Southern Baptist truth founded on sand or biblical truth?

[Blackhawk]

According to an article I just read, written by former Southern Baptist Clark Carlton, who is now Orthodox, a key problem with Protestant, and particularly Southern Baptist, interpretation of the Bible is that they refuse to defend historic truth, preferring to leave interpretation up to each individual or congregation, which has led to their beliefs changing over time. How strong a foundation is the individual and their private interpretation of the Bible? Here's a few quotes from his article found at www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonfirstbaptist.aspx :


“The ultimate concern of Protestantism is neither God nor the Scriptures nor anything that could reasonably be labeled Truth, but rather the absolute sovereignty of the individual. The freedom of the individual was to be defended from any attempt to impose a standard of orthodoxy, even if that standard happened to be the Truth. One Baptist wrote, The very act of credal imposition itself, whether the doctrine is correct or not [emphasis mine], violates long standing religious convictions of Baptists ... .20 In the final analysis, Truth is what each individual says it is, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is a violation of individual freedom.”

“Even confessions of faith adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention cannot be considered binding on either congregations or individuals. The introduction to the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message Statement states plainly that such confessions constitute a consensus of opinion [emphasis mine] of some Baptist body and that they have no authority over the conscience.22 In fact, the drafters of both the 1925 and 1963 statements were explicit in stating the fact that their statements reflected not only a consensus of opinion, but a consensus of opinion at a particular time.”

“Baptists are perfectly free to change their confession of faith whenever and however they see fit: That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

This is no mere rhetorical flourish, for Baptists have indeed changed their confessions of faith through the years. Early Baptist confessions were unmistakably Calvinist in their tone and explicitly affirmed double predestination. This was true of Baptist confessions well into the middle of the 19th century. Somewhere along the line Southern Baptists adopted an Arminian theology of conversion, though they managed to retain the perseverance of the saints.23 By the time the 1923 Statement was published, double predestination had disappeared. Had God changed His mind? Of course not! Baptists would be the first to admit that these statements are nothing more than statements of their beliefs. In the early 19th century the majority of Baptists believed in double predestination; in the late 20th century most do not. What will Baptists believe in the 21st century?”

“The fact that the Nicene Creed and other conciliar definitions of the Church exist threatens the free church Protestant. Why? Because they bear witness to a Faith that is not a matter of individual opinion and is not subject to revision. The content of those symbols is a threat because it is the negation of the very foundation of Protestantism itself: the individual.”

“To the extent that Baptists believe in the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection on the third day, and other doctrines of the Church, I rejoice. But this facade of orthodoxy is just that, a superficial framework built upon the shaky foundation of individualism and subjectivism. Many of the mainline Protestant denominations have already collapsed in on themselves and are hardly recognizable as being Christian. It is inevitable that the same thing will happen to evangelicalism, regardless of how conservative it may seem today.24 The size and wealth of the Southern Baptist Convention belies the fact that it is a house built on a foundation of sand.”

“Protestants all claim to interpret the Scripture by the light of the Holy Spirit, and yet they manage to come up with a multitude of different interpretations of the same passage. Now either the Spirit is playing games with these people or there is something wrong with their theological method. After all, Calvinists and Arminians cannot both be right; all the dialectic in the world cannot reconcile two completely irreconcilable doctrines.”



Is truth relative to our own interpretation? What's wrong with Creeds and observing Holy Tradition which have etched in stone the truths Christ himself established, if we can see that these beliefs existed from the beginning?

Basil

I am a Southern Baptist and go to a southern baptist seminary. There is much to do in southern baptist life on how we should view the creeds and tradition. Many want to go to what they claim is the more historic view of the SBC. That creeds and confessions do hold much power and weight and that they should be used to test orthodoxy. Others disagree. This debate and how it turns out will show where the SBC is heading. It could go the way of many of the mainline denominations but I do not think it will. Right now the ones in power are for the more traditional use of creeds. I think that is a good thing and that creeds help the church and each believer understand how to interpret scripture. I am not putting scripture underneath tradition as I think the Orthodox church does. No I think scripture supercedes tradition and the creeds however scripture is not open to complete private interpretation either. Communal interpretation is what is needed.

Okay I have stopped my rambling.

