Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

Rick, the "historic church" and the RCC are not the only source of biblical understanding.

That's all I have to say on this topic.

John

 

I went to sbc.net and the only place I could find that phrase was tucked away in an obituary of a former SBC officer.

Is there some other, authoritative instance of that phrase you found on the site?

 

I could not disagree more. Even the very terminology that we use to describe biblical doctrines stems from the work of early church councils.

Over my 30+ years in ministry, I've been involved with a good number of Baptist churches. ALong the way I've seen virtually every aberant form of theology under the sun -- and a lot of it "self taught" by people who were, in all practical ways, "dropped on a desert island with a case of Bibles" for the way they interact with the greater theological world and the actual history of the church. Sadly, this includes a great many pastors who are not well trained in any coherent systematic or biblical theology (or worse, were trained 40 years ago when Barth and other's work considerably liberal in scope predominated theological education -- see J. Gresham Machen's work, "Christianity and Liberalism" for great examples, and note that he wrote at the turn of the century!). Were it not for Directors or Missions, Associational Moderators, or other "pastors to pastors" and national level teachers and preachers who are well educated, many would never have a clue just how far off the biblical mark they may be in their theology and doctrines.

We see it in this thread...

 

Fred

I never said we don't need these types of leaders. What I have said,and I stand behind is that the RCC is not the only source of historical biblical understanding.

John

 

OK Mr Bigmouth Rick

YOU back up the claims you made. How do you know that the RCC is the only historical source for doctrine? How do you know for sure that others havent' read and understood the doctrines of the Bible? How do you know that there was no other church besides the RCC for 1200 years?

You say it's so, but you saying it don't make it so.

Prove it.

John

 

I did not know there was this much difference between fundamentalists and liberals until I came to BB. I really thought that except for a few differences in teachings that we were all pretty much the same. Boy, was i wrong.

John

 

Do you consider the belief that Adam was corrupt before he sinned an orthodox teaching of the historical church?

 

& what do the Church Historians have to say Luke?

 

I can't believe I am reading this. You would attack IFBers (and no matter what you say, it is obvious to all but yourself that this is a blatant attack on IFB, simply because you didn't ask "Where is Landmarker's Systematic Theology?" you asked "Where is the IFB ...") on a single incident when IFB is trying to further the work of God. Yet, you would defend your members who are Masons, "because they have the right thinking."

I would think that someone who is in an evil movement "with the right thinking" would be a lot worse than someone who is in a movement that is trying to win the lost, yet a little misguided. Yes, you hate the IFB. It isn't what they believe, what they think, or ideologies. It is the IFB.

Yes, IFB put that out front to attract members. "Come to the church who was never part of the RCC." Happens all the time. :laugh:

 

Really? Please document that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Everything must be documented Luke. And BTW, we do have answers. If you were an unbeliever and we presented you with irrefutable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, would you accept our evidence. The answer is no. The same is true here.

Yes, but by whom? Take a look in the mirror. It is more called rejection; a rejection of evidence out of hatred or blindness, whichever comes first. I know your experience; you have shared it before. You have had some bad experiences with a certain type of IFB church that are rather predominant in your area. From that experience you have taken the rather illogical step of generalizing that all IFB churches are just like the ones that you experienced. But you are wrong, and your pride refuses to admit it.

Are you willing to be helped; to be shown the truth; or do you just accept that as hate?

We have plenty of answers. Will you accept them. Do you study theology Luke? Why? Who coined the word? Was it the Catholics?

And you have such a terrible lack of understanding in both church history and in Baptist history that it embarrasses most of us that read your posts. It is like: "I can't believe a Baptist pastor would actually say that." "Doesn't he know his history any better than that?" It is not us, concerning history, and orthodoxy, that are inconsistent Luke.

You are right Luke. We rely on the Bible. Do you remember the principle called sola scriptura? It is a primary Baptist distinctive--the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. We may consult other sources, but it is the Bible that is our authority. I can quite adequately demonstrate the trinity out of the Bible. Whether I use the word "trinity" or not is irrelevant. English is not the only language I speak.

