Southern Baptist truth founded on sand or biblical truth?

cygnusx1 · Jul 1, 2005

Blackhawk · Jul 1, 2005

vanshan said:
Much of what we think of tradition in the West is tarnished by our knowledge of doctrinal and political corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, leading us to throw aside both those corrupted traditions of the Catholics and other traditions which are rooted in Christ. It's no easy task. There have been controversies in the East as well, but I think the nature of the East, not being hierarchical in structure, has saved us from many of the problems in the West. We all live by traditions, whether they are 20 years old, 100 years old, 500 years old, or 2000 years old, or somewhere between. We must search for the traditions of Christ.

I do place the teaching of the Fathers, which are clearly biblical, above my own understanding. This really doesn't differ much from how we listen to repected preachers of our day. If a pastor you admire teaches something, you most likely would have a large degree of trust in what he is saying. Well, I've learned to trust the Fathers. We don't become robotic followers, but we should be humble enough to listen when a wise teacher speaks. We should ponder what they say and try to understand, looking at the scriptures also.

Basil

I agree. It was really what I was trying to say. I value the Fathers teaching and opinions very much. i just do not state that if x is Tradition then x is right. It probably is right but I do not place the Fathers above scripture or even alongside scripture. I see them as very good interpreters of scripture becasue they were wise and pious men. I see the Orthodox church as accepting whatever the church fathers said as truth. I do not hold their opinion in that high of regard yet I do hold it very high.

greeker57married · Jul 2, 2005

BlackHawk

First thanks for the compliment. Also I greatly respect the Orthodox church. I have read Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria and they chnged the way I view salvation. However where I primarily differ from the Orthodox church is that I do believe in sola scriptura. That is I believe that the scriptures themselves are the highest authority and not Tradition although as I have stated one cannot properly interpret scripture without engaging tradition. One cannot interpret scriptures in isolation from the church or tradition which froms the community of faith. However traditon can be wrong.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not believe doctrine x because of Tradition. I use tradition but I am not forced to interpret scripture always iun the way that the church fathers did. I am not hand cuffed to their interpretation of scriptures. I think that is the true SBC way of handling scriptures. That they are the ultimate authority although tradition is not set aside as though it did not matter.

In the SBC with the doctrines of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer, the liberals had twisted these doctrines so that they can believe and teach their liberal views without anyone saying anything. If the liberal hold and influence in the SBC had continued to dominate, We would have no clear definition of evangelism or missions. We would have gone the way of other demoninatons influenced by liberal theology. Our confession of faith is necessary to keep us in line with Scripture. Every denomination has a confession of faith or creed. If you did not have a confession to keep you in line with Scripture as a denomination, you could believe whatever you wanted to. In 1983 in Pittsburg, PA. at the SBC Jimmy Draper ask for agreement on five fundamentals of the faith. The Deity of Christ, The inerrancy of Scripture, the Substitutionary atonement of Christ and The Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming. Because of the influence of liberalism, the convention voted it down. I was there at the time. Southern Baptist have historically believed in the sole authority of Scripture.

God Bless
Greeker

ScottBot · Jul 2, 2005

vanshan said:
Much of what we think of tradition in the West is tarnished by our knowledge of doctrinal and political corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, leading us to throw aside both those corrupted traditions of the Catholics and other traditions which are rooted in Christ. It's no easy task. There have been controversies in the East as well, but I think the nature of the East, not being hierarchical in structure, has saved us from many of the problems in the West. We all live by traditions, whether they are 20 years old, 100 years old, 500 years old, or 2000 years old, or somewhere between. We must search for the traditions of Christ.

I do place the teaching of the Fathers, which are clearly biblical, above my own understanding. This really doesn't differ much from how we listen to repected preachers of our day. If a pastor you admire teaches something, you most likely would have a large degree of trust in what he is saying. Well, I've learned to trust the Fathers. We don't become robotic followers, but we should be humble enough to listen when a wise teacher speaks. We should ponder what they say and try to understand, looking at the scriptures also.

Basil

Of course, this is all a matter of opinion and conjecture coming from an Eastern Church perspective. Of course, if you DIDN'T think the Western Church was corrupt and didn't skew doctrine, there would be no obvious reason not to end the schism that divides our communion.

Sinai · Jul 4, 2005

greeker57married said:
In the SBC with the doctrines of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer, the liberals had twisted these doctrines so that they can believe and teach their liberal views without anyone saying anything. If the liberal hold and influence in the SBC had continued to dominate, We would have no clear definition of evangelism or missions. We would have gone the way of other demoninatons influenced by liberal theology. Our confession of faith is necessary to keep us in line with Scripture. Every denomination has a confession of faith or creed. If you did not have a confession to keep you in line with Scripture as a denomination, you could believe whatever you wanted to. In 1983 in Pittsburg, PA. at the SBC Jimmy Draper ask for agreement on five fundamentals of the faith. The Deity of Christ, The inerrancy of Scripture, the Substitutionary atonement of Christ and The Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming. Because of the influence of liberalism, the convention voted it down. I was there at the time. Southern Baptist have historically believed in the sole authority of Scripture.[Emphasis mine]

Liberal domination of the SBC? I certainly don't remember that ever happening, though there were a couple of churches which the SBC withdrew fellowship from when they persisted in certain practices which were contrary to scripture. Yes, I am aware that Judge Pressler used that claim as a red herring to help gain control of the SBC a quarter century ago, but the alleged liberals were generally every bit as conservative as Judge Pressler was.....