 

[vanshan]

I am a Southern Baptist and go to a southern baptist seminary. There is much to do in southern baptist life on how we should view the creeds and tradition. Many want to go to what they claim is the more historic view of the SBC. That creeds and confessions do hold much power and weight and that they should be used to test orthodoxy. Others disagree. This debate and how it turns out will show where the SBC is heading. It could go the way of many of the mainline denominations but I do not think it will. Right now the ones in power are for the more traditional use of creeds. I think that is a good thing and that creeds help the church and each believer understand how to interpret scripture. I am not putting scripture underneath tradition as I think the Orthodox church does. No I think scripture supercedes tradition and the creeds however scripture is not open to complete private interpretation either. Communal interpretation is what is needed. [Emphasis mine].

Exactly! That's it! This is what the Orthodox Church has always relied on. We must have some consensus of understand what the scritures mean and what the deposit of faith is which was passed down by Christ. It cannot be subject to subjective interpretation of various detached communitites. That is to say the Church in Constantinople could not develop their own theology in isolated autonomy, nor could Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, or Jerusalem.

This is a thoughtful post, which is nice. I am not offended at all, but I would clarify that the relationship between tradition and scripture is more like the relationship between a magnifying glass and a page of small text. Both are part of the whole of what we call holy tradition, but without the interpretation of the community of faith in Orthodoxy scriptures can be misunderstood. Holy tradition is the magnifying glass which helps us see what the scriptures really mean clearly. The "culture of faith," which is how I view Holy Tradition, in our judeo-christian heritage must be passed down as the appropriate context for understanding the gospel, worship, and theology of Christ. Why do we use incense in worship? Why have images? These are all rooted in the history of our faith, even before Christ. If you ever attend an Orthdox service you'll see a service which is really the continuation of the woship of Israel, but now perfected in Christ, Who is the perfect sacrifice of atonement.

Basil

 

[zaire]

Well, people are in disgreement on what 'The Church' Actually is.

To me, wherever there has been a Christian, there has been the church.

Same to me.

 

[Iollain]

According to the Orthodox Church doctrine, the icon, as well as the word, is one of the means for the understanding of God. There are four tightly interlaced aspects in the gnosiological sphere of the Church doxy of the icons:

-the didactical aspect, which "literally" corresponds to text and topical side of the Scripture and Church tradition;
-the symbolical aspect, which corresponds to the "allegorical" level of the Bible;
-the mystical aspect (persons, "depicted" on the icon, are present themselves in their images, thus actually appearing in them for the world;
-and, finally, the liturgical aspect of the icon itself, which is closely related to the mystical (during the liturgy the icon possesses the divine energy, the power of the liturgical image).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon

------------

If this is tradition i don't want anything to do with it.

 

[ImSoBlessed]

If Jesus is not God then His death has no power for our redemption. Kind of ruins that whole Easter thing.

he is God but on earth he was not...

 

[ImSoBlessed]

I once thought as you do. I actually posted here in CF against giving Mary the title of Teokotos or mother of God. I said much the same thing as you do. That God was not what was born but Jesus the man. And it is true that God existed before Jesus was born into this world. However Jesus is one subject. He is not made up of two independent parts but two natures joined together but not mixed or mingled together. Jesus was the God man. He was God who became human. He did not stop being God but he was fully human. So he was born. And God was physically born. God was not brought forth into existence through Mary. However she is the mother of God. And this is not just something that the Orthodox church or the RCC believes. This is part of what it is meant to be orthodox. Nestorians are heretics. I think you mean well but you need to research this more and see why it is christologically and soteriologically necessary.

guess what ya'll remember the story how jesus was tempted by satan right? well God cannot be tempted..

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:



if he was God he could not be tempted with evil...he was man...so all that he did we can do because he showed us that it can be done...he stepped down from being God and became man relied on the father which we must do than rose again as God...

 

[Richard]

No offense intended, but I do think we need to examine things carefully. I've attended several denominations also and they can be really misleading. Most of them give your tons of scriptures for everything they believe, so they seem Bible-based, but they often are mis-interpretting scripture! I was in the charismatic movement for a few years and whew! We must examine our faith to make sure we haven't slid off course.

Basil

People interpert scripture in many ways, for you to say that the SBC interperts it in a way that is unBiblical is an insult to the whole SBC.

