Again, your comment has nothing to do with the intent of this post. I am not arguing against church autonomy. This is about church planters who accept money from different organizing agencies and sign agreements that have a different understanding of church polity.

“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.”

Therefore, if a congregation affiliated with the SBC desires to be elder-governed, they have the right to do so. Some might argue this goes against the “letter of the law,” but it certainly does not violate the “spirit” of the BFM.

You entirely miss the point. Churches in the SBC are autonomous. If they want to have a elder govern system, that is their business, so no, I would not want them removed. Again, hopefully for the final time, this post was about church planters signing two differing statements of belief. BTW, I would never wrongly accuse the A-29 network.

Bro. Robin

I am done here. And perhaps done with the SBC

And…… What is your point? First, the SBC voted to form a committee to look at changes in the BF&M. Second, they came back to the SBC with the recommended changes. The SBC voted to adopt those changes. So….. again I ask, what does your comment have to do with the fact that Acts 29 has an elder governing system, while the sbc believes in a church governing system? Under Acts 29, a group of elders would have told the church they pastor what the doctrinal beliefs of the church is. Under a SBC church, it is the church, as led by an elder(s), who decide the doctrinal beliefs of the church.

I pray that you understand that I have no issues with Acts 29. They are free to organize as they wish.

Bro. Robin

The differences are not irreconcilable.
A well informed church planter can indeed honestly accept support from the North American Mission Board and Acts 29 while affirming both ecclesiastical statements.

The entire purpose of the post is incorrect in light of the explanation provided by Scott Thomas.

Thank you for your comment in #115. You are forgiven and I personally did not read your comment in #114 as arrogant or prideful. You told us your heart in posting #114 and that is something only you can judge not anyone else. Thank you for your transparency.

As to your comment in #114, I do not believe there was any mis-quote of the covenant. The June 2009 date you give was not the covenant that we saw. We were told, by Brother Scott Thomas, that we had found an old covenant that has not been updated for our articles. However, it appears that Brother Scott used the same covenant with only one distinction in the giving percentages, and expresses the Leaders of Acts 29 understanding of the statement. He tries to soften the elder governed portion by pointing to a number of pastors known in SBC life. One pastor that I personally know is Pastor JD Greear. Pastor JD serves a church that was a traditional SB church when he became Sr Pastor. The church was congregational in their governance when he arrived. They had business meetings for everything. The Pastor and staff were given authority to make decisions for certain things but major decisions, (creating new staff positions, budgets, and filling volunteer positions) would come before the church to be approved by the church. Now we are told they are elder governed by Brother Scott. The Summit at Homestead Heights has not, that I am aware of, changed from a congregational governed to an Elder governed church. That is not something that has ever been publicly known here in NC.

Blessings,
Tim