Southern Baptist truth founded on sand or biblical truth?

[Iollain]

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.

I don't think you and Nestorius would have much to disagree on, only he refused to say Mary is the mother of God because it sounds like Mary is a Goddess and was around before God, the whole thing has to be explained on how Mary is the mother of God, or people will be mislead.

Also, who was this person who preached the Gospel in Sheol? It was Christ without His body.

 

[ImSoBlessed]

I don't think you and Nestorius would have much to disagree on, only he refused to say Mary is the mother of God because it sounds like Mary is a Goddess and was around before God, the whole thing has to be explained on how Mary is the mother of God, or people will be mislead.

Also, who was this person who preached the Gospel in Sheol? It was Christ without His body.

when we die we will leave our bodies also so what is your point?

 

[ScottBot]

I don't think you and Nestorius would have much to disagree on, only he refused to say Mary is the mother of God because it sounds like Mary is a Goddess and was around before God, the whole thing has to be explained on how Mary is the mother of God, or people will be mislead.

Also, who was this person who preached the Gospel in Sheol? It was Christ without His body.

How do we know that, since noone was in the tomb to see if His body was left behind, or He went with it.

Also, refusing to give Mary the title, Mother of God, is denying that Jesus was in fact human. The formulation is simple. Jesus is God. Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. It does not mean that Mary is older that God, nor does it mean that Mary is divine or that she didn't need a savior. It is simply an affirmation that Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

 

[Iollain]

My point is that Christ can be Christ without His body, as He did in Sheol for 3 days before He was bodily resurrected. As He was before time began. God found Himself in a human form and humbled Himself.

 

[vanshan]

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.

Actually, Scott, he happens to be right on this point. It's not Christ's suffering which saves us--that is a Western innovation. Who was satisfied by Christ's suffering? Did God need Christ to suffer to appease His anger for man's sin? No, Christ died to defeat the hold death had on the world. His resurrection is the completion of the defeat of death, which is the consequence of our sin.

Many verses talk about Him becoming a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, but the sacrifce was giving His life, not a payment of a debt owed to God to appease Him. By His stripes we are healed, likewise indicates that if it weren't for His voluntary suffering man would still be in bondage to sin and death. We are healed from death and sin's affects.

Basil

 

[Iollain]

How do we know that, since noone was in the tomb to see if His body was left behind, or He went with it.

Also, refusing to give Mary the title, Mother of God, is denying that Jesus was in fact human. The formulation is simple. Jesus is God. Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. It does not mean that Mary is older that God, nor does it mean that Mary is divine or that she didn't need a savior. It is simply an affirmation that Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

Because the Bible says He was resurrected on the third day.

Refusing to call Mary the mother of God does not necessarily mean that the person thinks Jesus was not God. As i said, you have to explain it all to say that, as you just have.

 

[ImSoBlessed]

Actually, Scott, he happens to be right on this point. It's not Christ's suffering which saves us--that is a Western innovation. Who was satisfied by Christ's suffering? Did God need Christ to suffer to appease His anger for man's sin? No, Christ died to defeat the hold death had on the world. His resurrection is the completion of the defeat of death, which is the consequence of our sin.

Many verses talk about Him becoming a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, but the sacrifce was giving His life, not a payment of a debt owed to God to appease Him. By His stripes we are healed, likewise indicates that if it weren't for His voluntary suffering man would still be in bondage to sin and death. We are healed from death and sin's affects.

Basil

thank you...our whole belief hangs on the fact that he rose...if someone were to find his remains it would discredit everything that christianity has ever been about....

 

[Iollain]

After they think they find His remains, then they would have to prove that the body is Jesus, which is impossible anyways.

 

[ScottBot]

Actually, Scott, he happens to be right on this point. It's not Christ's suffering which saves us--that is a Western innovation. Who was satisfied by Christ's suffering? Did God need Christ to suffer to appease His anger for man's sin? No, Christ died to defeat the hold death had on the world. His resurrection is the completion of the defeat of death, which is the consequence of our sin.

Many verses talk about Him becoming a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, but the sacrifce was giving His life, not a payment of a debt owed to God to appease Him. By His stripes we are healed, likewise indicates that if it weren't for His voluntary suffering man would still be in bondage to sin and death. We are healed from death and sin's affects.

