Study: Baptist Faith and Message (2/10/26)
Bible Study for Ministry Staff on February 10, 2026
Introduction
Do you know what The Baptist Faith and Message is?
It is a short statement that summarizes what Southern Baptists believe the Bible teaches about key doctrines.
There is more than one BF&M.
1925, 1963, 2000...
Differences are subtle especially between 1963 and 2000.
Our church includes the 1963 BF&M in its constitution.
That is fine.
I knew that when I came here.
And I believe everything in the 1963 BF&M.
But that is problematic when we look to partner with other churches and denominational support.
For instance...
If we were to ask NAMB to assist us in church planting...
If I were to join a SBTC pastor cohort...
It is also problematic when we send young people to seminary or the mission field...
Southern Baptist Seminaries require students to ascribe to the 2000 BF&M.
IMB and NAMB require missionaries to ascribe to the 2000 BF&M.
It could also be problematic if the church were searching for a new senior pastor.
At some point in 2026, I plan to ask the church to replace the 1963 BF&M with the 2000.
The primary reason we will make this change will be COOPERATION.
While we will likely have a Member's Meeting where I share the key refinements in the 2000 BF&M, I will present this as what it is...
A change needed to facilitate cooperation...
But I want you to know some of the finer delta between 1963 and 2000.
I want you to know why we even need a confession...
I want you to know of the theological solidarity between Allen Reed and Noel Dear...
I want you to know how some people view the 1963 v. 2000 debate?
I want you to know why and how the 2000 refined the 1963 and also addressed some new cultural problems.
Where to find the BF&M?
Visit https://bfm.sbc.net/comparison-chart/.
You will find a comparison of the 1925, 1963, and 2000 confessions.
Questions
I. Why do we need a confession of faith?
Creed versus Confession
In the last 2000 years, the church has always had creeds.
Creeds are brief summaries of the non-negotiables of the faith.
Examples...
The Apostles' Creed
The Nicene Creed
Think of it this way...
A creed says this is what you must believe to be a Christian.
In our New Member's class, we call those beliefs, Primary Beliefs.
A confession is longer and it summarizes what a group of churches believe about a broad range of doctrines.
A confession is not presented like:
BELIEVE THIS OR GO TO HELL!
A confession is presented like:
IF YOU WANT TO COOPERATE WITH OUR CHURCH, HERE ARE THE MINIMAL POINTS OF AGREEMENT.
No creed but the Bible?
You will hear some say, "I (we) have no creed but the Bible."
People who say that are usually pushing against...
Roman Catholic authority...
Some monastic systems...
Eastern Orthodox systems...
We can affirm what most people mean they say that.
The Bible is our sole and perfect authority.
True
Sufficient
Perspicuous
So why not jettison creeds and confessions?
A. Everyone has a creed/confession whether they know it or not.
What does the Bible say about how to be saved?
Your answer is your creed/confession.
B. The Bible talks of summarized teachings (creeds and confessions).
2 Timothy 1.13 | Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (CSB)
Titus 1.9 | holding to the faithful message as taught, so that he will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it. (CSB)
C. Properly understood, a creed or confession is not in competition with Scripture.
Scripture is the authority.
The creed/confession just says this is the way we understand Scripture.
Creeds/confessions have authority only insofar as they agree with Scripture.
D. Without a creed/confession, we could not distinguish between clearly different groups of Christians.
Examples...
Roman Catholics believe they are biblically faithful.
Eastern Orthodox
Coptic Christians
Paedobaptismal churches believe they are biblically faithful.
The Disciples of Christ believe they are biblically faithful.
The Mormons believe they are biblically faithful.
So, "no creed but the Bible" would not practically draw lines between these churches.
As soon as you say, well it does because the such and such group gets Scripture wrong in a certain area...
Well, then you just created a creed or a confession.
E. We need something beyond the Bible for cooperation.
What if we found out that we were sending out missionaries who taught that people are saved through baptism?
What if we found out that our missions monies were used to plant a transgender affirming church?
II. Why was the 1963 BF&M updated?
This is the most important question.
The 1963 BF&M was not updated...
Because it was in error...
Because Baptists changed their theology from 1963 to 2000...
Because there was some new doctrine baptists came to believe...
The framers of the 1963 BF&M would not disagree with a single sentence or word in the 2000 BF&M.
They just wouldn't see the point in some of those words.
A confession cannot address every possible question or heresy.
A confession can only address questions and heresy of its day.
Over time, new questions/heresies arise...
That requires an updated confession.
We see this in other places...
We see this in the Christological creeds of the early church...
In a sense we see this in the progressive revelation of Scripture.
We see this in our own church...
We have recently added an article to our church constitution that says marriage will be between a man and a woman.
Our church did not include that 50 years ago.
Did we change the theology of the church?
No.
It is just that was assumed 50 years ago.
Every change between 1963 and 2000 is a response to a change in popular or religious culture or a response to a new theological debate.
And in 20 years, they will have to update it again.
Maybe next time they will have to say a man cannot marry a ai robot.
III. Why has this become an issue of denominational politics?
Theological politics...