And if I recall correctly, the reason the messengers voted against Rev. Draper's motion was not because they disagreed with the "fundamentals" he proposed, but rather because they thought it more important to reaffirm the Baptist doctrines of soul competency and priesthood of the believer than it was to move toward fundamentalist creedalism. Kinda ironic, isn't it? Judge Pressler and Dr. Patterson were able to use that vote to help the fundamentalists sieze control of the SBC.

But both groups were (and still are) very conservative. Which group is more conservative probably would be determined by one's definition of "conservative."

indra_fanatic · Jul 10, 2005

ImSoBlessed said:
you guys call mary mother of god but she is not the Mother of God...when she had Jesus he was man...he came to this earth as a man not as God....

Umm technically Basil is right. This was worded pretty badly.

Now, onto the topic at hand, how can the Lord have been created out of a mortal human?

Pyotr · Jul 10, 2005

May I humbly present two well-written (imo) articles on the issue of icons and idolotry from an Orthodox pov:

http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Icons-Is%20Venerating%20Icons%20Idolatry -- this article deals with whether or not bowing is always considered worship; the premise is that not all methods of honoring something or someone are necessarily equal.

http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Icons-Cherubim%20and%20Arks -- this article deals with supposed prohibitions against all images in the OT. As has been noted, the commandment in Exodus wasn't against images AS SUCH, but only against images of the invisible God, or of false gods. Now that Christ--who is the image of the invisible God as it says in Colossians--has come, we MUST make images of Him to proclaim that He is incarnate and can be depicted!

And as to Mother of God/Mother of Christ: If Christ is not God, in and of Himself, we are not saved. By calling Mary the Mother of God, we in no way mean that she is the originator of God; only that the One whom she carried in her womb never for one second ceased to be or was not God Himself in the flesh. We don't think our own mothers are our "creators," only that they're the ones who carried us for nine months. Yet we still call them our "Mothers." To say, then, that Mary was not the mother of the One who was God is to say that Jesus was not God in the flesh.

Peace.

Iollain · Jul 11, 2005

Venerating Icons is only worship if the person doing it does it for that purpose. When we understand the cultural context of veneration of Icons and the traditional way that it has been taught and practiced through out the Church's history, it becomes clear that not only is this something that is permissible and good, but necessary to safeguard the faith that Christ really did come in the flesh. Not to mention the richness and depth they add to worship, connecting us with the broader worshiping community of the faithful down through the ages.

Necessary to safeguard the faith that Christ really did come in the flesh??? Permissible and good???

All i read was someone trying to talk themselves into something that is wrong. They did a really good job at convincing themselves something is right that in the beginning they knew was wrong....poor guy.

vanshan · Jul 11, 2005

Iollain said:
Necessary to safeguard the faith that Christ really did come in the flesh??? Permissible and good???

All i read was someone trying to talk themselves into something that is wrong. They did a really good job at convincing themselves something is right that in the beginning they knew was wrong....poor guy.

It's ironic that many like you, who may think they are conservatively defending the faith of Christ against error and change are actually taking a very liberal approach to interpretting the Bible. Instead of defending the teachings of Christ, as they have been understood throughout time, which would be very conservative, you interpret the Bible out of it's historic context and defend beliefs that have appeared from no where within the past few hundred years. The foundation for what you believe is sinking sand-- it's out of context and based on the fallible reasonings of men, rather than the truth, which was passed down from the beginning.

What the person in the article did was reconcile his misinterpretations of the Bible with the truth. He was humble and realized that if anyone was wrong, it was probably him, not the Church Christ established. I had to yield all of my opions I liked so well about Christianity, leaving the charismatic movement when I was 23 to become Orthodox. We use scripture extensively in Orthodoxy--it's the most important part of our tradition, but we don't assume we individually know it all, instead we have to learn from other wiser men, who faithfully kept and passed down the truth.

Forgive me.

Basil

Iollain · Jul 11, 2005

Yup, it's sinking sand if ya don't bow and kiss icons and say this to Mary:

O Mary, thou sacred dwelling of the Lord, raise us fallen into a bottomless pit of despair, wrongdoing and affliction; for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants. (Tone 1, Matins, sessional hymn)

I tell ya i'm completely doomed if i dont do this stuff!

You sound like your talking about Salvation Himself is in and about praying to saints and bowing to images.

Iollain · Jul 11, 2005

O Lord, raise us fallen into a bottomless pit of despair, wrongdoing and affliction; for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants.

or

O Mary, thou sacred dwelling of the Lord, raise us fallen into a bottomless pit of despair, wrongdoing and affliction; for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants. (Tone 1, Matins, sessional hymn)

Who's your God?

vanshan · Jul 11, 2005

Iollain said:
Who's your God?