Perhaps it could be said a bit more diplomatically, but read your fellow reformed writers of a couple centuries ago. Almost all of them wrote that way. Read Barnes, Matthew Henry, etc., on Rev.13, and other like passages. Almost all the Protestant commentaries from that era wrote like that. But "we" like to be more politically correct in our era, just like the Anglicans did in 1611, when they would not translate ekklesia as "assembly," but rather "church."

I know how much education I have. I can guess how much you have. I don't you think you want to play that game Luke. It won't be profitable for you.

Which one in particular; or is it all of them in general? Or is it just the "doctrine" of IFB that you really have no idea what it is??

There are many cancers that need to be cut out. Many of them are in the SBC itself.

Look in the mirror Luke.

Unjustified opinions and accusations. There are many SBC pastors that can be accused of the same, but you would not admit to that, would you? You hurl these accusations at one group of believers whereas they may typify the SBC and a host of others as well. You describe yourself very well as a hypocrite here. Some of most studied men that I know, are IFB. Some of the most scholarly men I know teach at BJU, and are IFB.

If you are speaking of your limited experience in your sphere of IFB churches, then the answer is: of course not.

Ignorance and arrogance exists everywhere, including the SBC.

From what I have read you, Luke, have a false view of history. It has been tainted by the RCC. You seem to depend on their sources to shape your thinking which is truly sad. To say that Baptist history is a branch of the poisonous tree is a rather ignorant and ugly statement to make.

Who said anything about being KJVO. I know Charismatics that are KJVO.

Again, where does this accusation come from?

And why this one?

Now you are being both silly and insulting. Documentation Luke. Documentation. Document everything you said. That is your mantra. You want documentation from us; now you document your own claims.

IGNORANCE

ARROGANCE

IRREVERENCE[/QUOTE]
Please take a look in the mirror.

When you point your finger at your brethren with these accusations, you have at least three fingers pointing back at you.

 

I "sort of" agree with you. Please cite the other sources. I've asked more than once in this thread.

 

Fred,

You pastor a church don't you?

That makes you a source of biblical understanding.

John

 

Nice try...

You know what I am asking. If the information that you suggest is out there and so readily available that anyone can access it -- apart from the history that is shared with the RCC -- then please post some of it so that the rest of us can join those who are so enlightened about church history.

Or, perhaps, what is going on is nothing more than a argument from silence, made into an entire doctrine, but remains untenable or unverifiable because it simply does not exist save for the revisionist history promulgated by those who wish it so?

On that note, there are always two ways that we can learn from the written historical record. First, we can read at face value what has been shared. That is the simple way that most people understand. The second way is that we can read what has been shared and look for what has not been shared, then formulate a hypothesis -- subject to further examination and testing -- to explain how some things can be that were not shared plainly. In this light, we can also look to what has been shared in a negative sense, i.e., the writings "against" rather than "for" a certain historical issue, and from those writings, again, formulate a hypothesis as to what were the positions of the ones written against, subject to further refinement and verification. That is, in large part, how most history is accomplished.

To that is added archaeological information (which ALWAYS requires interpretation) and also some level of cultural anthropology, which also must be interpreted, but that works to determine the worldview, beliefs, morals, actions, etc., of the people group under examination based on written and archaeological evidence.

Sometimes these hypothesis are on the mark, at other times they are wild speculations and totally off base. That is why they are seldom, if ever, considered "proven" or a closed book. Such is precisely the case with the religious groups that stood apart from the RCC. Most of the arguments made in their favor are arguments from silence, written by men who "read between the lines" of published historical accounts, and not always well researched at all, but rather, often fanciful tales that with more examination fall by the wayside as more evidence accumulates that provides a clearer picture. I would submit that such is the case for the splinter religious groups that existed apart from the RCC. What we do know of them does not paint the glorious picture of a Baptist (or baptistic) church that existed strongly down through the ages since John the Baptist. It just was not so... And further, most of the groups given credence for being a part of that great baptistic heritage were (or should be) discounted because of their radical heretical beliefs!