Without spending a bunch of time on inter-denominational politics, let me just say that the BF&M became for a time a political football.
It shouldn't have, but it did.
There is no value to our church in litigating the BF&M through a political lens.
None of us are trying to make political points with the BF&M.
The best I can tell, Dr. Reed never tried to make political points with the BF&M.
Neither will I.
We need to consider the 1963 versus the 2000 BF&M on the MERIT OF THE WORDS in the documents, not on the political struggles that surrounded the update.
Theological Heritage and Consistency at FBC Nac
Over the last at least 46 years, FBC Nac has maintained solid theological consistency.
I am likely the leading expert of the practical comparative theology of Dr. Allen Reed.
Because I sat down and did a theological autopsy of many of his sermons and evaluated his theology for how and where it fell on various theological spectrums.
Dr. James Leo Garrett was admired by our church for his theology.
But I can tell you where and how Dr. Reed's theology, at least as he preached it, differed from Dr. Garrett.
Allen was way more theologically conservative than Dr. Garrett.
Dr. Preben Vang was the interim between Dr. Reed and me...
I can tell you the differences in the preached theology of Vang and Reed.
I listened to as many Vang sermons as I could stomach.
I can tell you I am shocked that the church apparently loved Preben's preached theology after hearing Allen preach a very different theology for decades!
I have my theories...
I can tell you that the preached theology of Dr. Reed and the preached theology of Dr. Dear almost exactly line up.
The amount of theological content in our messages is different (for better or worse), but the theological convictions MATCH!
Now, maybe there would not have been alignment on theological politics.
He and I intentionally have never had that conversation.
It would not have benefitted our church...
I'm sure he knew/knows where I would fall on the theological political spectrum.
I have actually had a conversation or two about this with Linda. :)
I know where he cast his political lots in the 1980s.
In 2017, that didn't matter to him or to me.
Why is all of this important?
Any change from 1963 to 2000 is not about our church changing its theological convictions.
Politics aside, there is no space between Dr. Reed's preached convictions and my convictions on anything mentioned in either the 1963 or the 2000 BF&M.
IV. Why the change in Article I – Scripture?
The 2000 BF&M consists of a preamble in eighteen articles.
Several of these are exactly the same as the 1963.
Some that have changed involve just updating language or in some cases spelling.
Some articles have more significant changes.
Article I on Scripture is one of those more significant changes.
Is the Bible a record of God's revelation?
Change
1963: "...is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man."
2000: "...and is God’s revelation of Himself to man."
Why the change?
"Record of revelation" can be heard as the Bible is a human witness to divine acts and words.
The Bible is not a record about revelation.
IT IS REVELATION!
The problem this addressed...
By 2000, some "scholars" were saying:
The Bible is a fallible human record of encounters with God.
Is the Bible true or true for its matter?
Change
1963: "It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter."
2000: "It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy."
Why the change?
The big issue was the word "matter."
True for its matter...
What does that even mean?
By 2000, some were saying that the Bible is true only for what it intends to teach (matter), but not true in any wholistic sense.
Some were saying the Bible "contains truth."
Is Jesus the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted?
Change
1963: "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."
2000: "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."
When Hershel Hobbs (in 1963) wrote that Jesus is the criterion for interpretation, he was saying...
Christ is the center and climax of Scripture.
We read the whole Bible in light of Christ's person and work.
Hobbs pointed to Luke 24.27...
Luke 24.27 | Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted for them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures. (CSB)
But by 2000, some argued that "Christ is the criterion" meant...
The OT is to be rejected.
Paul's writings don't mean what they seem to mean. They should be filtered through the red letters.
Practical example...
Jesus never condemns homosexuality, incest, prostitution...
Paul's 1 Corinthians 7 passage on divorce and remarriage was not given by Jesus so it does not apply...
V. Why the change in Article II – God?
The issue addressed here was open theism.
1963: God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections.
2000: God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.
VI. Why the change in Article III – Man?
Male and female are both created in the image of God.
1963: “...in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation.”
2000: “...made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation.”
VII. Why the change in Article VI – Church?
What does the Bible say about women serving as pastors?
Change
2000 added: "Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
2023 updated: "Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
Scripture
1 Timothy 2.9–14
1 Timothy 3.1–7
Titus 1.5–9
1 Peter 5.1–4
Was this a change from 1963?
NO!
This was response to churches abandoning traditional baptistic convictions...
VIII. Why the change in Article XVIII – Family?
Why was this article added to the 1963 version in 1998?
Sexual revolution
Cohabitation
No-fault divorce
Porn as mainstream
Redefinition of sexual morality as personal preference
Increasing dispute over complementarianism versus egalitarianism...
Acceptance of same-sex marriage...
The controversies...
Much of the criticism I've heard people bring against this article Either...
Reflects the fact that the complainer hasn't actually read it!
Reflects that the complainer would be just as angry about the Bible as the Article!
The Article...
God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.
Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.
The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.
Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord. Parents are to demonstrate to their children God’s pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values and to lead them, through consistent lifestyle example and loving discipline, to make choices based on biblical truth. Children are to honor and obey their parents.