I have prayed to the Theotokos, Mary, who is with Christ in heaven-she is the greatest of all God's saints. I don't see any confusion about who God is involved with properly honoring her. We know the prayers of a righteous person avails much, so who is more righteous than Mary?

The problem may be that you think people disappear when the die and stop caring about the salvation of those here in this life. I disagree. I believe when we are joined with Christ in heaven we still care about those here on earth and we will be more than willing to offer prayers in the presence of God for those in need. By honoring Mary, we do not make her a false god, we honor her because God Himself honored her, elevating her above all the saints by making her the vessel, through which the Saviour of all mankind was born.

Basil

vanshan · Jul 11, 2005

Iollain said:
O Lord, raise us fallen into a bottomless pit of despair, wrongdoing and affliction; for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants.

or

O Mary, thou sacred dwelling of the Lord, raise us fallen into a bottomless pit of despair, wrongdoing and affliction; for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants. (Tone 1, Matins, sessional hymn)

When we say she is a source of salvation in the above prayers, we don't mean she saves our souls, as Christ alone has done, but rather that she can save us from many hardships and evil affects our sins have on us. Why? Because she loves us and is praying that we might all be saved, just as God her Father desires that we will be saved.

Those in Orthodoxy know what these prayers mean, you are misinterpretting them.

Basil

Iollain · Jul 11, 2005

Nope, i'm not. I've heard it a million times and still do not agree.

Blackhawk · Jul 11, 2005

vanshan said:
When we say she is a source of salvation in the above prayers, we don't mean she saves our souls, as Christ alone has done, but rather that she can save us from many hardships and evil affects our sins have on us. Why? Because she loves us and is praying that we might all be saved, just as God her Father desires that we will be saved.

Those in Orthodoxy know what these prayers mean, you are misinterpretting them.

Basil

But would not the saving still come from God alone. I can let my wife pray for me when I sin but I do not ask her to save because she does not save me. God saves me. She prays that God will save me. So even if one accepts that one can ask Mary to pray for you she still does not do any kind of saving. God alone saves. Mary would just be asking God to save us. Iagree with the title of Theokotos though.

Pyotr · Jul 11, 2005

St. Paul tells St. Timothy to save those in his flock (1 Tim. 4:16)...

Blackhawk · Jul 11, 2005

Pyotr said:
St. Paul tells St. Timothy to save those in his flock (1 Tim. 4:16)...

Not exactly. Here is the verse.

1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (KJV)
1Ti 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. (NASB)

What Paul is telling Timothy to do is to live a good life and teach correctly and thus others will be saved. It is much different than

for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants.

One states that if you preach the gospel and live a Christian life then you and others will be saved (through your example and teaching) while the prayer states much more.

vanshan · Jul 11, 2005

Blackhawk said:
But would not the saving still come from God alone. I can let my wife pray for me when I sin but I do not ask her to save because she does not save me. God saves me. She prays that God will save me. So even if one accepts that one can ask Mary to pray for you she still does not do any kind of saving. God alone saves. Mary would just be asking God to save us. Iagree with the title of Theokotos though.

Of course it's God who acts to save us from various torments, but don't we also give credit or thank those who have been praying for us when a blessing comes? If your wife falls on her face before God, praying for you, and God heals you--be sure to thank her. You could even say she was your salvation, in that her prayers are what led to your healing.

Anytime we talk about the Theotokos being our salvation, we are giving her credit for her effectual prayers before God for us.

Basil

ScottBot · Jul 11, 2005

Blackhawk said:
But would not the saving still come from God alone. I can let my wife pray for me when I sin but I do not ask her to save because she does not save me. God saves me. She prays that God will save me. So even if one accepts that one can ask Mary to pray for you she still does not do any kind of saving. God alone saves. Mary would just be asking God to save us. Iagree with the title of Theokotos though.

Precisely, you got it! God be praised. Catholics and Orthodox don't ask Mary or saints to save us, we ask them to pray for our salvation, just like you would ask your own mother or friends to pray for you. No more, no less.

Iollain · Jul 11, 2005

Ok next time someone is healed by people that pray and lay their hands on them lets give the credit of the healing to the creation instead of the Creator. Thanks for prayer is just that, 'thanks for praying'. Anytime you talk to Mary and thank her for your salvation and call her all those things that should be reserved for God your giving the credit to the wrong thing. If i pray for someones salvation and they are eventually saved it is not my place to want praised calling me their salvation, advocate, etc. The very audacity of the thought of someone thanking me for their salvation. I mean just imagine this, (forgive me Lord i'm just trying to make a point)

O Iollain, raise us fallen into a bottomless pit of despair, wrongdoing and affliction; for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants.

I tell ya that is blasphemy.

Southern Baptist truth founded on sand or biblical truth?

Jacob the twister.....

Monkey Boy

Regular Member

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ortodoxo hispanohablante

Jer 18:2-6

A Sinner

Jer 18:2-6

Jer 18:2-6

A Sinner

A Sinner

Jer 18:2-6

Monkey Boy

Ortodoxo hispanohablante

Monkey Boy

A Sinner

Revolutionary

Jer 18:2-6

Similar threads