|
Post by Shiloh on May 30, 2002 11:14:41 GMT -5
That was supposed to be throne but they are in the throng as well.
|
|
|
Post by ABC_Ron on May 31, 2002 12:33:16 GMT -5
I meant to be humorous that Old Charles is 'burning' because he is 'turning' in his grave with high speed revolutions ;D He might even go into orbit!
|
|
|
Post by Shiloh on May 31, 2002 13:01:18 GMT -5
Charles would be in a hurry to return to his grave if he saw what was going on. He would rebuke the whole age and head back to glory like a heat seeking missile. So many of the old fellas thought they lived in the worse age of man. If they only knew how good they had it!!
|
|
DrJ
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by DrJ on Sept 24, 2002 14:44:33 GMT -5
This is known as a late response. I just wandered in, was entertained by a lot of people's thoughts, signed in as a member and thought I'd throw in a concern.
I'm thinking that as Southen Baptist types we hold to the concept of the "Priesthood of the Believer", which among other things makes us responsible before God to study His Word with the help of the Holy Spirit to reach theological conclusions as individuals. Because we also hold to the reality that in Christ we're saved but in this life still subject to the distortions of understanding brought about by our sinfulness, we just might not get everything right every time. Of course, I do, but I'm just not real sure about the rest of you.
We often talk about the difference between a conservative and liberal or a conservative and moderate but seldom deal with the difference between a conservative and "ultra-conservative". Perhaps that's a different forum. It gets confusing when I read so many. In any case, as I see it, a conservative is a person who believes the Bible is the Word of God, without error, the basis upon which he or she builds his or her faith. This is where I am and like Professor Howard Hill of The Music Man, "I'm mighty proud to say it." I think that's what he said--maybe "mighty glad to say it", but that's a different rabbit trail.
This is the key problem in the conservative Church--SBC and otherwise. It's the ultra-conservative who takes one more step that voids out the good part. The ultra-conservative also believes the Bible is the Word of God, without error, and so forth. The problem is that he/she also believes his/her interpretation of the Bible is without error--the basis upon which everybody else needs to build their faith and sign the paper or we boot them out.
These folks are running scared of the liberals, as well they should because liberalism has destroyed many a denomination. It's based upon the belief that the Bible is simply a record of humanity's encounters with God, some of which can be true, some not, and we pick and choose in accord with whatever sin we want to do and/or justify. Everyone in the SBC should be scared of such destructive garbage and guard well against it. It's the leaven of the Saducees--in the extreme, the leaven of Herod. It's subtracting from the Scriptures whatever bothers you in favor of a cultural norm rather than a biblical norm.
Jesus was quite serious in His warning concerning the leaven of the Saducees and of Herod. He was equally serious, however, in His warning concerning the leaven of the Pharisees--those that would add to the Scriptures in order to build up their personal positions and put down others based upon their additions. The Bible isn't their source of Theology and truth as they proclaim. "Now listen"-- pay attention (learned that from Charles Stanley)--Their source of Theology and truth is their interpretation of Scripture. There is a major difference. We need to be as serious in guarding against the leaven of the Pharisees as against that of the Saducees and of Herod.
It is the Bible that is God's Word, not my interpretation, not yours. We undoubtedly have it right much of the time. At the same time, we have it wrong in more places than we want to know.
I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. I won't sign on the dotted line, however, to any source of truth short of the Word of God. I'm not sure where it might be, but there might just be an error in the BFaM 2000 that I haven't figured out yet. It's a "people made product". I know for sure, however, that there's no error in God's Word because it is God's Word. If it comes to that, I'll sign on the dotted line; but not on anything else. Toss me out, if you will.
|
|
|
Post by saltcitybaptist on Sept 24, 2002 20:58:33 GMT -5
DR J Welcome aboard! Never consider a post too late. It is always good to hear different points of views. I would like to address your point of "signing on the dotted line" . I do not have a problem with it, as long as I honestly agree with the statement. You did bring up a good point when you mentioned that positions may change over time in light of a better interpretation of scripture. Therefore, signing a statement, should be an annunal event. This could acutually have a two fold purpose. First, insure the pastor has not waivered on doctrine. Second, the pastor and church could make a celebration of it on the anniversary of the pastors calling to the church. This in addition, would emphasise the importance of sound doctrine to the church members. What do you think? We might just start a new trend in the SBC! Would like to mention one other item. I came across a web site for the SBC <www.sbc.net/aboutus> This site lists several positions statements as well as every resolution the Convention has passed since 1845. It may be interesting to go thru some of those to see how positions have changed over the last 150 years! PS, Shilo, would love to hear your comments on this.
|
|
DrJ
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by DrJ on Sept 25, 2002 9:13:53 GMT -5
Saltcity,
I appreciate your welcome.