 

[vanshan]

According to the Orthodox Church doctrine, the icon, as well as the word, is one of the means for the understanding of God. There are four tightly interlaced aspects in the gnosiological sphere of the Church doxy of the icons:

-the didactical aspect, which "literally" corresponds to text and topical side of the Scripture and Church tradition;
-the symbolical aspect, which corresponds to the "allegorical" level of the Bible;
-the mystical aspect (persons, "depicted" on the icon, are present themselves in their images, thus actually appearing in them for the world;
-and, finally, the liturgical aspect of the icon itself, which is closely related to the mystical (during the liturgy the icon possesses the divine energy, the power of the liturgical image).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon

------------

If this is tradition i don't want anything to do with it.

For those not familiar with Wikipedia, anyone can make entries in it. It's not like a real encyclopedia written by scholars. I say that just because I'm not familiar with the above ideas about icons. They certainly teach us about God and His saints and the honor we show to them is really directed to the prototype (i.e. actual person in heaven), but I have never heard anything about their presence being mystically manifested in the icon. I think God's spirit may be present to use the icons as an intrument of intruction and faith, but part of the above sounds incorrect to me.

We must ask ourselves if we want to worship in a church we create as we want it to be, or as someone else wants it to be, or do we want to be part of the Church Christ established as He wanted it to be. Initially when I explored Orthodoxy I had many questions and things that I could not understand about it, but after concluding this was in fact the early Church which has passed down the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Christ, then I had to be humble enough to accept it. If any of us were thrust into the past and walked in to an early Christian temple, what do you think it would be like? Like a charismatic mega-church with people dancing while a band plays loudly? Everything I have read says, "No." Christian worship was the contiuation of Jewish temple worship, which is clearly seen in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. We are Israel, God's chosen people, who have been grafted into the vine by Christ. It's not wonder we use images, just as were used in the temple, and we use incense, as used in the temple, we light candles as used in the temple, we use a liturgical form or worship, as was used in the temple, we chant our prayers, as was done in the temple. There are many more clear lines of continuity, but those are a few.

Basil

 

[ScottBot]

he is God but on earth he was not...

Either Jesus never was God, or always was God. YOu can't have it both ways without being guilty of the heresy of Nestorianism. This is the oldest and most pervasive Christological error in Church history, and is the current belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The idea that Jesus was God, then stopped being God while He was on earth, then resumed being God when He ascended is classical Kenostic heresy. The idea is that Jesus voluntarily gave up His divinity while here on earth nullifies much of the writings of Isaiah, which declares that God never changes.

 

[Iollain]

For those not familiar with Wikipedia, anyone can make entries in it. It's not like a real encyclopedia written by scholars.

lol, no i didn't know that about Wikipedia, i noticed that yesterday that it could be edited and thought i was into their site somehow.

I say that just because I'm not familiar with the above ideas about icons. They certainly teach us about God and His saints and the honor we show to them is really directed to the prototype (i.e. actual person in heaven), but I have never heard anything about their presence being mystically manifested in the icon. I think God's spirit may be present to use the icons as an intrument of intruction and faith, but part of the above sounds incorrect to me.

I don't know if that is correct either but i can't see how it's going to matter if THEY get honour through a picture, it just sounds like a pagan practice to me. I mean i have nothing against pictures and yeah they can 'speak' volumes to us because we can see the picture and be reminded of the person and what they've done in their life, but as far as kissing them to show respect to people passed on, i don't believe that at all. I'll have to keep looking to make sure i have the proper understanding of Orthodox icons.

We must ask ourselves if we want to worship in a church we create as we want it to be, or as someone else wants it to be, or do we want to be part of the Church Christ established as He wanted it to be. Initially when I explored Orthodoxy I had many questions and things that I could not understand about it, but after concluding this was in fact the early Church which has passed down the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Christ, then I had to be humble enough to accept it.

The church i go to does not necessarily worship in the way i would like, they sing a lot of those old songs and though i love the words, i would rather have Third Day and Skillet leading the praise and worship to tell you the truth. I would rather people pray to their Father in spirit and in truth than chanting prayers, and i think God wants it that way too. I do have a Jewish book of prayers for Holy Days and Sabbath and i do love the prayers in that too, just that i think God wants to hear from us personally not in repetitive prayers. I will never 'humble' myself to kiss an icon or statue and pray to anyone but God, ya know it's wrong. Other than that i do like you Orthodoxes and do consider you brothers and sisters in Christ.

