seekingthetruth
New Member
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
That's all I have to say on this topic.
John
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
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
Furthermore, SBC says on their WEB PAGE that they are the largest PROTESTANT denomination in America.
I am going to attempt to convey this one more time.
Man does not need historical Bible scholars, creeds councils or the RCC to understand Bible doctrine. I happen to believe that Baptists are the closest there is to true and correct Bible doctrine...that is why I am one.
But, if we dropped a case of Bibles on an isolated island that has never heard of Christianity, I believe they could absorb the Word and practice the exact same doctrine as us Baptists as the Word of God teaches on their own. They would not need the RCC's help in any way.
My point being, whatever doctrines we share with any other group of Christians is a direct result of biblical learning, and NOT the "historic church" history. Nobody has to "steal" Bible doctrine. Just pick up your Bible and start studying. And if two of us come up with the same doctrine then it is because the Bible taught it to us, and not because we "stole" it.
Bible doctrine is taught by the Bible, not ancient RCC scholars.
This is why nobody has answered Rick's OP, because it is a ridiculous question. It assumes that all doctrine had to come from some ancient Bible scholar and not from personal study and guidance from the HS.
That is just wrong.
John
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...
No one said they are.
Protestantism is another source for biblical understanding.
But just for the record- you SAYING it is so doesn't MAKE it so.
It is pointless to make claims without substantiation.
Is anybody supposed to believe what you say is so just because YOU SAY IT????
You have to make arguments and present evidence.
We find this kind of thing in a lot of pulpits. Claims without substantiation.
Yes, I think it is rife within fundamentalist movements like IFB.
Yes, it is in SBC, too.
I think this is why some people on bb post this way.
They are used to hearing their preachers make claims, like the one you make here and not substantiate those claims with ANYTHING.
And they are used to seeing people just bow and and accept it as fact.
It is not so just because your pastor says it is.
And it is not so just because you say it is.
Thinking people require evidence and arguments and substantiation before they accept claims.
Thinking people put no stock in unsubstantiated claims.
Machen wrote his book in 1923. It help to define the battle between Fundamentalists and Liberals.
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
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
We have clear historical records for the development of orthodoxy.
Everyone who's studied a semester of church history knows this.
We have clear historical records for the development of orthodoxy.
Everyone who's studied a semester of church history knows this.
I am familiar with what the masons believe as a movement as I am familiar with what many IFB believe including the sword guys- movers and shakers in the movement.
But I also know there are people within the ranks of both who do not believe what many of the people in those movements do believe. That is the same with mason folks here.
Episcopalians are ordaining gays. That's terrible. But many episcopians within that movement are against that. I don't have to condemn their thinking since their thinking is fine.
What you seem to fail to understand is that a person can be in a bad movement or one gone bad and still have the right thinking.
Thinking is what we condemn or condone.
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:glfredrick said:It is a matter of integrity. They are promulgating a version of history that is equally as revised as RCC or Mormons. Why attract members by disingenuous means?
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.I think it is clear by this point that they have no answers to these questions.
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.Every effort at deflection that could be imagined has been employed.
Are you willing to be helped; to be shown the truth; or do you just accept that as hate?From calling me all kinds of hateful names to retreating to, "Well SBC believe this too!"
We have plenty of answers. Will you accept them. Do you study theology Luke? Why? Who coined the word? Was it the Catholics?But no answers.
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.It is clear that IFB, OR ANYBODY, who holds to this "We didn't come from no stinking catholic church!" mentality while at the same time holding to Historic Orthodoxy cannot justify the terrible inconsistency of the two.
You simply don't get to rely FULLY upon the Catholic and Protestant movements for your orthodoxy and claim not to have EVER been a part of them.
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."This position is insulting to all Protestants. It insinuates that Protestants are lesser in some way. I have often heard these types say, "We didn't come from no WHORE! (speaking of the catholic 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.Gee, thanks. But you came from the same place we did, you just lack the education to know it.
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??But worse, this doctrine, like many that MANY IFB people cling to, is TERRIBLY divisive.
There are many cancers that need to be cut out. Many of them are in the SBC itself.I think it is not NECESSARILY heresy- but it is a cancer that needs to be cut out of our religious culture.
Look in the mirror Luke.But let me conclude with this (unless someone else wants to continue).
The main problem I have with this thinking is what I think is at the root of it.
Ignorance, arrogance and irreverence.
It is an ignorance of the facts.
It is an arrogance that preaches these things without concern for the facts.
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.It is an irreverence for the Gospel and the Kingdom- a lack of the fear of God driving men to haphazardly hurl their unstudied ideas into the market place of ideals when they could, and often do, hinder the Kingdom, dim God's glory in our culture and endanger the eternal souls of men.
If you are speaking of your limited experience in your sphere of IFB churches, then the answer is: of course not.Does this pseudo-history of baptists do all of that? MAYBE not.
Ignorance and arrogance exists everywhere, including the SBC.But the ignorance, arrogance and irreverence that enables people to believe it and preach it- it is the same that enables people to believe and preach every damnable heresy that has ever existed.
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.This pseudo-history business is a branch of the poisonous tree.
Who said anything about being KJVO. I know Charismatics that are KJVO.As is KJVO.
Again, where does this accusation come from?As is pastoral dictatorship.
And why this one?As is legalism and phariseism.
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.As is Mormonism.
As is David Koresh, etc...
The ROOT is the same for all these branches:
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
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
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.
Do you consider the belief that Adam was corrupt before he sinned an orthodox teaching of the historical church?