Is the SBC really Baptist?

[Michael Wrenn]

Found this site online....it's late..I did not read through it yet...but the listing is helpful!



. Baptists: Who? What? Why? Where? When? • 2. What Makes a Baptist a Baptist? 3. Jesus is Lord • 4. The Authority of the Bible • 5. Is Soul Competency The Baptist Distinctive? • 6. Salvation by Grace Through Faith Alone • 7. Baptists: The Priesthood of The Believer or of Believers? • 8. Baptists: Believer’s Baptism • 9. Baptists Believe in Regenerate Church Membership • 10. Baptists: Regenerate Church Membership in Peril? • 11. Congregational Church Governance • 12. Baptist Congregational Church Governance: A Challenge • 13. Baptists Believe in Church Autonomy • 14. Baptist Autonomy: Difficulties and Benefits • 15. Baptists and Voluntary Cooperation • 16. Baptist Voluntary Cooperation: Challenges and Benefits • 17. Baptists: Two Ordinances Baptism and the Lord’s Supper • 18. Two Church Officers: Pastors and Deacons • 19. Baptists: Worship • 20. Baptists and Evangelism • 21. Baptists and Missions • 22. Baptists and Ministry • 23. Baptists: Applying the Gospel • 24. Baptists Champions of Religious Freedom • 25. Baptists: Separation of Church and State • 26. Baptists and Education • 27. Baptists •


here is another;
http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/distinctives.html

and again:
http://www.baptiststart.com/doctrine.htm

Excellent resources, Icon! Thanks for posting them. There is a wealth of information in these resources.

In the first one especially are articles supporting what I have been saying about soul competency and the priesthood of the believer and how these are related, and also about Bible freedom.

I'll read them more thoroughly later.

 

[quantumfaith]

Found this site online....it's late..I did not read through it yet...but the listing is helpful!



. Baptists: Who? What? Why? Where? When? • 2. What Makes a Baptist a Baptist? 3. Jesus is Lord • 4. The Authority of the Bible • 5. Is Soul Competency The Baptist Distinctive? • 6. Salvation by Grace Through Faith Alone • 7. Baptists: The Priesthood of The Believer or of Believers? • 8. Baptists: Believer’s Baptism • 9. Baptists Believe in Regenerate Church Membership • 10. Baptists: Regenerate Church Membership in Peril? • 11. Congregational Church Governance • 12. Baptist Congregational Church Governance: A Challenge • 13. Baptists Believe in Church Autonomy • 14. Baptist Autonomy: Difficulties and Benefits • 15. Baptists and Voluntary Cooperation • 16. Baptist Voluntary Cooperation: Challenges and Benefits • 17. Baptists: Two Ordinances Baptism and the Lord’s Supper • 18. Two Church Officers: Pastors and Deacons • 19. Baptists: Worship • 20. Baptists and Evangelism • 21. Baptists and Missions • 22. Baptists and Ministry • 23. Baptists: Applying the Gospel • 24. Baptists Champions of Religious Freedom • 25. Baptists: Separation of Church and State • 26. Baptists and Education • 27. Baptists •


here is another;
http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/distinctives.html

and again:
http://www.baptiststart.com/doctrine.htm

Thank You:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[12strings]

Any time anyone has to tell me what the Bible means, rather than me reading it myself, they have stepped between me and Holy Spirit. Trying to be a human mediator.

Again, I'm still trying to understand what exactly is meant by Soul liberty, specifically how it would practically work itself out in a church or convention...because if this is it, Doesn't that invalidate ALL preaching & Bible teaching...and in fact all debates about scriptures on this thread?

Can anyone who is strongly supporting a return to soul liberty give us a view of what a church or convention would look like if Soul Liberty was the norm? I still don't see how anyone really wants it applied to its logical end.

 

[JonC]

I have spent a good part of my life as a Southern Baptist, so I guess my opinion is relevant.

I’m sorry Michael, but no. Your opinion was relevant regarding the Convention as a Southern Baptist. It is a convention of churches, and if one no longer belongs to one of its churches, then they do not have a relevent opinion. Perhaps it will turn around at some point and you can once again call yourself a Southern Baptist. Most likely I will have left, so my opinion wouldn’t matter.