If any of us were thrust into the past and walked in to an early Christian temple, what do you think it would be like? Like a charismatic mega-church with people dancing while a band plays loudly? Everything I have read says, "No." Christian worship was the contiuation of Jewish temple worship, which is clearly seen in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. We are Israel, God's chosen people, who have been grafted into the vine by Christ. It's not wonder we use images, just as were used in the temple, and we use incense, as used in the temple, we light candles as used in the temple, we use a liturgical form or worship, as was used in the temple, we chant our prayers, as was done in the temple. There are many more clear lines of continuity, but those are a few.

Basil

I think there is a time for charismatic worship as well as somber like worship. What do you think of David dancing before the Lord? They had images in the Temple, they did not use them as you Catholic and Orthodox do. I personally love candles and wish my church used them more. I like incense too but what if someone is allergic?

 

[ImSoBlessed]

Either Jesus never was God, or always was God. YOu can't have it both ways without being guilty of the heresy of Arianism or Nestorianism. This is the oldest and most pervasive Christological error in Church history, and is the current belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

guess what ya'll remember the story how jesus was tempted by satan right? well God cannot be tempted..

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:



if he was God he could not be tempted with evil...he was man...so all that he did we can do because he showed us that it can be done...he stepped down from being God and became man relied on the father which we must do than rose again as God...


what do you have to say to that...i got more proof if you need it..

 

[ImSoBlessed]

..

 

[ScottBot]

guess what ya'll remember the story how jesus was tempted by satan right? well God cannot be tempted..

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:



if he was God he could not be tempted with evil...he was man...so all that he did we can do because he showed us that it can be done...he stepped down from being God and became man relied on the father which we must do than rose again as God...


what do you have to say to that...i got more proof if you need it..

THe only thing that you are proving is that you have submitted to the heresy of Nestorianism.

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title "Mother of God." He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human.
Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.
The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

 

[ImSoBlessed]

you still can't answer the question...

 

[ImSoBlessed]

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

its not the death that saves us its the reserection....

 

[vanshan]

guess what ya'll remember the story how jesus was tempted by satan right? well God cannot be tempted..

Malachi 3:15 - And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

Genesis 22:1 - And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

Luke 4:12 - And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

You keep saying God cannot be tempted, but these verses talk about God tempting us and our ability to tempt Him. I think we cannot literally tempt God, but Christ the Incarnation of God was fully man and fully capable to be tempted to sin, but He did not succumb to either sin's temptation or satan's.

Basil

 

[ScottBot]

its not the death that saves us its the reserection....

Where do you get this hokey theology? Christ's entire life, death, and ressurection are critical to our salvation. It is in his suffering and death that He bore the sins of the world. It is His death that pays for our sin. It is His resurrection that brings us to everlasting life. If Jesus was not God at the time of His death, then His death is meaningless.

 

[Lynn73]

They go together. Both Christ's death and shed blood and His resurrection are necessary. There's no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood according to Scripture plus it also says if Christ be not raised, you are yet in your sins. Both are necessary.

 

[ImSoBlessed]

Malachi 3:15 - And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

Genesis 22:1 - And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

Luke 4:12 - And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

You keep saying God cannot be tempted, but these verses talk about God tempting us and our ability to tempt Him. I think we cannot literally tempt God, but Christ the Incarnation of God was fully man and fully capable to be tempted to sin, but He did not succumb to either sin's temptation or satan's.

Basil

the translation from the hebrew to engilsh said tempt but it really means test...study the word...

 

[vanshan]

I think there is a time for charismatic worship as well as somber like worship. What do you think of David dancing before the Lord?

I think what David did was great. It think there's a place for that in our personal devotion to God, but that was never done in the temple. The corporate worship of the Church has always had the function of bringing the Holy Mysteries of God to God's people. The service clearly proclaims the gospel, instructs us in the scriptures, and facilitates our worship of God together in a unified and orderly way. There are times in the Church year where we have special somber services in rememberance of Christ's death or during Great Lent, but the weekly Divine Liturgy on Sunday is a service of celebration--every Sunday is a day we commemorate Christ's resurrection. We chant, but it's nothing like the Roman Catholic gregorian chant, which is very somber in my opinion.

Basil