and even by the most capable Baptist scholars.
According to who? Our idea of "capable" is likely going to differ, lol.
Less capable men like Sproulwho lacks an in-depth knowledge of that epistle disagrees
While I disagree with certain aspects of Sproul's views, such as his a-millennial view, that does not mean he is incapable, or less capable of a Scholar than any given Baptist Scholar. We would have to examine each view individually to see where the differences lie. The point in using Sproul as an example is that he is a very capable Scholar (that cannot be denied), yet has changed his mind in regards to Creation. He has let go of an allegorical approach to Creation, which is astounding, because he is a notable Theologian held in respect even by Baptist Scholars, and has courageously and publicly acknowledged his retraction of the view he once held.
Which I will suggest was a result of his education. Again, the indoctrinated aspects of education cannot be ignored, and when it comes to sincere study, we do well to keep this sometime corruptive aspect well in view, that it not guide our efforts. If we are approaching Scripture to justify what we already believe, it is going to be more difficult to properly examine any given text.
As far as Sproul's knowledge of Hebrews...you are a Sproul expert? You have heard him teach from Hebrews? For your information...you and Sproul would likely be found to be in more agreement than disagreement.
(as he does regarding mainstream Baptist soteriology).
He agrees enough to invite John MacArthur to his conferences to speak, lol. And there is nothing that Sproul teaches which would be viewed as contrary to a Baptist view, if you could actually clarify a distinct Baptist view in regards to soteriology.
But let's not derail the focus: Sproul taught your view for a number of years, and while you place yourself as a superior to Sproul, the fact is that he has changed his view, which is a departure from the very view you advocate. So perhaps now you might claim superiority, but before you and he would have been in agreement.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million Catholics that believe men are born again by being baptized?
The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that anyone is saved by being baptized,
I guess you don't spend much time talking to Catholics, nor study of what they teach. You cannot even deny this point, because you affirm it in saying...
and that salvation is conferred upon the believer in water baptism.
If salvation takes place at baptism, then salvation is received through baptism. That is Baptismal Regeneration, unless you want to say regeneration is not an aspect of salvation.
Catholics, like you, try to teach two opposing views, or in other words, ride the fence. It is lip service only, and not a Biblical treatment of a proper understanding of salvation.
Water Baptism does not confer salvation, salvation is bestowed by Christ to those believing, and their salvation takes place before they are baptized in water.
but rather that we are justified by faith alone
Catholics are in adamant opposition to Sola Fide, that is just a historical fact, so I am not sure what it is you are trying to create here. This is not true of Catholic Doctrine, and it is not true of adherents of Catholic Doctrine.
Catholic Doctrine is a works-based soteriology and to even suggest that they believe we are justified by faith alone, much less saved by faith alone...is ridiculous. I might recommend R.C.'s teachings about this, lol. If you can defer to a lesser Theologian, that is.
and that salvation is conferred upon the believer in water baptism.
And there it is.
Salvation is a spiritual work of God, Christ is the Baptizer, and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the only Baptism which has salvific value.
Physical baptism is truly commanded, but so is teaching and making disciples.
Moreover, this belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!
You defend Catholic Doctrine and then say it is offset by 4 billion people who disagree?
We could find many (4 billion is an unrealistic percentage for any group) who despise the Catholic Church and think that all members are evil, and their "religion" is harmful.
Of course what they believe is offset by many who think the god of the Muslim is the God of the Christian.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million Muslims that believe that Jesus is simply a human prophet?
This belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!
You think 4 billion people believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?
Really?
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million eastern mystics who believe they can alter reality that is not after all reality to begin with?
This belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!
Again, just an unrealistic figure. You honestly believe half the world are born again believers? You will have to include all denominational groups to even come close to 4 billion, and then conclude they are all born again believers. Because if they are unregenerate...they are not Christians.
The three million scientists referred to in my post are offset by 22-25 scientists who cannot even get a job in the scientific community!
That is irrelevant, really, because I am not appealing to any scientist, but the Word of God. I have made that clear several times now.
I will say I am not sure why those who cannot get a job among those who hold a secular humanist philosophy would seem to be something that justifies the views of Secular Humanists. This would be akin to saying "Paul couldn't get a job among the Pharisees, lol.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Your appeal to scholarship is a slippery slope, my friend, because all sides can appeal to it, and it appeals to those who have similar beliefs. But Scripture is the Authority on the matter, and it is Scripture we must examine.
Believers in young earth creationism appeal to 22-25 scientists who cannot even get a job in the scientific community,
I am a Young Earth Creationist and I don't. You want to talk about your fellows and their beliefs as justification of proof, great. But if you want to discuss the focus of the OP then we are going to have to direct attention to Scripture.