I think there was a gross over-reaction and misrepresentation about what was going on in the denomination and seminaries prior to the fundamentalist takeover. The "cry wolf" hysteria over liberalism in the convention was way overblown, as the size of the Alliance of Baptists shows.

Here, we strongly disagree. Perhaps I am a fundamentalist of sorts. I see the size of the Alliance of Baptists to show exactly the opposite from your conclusions – that it shows a disconnect that existed between SBC liberalism and its churches.

“If the appeal was made for ‘academic freedom,’ let it be said that we gladly grant any man the right to believe what he wants to – but, we do not grant him the right to believe and express views in conflict with our historic position concerning the Bible as the Word of God while he is teaching in one of our schools, built and supported by Baptist funds.”
“Death in the Pot” Baptist Standard


Perhaps you are right that there were no major problems in the seminaries – I would disagree just on these few illustrations alone:

Midwestern Seminary supported Ralph Elliot's teaching based on academic freedom -

Chapters 1-11 are purely symbolic – science disproves a literal view

Melchizedek extended blessings on behalf of Baal, so Abraham tithed to Baal

God did not command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Abraham misunderstood)

There was no actual “Adam”

Biblical writers “borrowed and adapted” from earlier myths and legends

Broadman Bible Commentary – God did not tell Abraham to kill Isaac. “His conviction that his son must be sacrificed is the climax of the psychology of life.” G. Henton Davis

Southern Seminary:

“God is truly pro-choice.” (Paul Simmons )

“The Bible holds open the possibility, therefore, that abortion may be consistent with the will of God.” (Paul Simmons )

“Abortion may at times be understood as the command [of God] to control population control.”(Paul Simmons )

The blood atonement is an invalid doctrine that emerged as a result of Christianity’s exposure to paganism during its infancy.

“Homosexual Christianity and It’s Biblical Basis” lecture at the seminary(from a lay leader in the Episcopal chruch).

McAllister (Baptist pastor who attended the Southern) notes a missions professor who opened class by praying, “ Our Mother who are in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy queendom come…”

Ethics lecture on the ten necessary conditions for engaging in premarital sex.

Scripture is a parable but not authoritative and certainly not historically accurate. The Challenge of Modern Science – paper presented to a pastor’s conference at the University of Richmond, 1959 by Eric Rust

“[Gospel] sources, however objective they claim to be, have biases. They reflect the slanted viewpoints of their authors. At the same time, most possess, in varying degrees, some element of fact. The fact that none of these is absolutely factual, however, does not take away all of their value. A number of modern scholars have discounted the healing narratives and miracle stories ascribing them to primitive mythology and early Christian embellishment. Some embellishment undoubtedly occurred.” —E. Glenn Hinson, Professor, Southern Seminary

“ . . . the risen Christ had not a physical but a spiritual body.” Jesus Christ, 1977, p. 111 —E. Glenn Hinson, Professor, Southern Seminary

“When it is said that a man is lost or saved, this is what is meant. His sin has caused him to lose all sense of the uniqueness and worth of his being. And through what Jesus did, he is able to see himself like God sees him, and is thus saved from nonbeing. Of course, in seeing our defection we also see our wretchedness and are ashamed that we could take so good a thing and misuse it. But beyond the guilt is the living word that Jesus gives. And that word liberates us to be the sons of God. And God says of
us, his creation, ‘very good.”– Temp Sparkman, Professor, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
“ . . . one cannot begin to understand the clearly provable inadequacies of Scripture . . . ”
– C.W. Christian, Professor of Religion, Baylor University

“ . . . to the question, ‘Are we bound by the Bible?’ we must also answer, no, for within the dialogue of faith are other sources of insight which we must hear. ” – C.W. Christian, Professor of Religion, Baylor University

 

[preachinjesus]

What era writers do you want?

We given you E Y Mullins, Hershel Hobbs, and Walter Shurden. If you need a 4th, try Fisher Humphries.

I'm looking for people outside of the twentieth century and closer to the eighteenth or seventeenth centuries. That is "historical" for what Baptist have believed.

I have a sneaking suspicion no matter who we give you, you won't accept their credentials.

