moderator.
The main American revisions were to eliminate the doctrine that the civil government can call church assemblies or otherwise interfere in church affairs, and while Witherspoon was directly involved in supporting those revisions, the real decisions had been made long before during colonial days not to support state-established churches as Presbyterians had known in Scotland and had been forced to fight against in England and Ulster.
Witherspoon was well-known not only in Presbyterian circles but nationally in secular politics. He was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, a member of the Continental Congress, a drafter of the Articles of Confederation, a member of the New Jersey legislature, president of what is now Princeton, and a key advocate of ratification of the United States Constitution.
The bottom line here is that Reformed Baptists are not actually that far apart confessionally from Presbyterians. There are important differences on church polity, but the Presbyterians had long since learned to tolerate the Congregationalists under Cromwell, and by 1658 the Congregationalists were strong enough to produce their own revision of the Westminster Confession. The Baptists simply did the same thing a few years later that the Congregationalists had done in 1658.
The differences between Baptists and Presbyterians in that time period were not issues of core theology but rather over whether to baptize babies and how much water to use, as well as whether local elders should be subject to higher church courts.
Obviously a tremendous amount has changed in the last four centuries, and much of it has been bad, but the differences aren't that great between Baptists and Presbyterians who know and care about their historical theology. John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon are certainly participants in a common faith with the Westminster Divines, though differing on some very important details.
“The differences between Baptists and Presbyterians in that time period were not issues of core theology but rather over whether to baptize babies and how much water to use, as well as whether local elders should be subject to higher church courts.”
It surprised my Baptist father when he learned how similar classic Presbyterianism and classic Baptist theology truly are. He asked me if I would have to be rebaptized and I told him no. All valid Trinitarian baptisms done by immersion, pouring and sprinkling are accepted in the EPC and PCA churches.
“Obviously a tremendous amount has changed in the last four centuries, and much of it has been bad, but the differences aren’t that great between Baptists and Presbyterians who know and care about their historical theology. John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon are certainly participants in a common faith with the Westminster Divines, though differing on some very important details.”
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.