Note that NONE of what I say above means that I hold the RCC blameless, truthful, or even correct. Their history has suffered similar revisions starting with their going back into history to name Peter the first Pope and to claim power and authority reserved for God alone. They are just as wrong and God will judge accordingly. But to fabricate an "anti-" RCC history from little or no evidence, then to hang one's hat upon that history as if it were factual is akin to the same practice of the reviled RCC. That some cannot see that is sad. That they lead their people to believe that, and through that cause a radical separation (and threat to their membership of walking apart from the ONE TRUE CHURCH if anyone accepts another, more truthful doctrine of the history of the church is to usurp authority from a lie.

I do want to address the "I'm a pastor so I am a source of biblical authority..." issue as well. First, in a sense, all Christian believers who have been born again from above are part of the individual priesthood before God. All have the Holy Spirit, who will illuminate Scripture as it is read. Pastors do not have a corner on that market. Pastors often have a leg up on the regular believer because they have paid the costs involved, both in time, effort, and expense, to become trained in the Scriptures, church history, theology, practicum, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and other important elements useful for the work of the ministry. I often find it difficult to get a lot of church members to read ONE book per year, so it is doubtful that they could handle the rigor of a theological education where one might have to read 5-10 books PER CLASS per semester (and, yes, I had doctoral level seminars where the requirement was one book per week). As the pastoral student is exposed to the theological writings of others -- compared to Scripture in the berean sense -- and discussed for content, intent, and implications -- they do come to realize some things that common church members may not know about the Bible and doctrines of the church. That is not because they are a "set apart" people with some magical gift, but more because they took seriously the biblical admonition to prove themselves a workman, rightly dividing the word of truth.

BUT...

Every pastoral student also bounces his (or her, as the case may be) understandings off of the historical doctrines of the church. I've not yet met a single student of Scripture that has not done so, whether knowingly or not. As Luke2427 pointed out, and most of the IFB people confirmed, there is no doctrine or theology apart from what has been gleaned from standing on the shoulders of those who have come before. Even our doctrinal terminology has been handed down from those who came before, which is one simple point that Luke2427 was trying to make, but largely ignored by those who think (wrongly) that they alone have a leg up on the rest of Christendom. Such is the nature of theology, and let it be noted "EVERY CHRISTIAN HAS A THEOLOGY" whether or not they know it. It is impossible to be otherwise and remain a Christian, for "theology" is "the study of God" and whether derived from the Scriptures directly or from the Scriptures via the prior work of other men of God (or not) who came before, it is still the study of God.

 

I agree with you. We do have a theology. What I disagree with is the Calvinist associating all who are not Cal's with the Arminians. That is not simply true. IMO, there is heresy in both camps. I will not be boxed into either man's camp, and yet the Calvinist asserts that I am an Arminian because I am not a Calvinist. Such simplistic thinking! There are more than just two choices. But to those like Luke, if we say that we are not Arminian, and not Calvinist, then we are sarcastically of the "nameless theology" brand, as if a man cannot think for himself. Certainly we have great men of God that have preceded us. And we need to refer to them. That doesn't mean that one has to swallow hook, line and sinker, all of just one man's thinking (like Calvin). "Read to reject," said a wise man. In other words weed out the error as you read. I don't agree 100% with any man. I wouldn't be a thinking man if I did. Thus my theology comes from my own study of the Bible, but of course I have used other resources--both Cal and non-Cal alike.

 

I don't recall doing that -- ever. Nice red herring though.

I aso appreciate your statement: "I don't agree 100% with any man." Like we didn't know that already... :applause:

 

Bumping my question since Luke did not answer it. This is new doctrine. You should be loudly condemning it (according to your own view and multiple posts), yet you have been silent. I guess you only condemn the views of non cals.