Basil

Of course His suffering was necessary. Do you think that God would allow His only begotten son to suffer if it weren't necessary? God never does anything without purpose. God is perfection, so nothing that God does is superfluous. I never made the case that Christ's suffering saves us from sin, but He NEEDED to be God when He died, or his death would not have been efficatious. I was trying to contradict the point that was made that Jesus wasn't God when He was on earth. As an Orthodox, I figured that your would be one of the first to contradict the heresy of Nestorianism, since Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople at the time of his heterodoxy.

 

[Iollain]

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:


Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:


Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;


Phl 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Iollain]

Of course His suffering was necessary. Do you think that God would allow His only begotten son to suffer if it weren't necessary? God never does anything without purpose. God is perfection, so nothing that God does is superfluous. I never made the case that Christ's suffering saves us from sin, but He NEEDED to be God when He died, or his death would not have been efficatious.

Agreed, God is just and Jesus' suffering was necessary for us.

 

[ScottBot]

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:


Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:


Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;


Phl 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

John 1:1, "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

[vanshan]

Of course His suffering was necessary. Do you think that God would allow His only begotten son to suffer if it weren't necessary? God never does anything without purpose. God is perfection, so nothing that God does is superfluous. I never made the case that Christ's suffering saves us from sin, but He NEEDED to be God when He died, or his death would not have been efficatious.

Yes, it definitely was necessary to defeat death.

[And yes, I told him he was espousing nestorian ideas several pages back.]

Basil

 

[Iollain]

John 1:1, "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

[ScottBot]

Yes, it definitely was necessary to defeat death.

[And yes, I told him he was espousing nestorian ideas several pages back.]

Basil

Phew, I just wanted to make sure atha we were on the same page with that.

 

[Iollain]

So the Nestorians do not believe that Jesus was resurrected bodily?

 

[Blackhawk]

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.

I agree. And this is an issue that goes to the heart of the controversy in SBC life. I agree with you that there is no room for interpretation in a vacuum. It must be developed in a community and that community includes the past. It includes the church fathers and others who have interpreted scriptures correctly. One of my professors said "What do you call someone who comes up with something NEW in theology? A Heretic." It is interesting, whether you think they were right or not, that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. were not espousing a new theology or new doctrines. No, they were claiming to be going back to the traditional faith. So tradition played an integral part in their theology. and I think that that tradition should continue today.

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

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.

 

[Blackhawk]

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

Ummm... This is heresy. Jesus was, is, and always will be God. There was never or never will be a time when he is not God.

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...

NO! NO! NO! Look up Cyril of Alexandria and the council of Chalcedon. Or maybe read Athanasius' On the incarantaion.

Jesus was both God and man. He was 1 person with 2 natures. This made it so that his divinity of Christ could make the sufferings, trials nad temptations of Christ's humanity its own. So Jesus' divinity remained impassible while he the one person can be said to suffer. See Jesus Christ being God and man ( 1 person with two natures) strikes at the very core of salvation. jesus Christ did not primarily show the way it should be done. He made it so that us corruptible and sinful humans can be incorruptible and free from our sin. If he was not God and man when he suffered and died for usand rose again then we would stil lbe in the same sorry state we were in before Christ. See without his humanity Jesus is not a fitting sacrifice. He is not one of us. But if he was not God also then he would have no power to conquer sin and death. He had to be both in order to free us and save us. See in your way then Jesus would of been much like Lazarus except that God the father never let him die. He would not be our saviour at all.

 

[greeker57married]

Dear Basil

Clark Carlton was not a typical Southern Baptist, he is alot more liberal than he is willing to admit. All through the 1980s the liberals called the conservatives fundamentalist. They did this to paint the conservatives in a bad light. The fundamental issue during the conservative resurgence was the nature of Scripture, was The Bible the Word of God or did it just contain the Word of God. This was denied by the liberals. I gather from reading his article that Carlton does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. He does not believe in a literal Hell, He does not believe in instanteous salvation or the new birth. He does not under stand the atonement of Christ. He definitely could not continue to exist in harmony with Southern Baptist.
Historically Southern Baptist have believed these great truths. The liberals twist and interprete Baptist history according to their liberal views.

I am a Southern Baptist Pastor and graduated from three Southern Baptist Schools. I don't think Carlton has ever experienced salvation. It sounds like he hasn't experienced the new birth. I have been dealing with the issues in the SBC fro 35 years.

God Bless
Greeker

 

[vanshan]

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.

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