What men believe and what Scripture teaches are not always the same thing, and appealing to majority embrace has never been the biblical pattern for truth. Those proclaiming truth have always been the minority, and often...solitary figures in History. Christians have always been a minority, despite periods where "Christian" groups had great power. If majority is a determiner of truth, then all of us should convert to Catholic Doctrine right now. We should ignore a minority that stood in opposition to Catholic Doctrine and, like the Catholic Church, view them as heretics who have no right to question the authority of those that hold power over the masses. And right now, Secular Humanism stands in the spotlight in regards to education, even as the Catholic Church did at one time.
and to horribly outdated teachings by men who were too afraid to question an archaic interpretation of Genesis in an age when doing so brought the wrath of men upon those who dared to study the Bible as literature.
Well, I will stick with an "outdated" view which confirms the Genesis Account, rather than spiritualizing it into digestible and acceptable doctrine that unbelievers will embrace.
You can kid yourself that this leads to submission to God, but at no time has it been acceptable to modify the Word of God to make it more acceptable to people.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
What utter nonsense. You are going to credit a Young Earth view as a destructive doctrine which causes people to reject the Gospel?
Absolutely and incontrovertibly!
Again, utter nonsense.
The debate is largely between those who embrace evolution and those who do not. The modern philosophy and teaching of Theistic Evolution does not present an academically defensible Scripture or Gospel, because Evolution does not correlate to the Genesis Account. That is why you are forced to spiritualize whatever text that doesn't conform to your underlying beliefs which have their roots in the doctrines of godless men.
Those who have embraced Theistic Evolution stand apart from those who simply acknowledge an old earth, and the Gap Restoration Theory is the reasoning and reconciliation of the difference in views. That does not validate Evolution in itself, and some notable men in the Church who have had successful ministries could be found.
But those I am aware of did not endorse Evolution, which stands in direct contradiction to what is written in the Genesis Account.
Those of us who are currently involved in the ministry of Christian apologetics find that the primary reason today for not believing the Bible is the belief that the Bible teaches young earth creationism
...which stands in direct contradiction to the teachings of Evolution.
I would suggest to you another reason: sin. Separation from God from birth.
If rejection of the Genesis Account is not enough, they will find another reason for rejecting God and His Word.
Since when is salvation based on the Word of God being acceptable to the unregenerate? Do you not understand that it is the rejection of Christ which is the primary reason for not believing the Bible? Those hostile to the Word of God do not stop at rejection of the Genesis Account, but also reject the testimony of God Himself in the Bible. God is a monster in their eyes, and with such rationalization they reject the God of the Bible.
The good news about the Good News is that it is God that brings belief about in the unregenerate. He it is that opens their eyes to the condition they stand in. Men do not rationalize or intellectualize themselves into salvation, but are led by God into understanding. And it is rejection of that ministry, not the ministry of men, which determines their fate.
To think that salvation hinges on the efforts of modern "Biblical Scholarship" is absurd. To place one's views of the Genesis Account as the number one reason for rejection of Christ and the Word of God is equally absurd.
a doctrine that those being ministered to know to be untrue.
So you ascribe understanding of spiritual things to the unregenerate? you feel we have to make sure the World doesn't think we believe Scripture means what it says in Genesis so they can be saved?
On the contrary, those rejecting the Word of God based on the Genesis Account reject the Word of God from the very beginning: God created...
It rejection of the Sovereignty of God that is the heart of the rejection as a whole. When one is ministered to by the Spirit of God there is going to be a focus on their condition, which God enlightens them to. People are saved despite their views about Creation, but, no man can understand the Spiritual things of God apart from the Holy Spirit. To think we can educate people into salvation is as ridiculous as thinking we can baptize them into salvation.
I cannot begin to express what a heart-wrenching experience it is to actually see those being ministered to refusing to believe the gospel because they believe that the Bible teaches young earth creationism.
Well, my suggestion would be don't let it bother you so much. Christ is the One building the Church, and He is the Baptizer. Long before men debated the age of the earth He was building His Church, and long before modern "Biblical Scholarship" He was using the Word of God to rebuke, correct, exhort, and instruct.
The debate between believers concerning the Age of the Earth is not the heart of the Gospel, nor are evangelical efforts centered on one's view of that age. Many well meaning and sincere believers embrace an old earth view, while at the same time rejecting Evolution.
Again, me, I am a young earth creationist, and I believe that to be the only tenable position for those that view the Word of God as an accurate account of events. If you feel Evolution is a valid doctrine, great. It is difficult to debate Biblical Doctrine with those that appeal to allegory and spiritualization of texts. This leaves the interpreter as the authority in regards to the content and intent of any given passage. What that means is that if one believes they can at any time give meaning to something in Scripture in direct opposition, or the nullifying of, then the Bible becomes their own personal book.
We wouldn't do that with any other literature, but with the Bible...some feel they have license.
But how you can harmonize Evolution to the Account in Genesis, well, that will have to be seen.
God bless.