In looking at all the previous "stuff" posted on this subject, I doubt we have very many theological issues with one another. At the same time I'm sure we could dig up some if we worked hard enough at it. Then we could sign our separate statements and have an issue of separation. Now in the SBC there are those willing to sign the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, those willing to sign on to the previous one, and I'm sure if we looked long enough we'd find those willing to sign on to the one before that or the one before that. After all, as is commonly known by everyone in the know, the further back you go the purer the doctrine and ever since King James VI of Scotland (James I of England) was on the throne, when everything was absolutely perfect (theologically speaking), things have been cascading downhill. [That's not to say anything bad of King James for whom the ideal translation was named. (boarding on sarcasm but careful not to go far overboard--just a little). After all he and I are both decendants of Robert the Bruce of Scotland (though the movie "Braveheart" sorta' takes the joy out of that reality, making Robert the Whimp instead of the Bruce--whatever a Bruce is). ]
In any case, now that the theological downhill slide has been underway since the 16th century when all was at it's unquestionable best, I just don't know which Baptist Faith and Message to sign on to. Logically, the first one should be the best one since it's closest to the 16th century. Even King James didn't sign onto that one, however, perhaps because it was too new (or because he was dead by then). He did have enough sense, though, to sign on to the KJV (even though King Jimmy himself could have done everyone a big favor had he taken time to read it a little bit.). That, however, is a whole other can of worms.
|
|
DrJ
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by DrJ on Sept 25, 2002 9:16:07 GMT -5
This really isn't a reply but a continuation. Some of us are far more wordy than the system allows--a part of the blessing of being Baptist. So in continuation:
You know, I've been reading through the Bible 1 or 2 times a year since I was 14 yrs old and every time (now working on 52nd time) I learn things I didn't know before. Of course I also run into a lot of things I know very well, but appreciate the reminder. I read the BFaM 2000 just once, told myself it sounded okay and have since wondered "what's the turmoil all about?" I don't think it's so much about the content as it is about the pressure. I've never heard so much about, "Sign it or you won't be a loyal true to life Baptist anymore" as I've heard about this one. I think that that concept is not "true to life Baptist". Baptist have always been people of the Word, not people of the Baptist Faith and Message. We haven't looked for orthodoxy as defined by creeds and so forth, but for people dedicated to the truth of the Word of God. In fact, Baptist were historically persecuted for their non-orthodoxy by other Christians who "had it all nailed down" with their creeds, bulls (a name I always thought appropriate) and so forth. Seems to me like the move to "sign 'em up" is moving in a non-Baptist direction. Strangely enough, it's those very denominations that live and move and have their being in traditional creeds who have sunk most rapidly and throughly into the depths of liberalism and non-biblical theologies of all sorts. Having to affirm a statement of belief didn't change that. They simply redefined the terms of the statements and creeds and affirm them gladly using their new definitions. So it seems to me that the thing an annual sign-in is meant to prevent has not accomplished that end in other parts of the church institutional. Beyond that, as noted earlier, it just seems unBaptist to go that route. To me, the best way to keep the place orthodox is to require an affirmation that the Bible is the Word of God--that it is the source of our theology & where we differ (and we will) we commit ourselves to search the Scriptures together looking for answers rather than looking for "proof of our positions already held". I'd rather have our pastors make that affirmation each year than to have them sign on to a statement that is an interpretation of Scripture, no matter how good an interpretation from our own perspective. At present, it seems to me, that the BFM 2000 has created more division in the SBC than it has furthered the cause of Jesus. Because of that, even though I agree with it, I cannot see it as a positive thing. It doesn't hurt (in fact a good idea) for the SBC to review the basics of the faith on a perpetual basis & compare those understood basics with the teachings of Scripture (God's Word) and to be willing to adjust accordingly. It does hurt to conclude, "This is it. If you don't agree, get out!" This is especially true since we all know that somewhere along the line we're likely to revise it again. What happens to those willing to toss out the non-signers when they have a problem with something in the new revision? Will they still cry out "sign up or get out" or just leave quietly, knowing that it's the best thing to do? Our statements of faith cannot become the test of fellowship.
|
|
DrJ
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by DrJ on Sept 25, 2002 9:18:37 GMT -5
Yes, it's still me. I've already explained the "wordy" thing. I just didn't tell you the extent of it. This is the end of it for now--a final continuation: Now, when a teacher or preacher in the Church starts proclaiming that the Bible is anything less than the Word of God or that Jesus is not the Christ or that there are other ways of salvation other than through faith in Jesus or that good is bad and bad is good--you know, the "liberal" spew--when that happens it is time to confront, seek to bring such a one back to the truth of God's Word, and on failure, to toss him/her out of any position of leadership, teaching or preaching. That, however, is a million miles away from simply not signing a man-made statement reflecting our interpretation of Scripture. The underlying assumption (verifiable) of Christianity is that God is, and that He has revealed Himself in His Word. Everything we believe is centered in that assumption. When we move from that, then we're on non-Christian ground. When we assert the reality of this assumption, believe the teaching of the Word (His revelation) and accept Jesus as our Savior we're on Christian ground and should be able to work out all the other "stuff" together as we go to the Word together to find out what God has to say. That's what I'm interested in--what God has to say. I care little about the various statements of faith roaming around in the Church, even those that are "right on" as far as I can see. I read them and say, "right on!" but I don't build my theology on them, nor do I expect anyone to be required to sign onto them as if they encompassed all truth.
|
|