The Baptist Faith and Message is the confession of those churches that want to use a confession approved by the entire convention. But NONE of these listed or even the BFM is binding in ANY WAY on a single SBC church.

When I read various confessions I see the Calvinist eternally secure doctrine within them and speaking in terms of only those who are elect. Once a person knows of his election and converts he will always be secure in his salvation til the end and nothing he can do can change that, if a person does (backslide – sin) then they were never elect or a true convert to begin with. This is how I was understanding eternal security (once saved always saved.) So someone help me out if I am reading more into the eternal security than need be.

Philadelphia Baptist Confession
Westminster Confession of Faith
Standard Confession of 1660
First London Baptist Confession of Faith
Second London Baptist Confession of Faith
New Hampshire Confession of Faith
Abstract of Principles

1) Southern Baptist affiliation isn’t “bestowed.” Independent, autonomous churches CHOOSE to cooperate with other churches in what is called the Southern Baptist Convention. There is no doctrinal oversight beyond determining if a church is “of like faith and order” and that is quite subjective.

2) The cooperation of other Baptist churches and associations with a church is the most significant factor in it being SBC. Obviously a church can be Baptist and deny the “P.” And whether that church would be associated with and recognized by other Baptist churches would vary widely.

3) There is no denomination. The SBC is an association of autonomous congregations who associate in certain ways and at certain times.

4) “Once Saved Always Saved” is not confessional or institutional language anywhere in the SBC. Perseverance is confessional language. They may mean the same to you, but they don’t to many of us in the SBC.

As I said, the most you can say is that on a popular level, some Baptists like that phrase.

peace

MS

However on point 4 I would respectfully disagree with the statement:

“one can’t reasonably say Southern Baptists “believe” once saved always saved in any way other than popular perception or voluntary affirmation”

Personally I don’t see how anyone could reasonably come to any other conclusion. Perhaps we are not in agreement with what “Once saved always saved” means. I simply see it as 5th point of Calvinism “Perseverance of the Saints”. Which is aliased as “Once Saved always saved” by others.

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

Conversely, I don’t’ believe “Once saved always saved” is meant to infer that simply because one claims Salvation or has preformed an act that someone claims is a requirement for Salvation, that they in fact are Saved. From my point of view (possibly out of sync with the mainstream thinking) it simply means that once in Grace always in Grace, that Salvation once obtained can NOT be lost.

I don’t personally hold to that position, but I have always respected it as an honest belief of my Southern Baptist brothers. So I am just trying to clarify this in light of comments made here and not trying to be argumentative.

Since you are obviously knowledgeable on Southern Baptist doctrine and policies, I have a question: Would a Church be allowed to keep it’s Southern Baptist affiliation if it openly taught contrary to the Perseverance of the Saints or for that matter, against the Baptist Faith and Message?

2) The IMB and other entities of the Southern Baptist Convention are extensions of the cooperative work of Southern Baptists through their voluntary financial gifts.

3) The Baptism policy of the IMB is not the policy of many Baptist churches and is controversial for that very reason. The IMB’s standards are approved by its trustees, not by the SBC or any church in the SBC.

4) The confessional language you quoted does not contain the phrase “once saved always saved.” I don’t mean to be obtuse, but one can’t reasonably say Southern Baptists “believe” once saved always saved in any way other than popular perception or voluntary affirmation. The convention has avoided that phrase in all official doctrinal statements.

thanks

MSpencer

Ok, let’s see if I can come to understand just what does the Baptist doctrine say regarding eternal security. Is this not part of the Baptist Faith and Message (2000).

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

”
V. God’s Purpose of Grace
….

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
”

If this in not correct please point me in the write direction so that I may obtain a correct reading.

That’s is missionary appointment policy at the IMB. It has nothing- zero- zilch- to do with any Baptist church or confession.

Baptist doctrine isn’t dictate by Baptist Press, the IMB or any Baptist entity.

The Baptist Faith and Message- our most common confession- doesn’t use that language.

thanks

MSpencer

According to what I read, Baptism in a Southern Baptist Church is not considered valid unless it’s from a Church that embraces “the doctrine of the security of the believer.”

http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=25616

The baptism guideline stated candidates must have been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church of another denomination that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone. Also, the baptism must not be viewed as sacramental or regenerative, and the candidate’s church must embrace the doctrine of the security of the believer.

Are we saying that there is a difference between “Once saved always saved” and “the doctrine of the security of the believer”? Does the Southern Baptist not have that documented somewhere? Are they honestly claiming that those of us who do not share this belief are somehow not saved or that our Baptism (in the Lords name) is insufficient?

I have a lot of Baptist Brothers who are at odds with the passage of this. If memory serves me correctly, there was even conflict with the board membership of this (and others) issues at the time.