I haven't not (that's a nice double negative) accepted someone credentials. I have questioned how influential they are and nobody has been able to provide empirical data disproving my challenge. I'm open to having a good discussion, however you guys can't get out of the twentieth century. You know, Baptists did exist before then.

So try going to some early W A Criswell writings and you will find him saying many of the same things.

Okay, give me some citations and not ad hoc speculation.

We've gotten so caught up in the "purpose" of selling our franchise, we don't worry anymore about what the product is.

Which led to the fundamentalist takeover.

I'll defer to the excellent post JonC just made about what truly led to the resurgence.

Had we returned to the Baptist distinctives, we would still be a mostly very conservative convention.

I say we have returned to historic Baptist distinctives and are a conservative convention. The SBC (for all its troubles) is still in good shape as a convention.

Any time anyone has to tell me what the Bible means, rather than me reading it myself, they have stepped between me and Holy Spirit. Trying to be a human mediator.

So anyone is entitled to their read of Scripture, no matter how diverse from the context and plain meaning, because the Holy Spirit clearly elucidates all readings to all people?

Well you still haven't done what I've ask: give me plain definitions of soul liberty and priesthood of all believers.

Also, and I'll say this again, nobody has proven that the SBC isn't baptist per the OP.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I’m sorry Michael, but no. Your opinion was relevant regarding the Convention as a Southern Baptist. It is a convention of churches, and if one no longer belongs to one of its churches, then they do not have a relevent opinion. Perhaps it will turn around at some point and you can once again call yourself a Southern Baptist. Most likely I will have left, so my opinion wouldn’t matter.



Here, we strongly disagree. Perhaps I am a fundamentalist of sorts. I see the size of the Alliance of Baptists to show exactly the opposite from your conclusions – that it shows a disconnect that existed between SBC liberalism and its churches.

“If the appeal was made for ‘academic freedom,’ let it be said that we gladly grant any man the right to believe what he wants to – but, we do not grant him the right to believe and express views in conflict with our historic position concerning the Bible as the Word of God while he is teaching in one of our schools, built and supported by Baptist funds.”
“Death in the Pot” Baptist Standard


Perhaps you are right that there were no major problems in the seminaries – I would disagree just on these few illustrations alone:

Midwestern Seminary supported Ralph Elliot's teaching based on academic freedom -

Chapters 1-11 are purely symbolic – science disproves a literal view

Melchizedek extended blessings on behalf of Baal, so Abraham tithed to Baal

God did not command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Abraham misunderstood)

There was no actual “Adam”

Biblical writers “borrowed and adapted” from earlier myths and legends

Broadman Bible Commentary – God did not tell Abraham to kill Isaac. “His conviction that his son must be sacrificed is the climax of the psychology of life.” G. Henton Davis

Southern Seminary:

“God is truly pro-choice.” (Paul Simmons )

“The Bible holds open the possibility, therefore, that abortion may be consistent with the will of God.” (Paul Simmons )

“Abortion may at times be understood as the command [of God] to control population control.”(Paul Simmons )

The blood atonement is an invalid doctrine that emerged as a result of Christianity’s exposure to paganism during its infancy.

“Homosexual Christianity and It’s Biblical Basis” lecture at the seminary(from a lay leader in the Episcopal chruch).

McAllister (Baptist pastor who attended the Southern) notes a missions professor who opened class by praying, “ Our Mother who are in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy queendom come…”

Ethics lecture on the ten necessary conditions for engaging in premarital sex.

Scripture is a parable but not authoritative and certainly not historically accurate. The Challenge of Modern Science – paper presented to a pastor’s conference at the University of Richmond, 1959 by Eric Rust

“[Gospel] sources, however objective they claim to be, have biases. They reflect the slanted viewpoints of their authors. At the same time, most possess, in varying degrees, some element of fact. The fact that none of these is absolutely factual, however, does not take away all of their value. A number of modern scholars have discounted the healing narratives and miracle stories ascribing them to primitive mythology and early Christian embellishment. Some embellishment undoubtedly occurred.” —E. Glenn Hinson, Professor, Southern Seminary

“ . . . the risen Christ had not a physical but a spiritual body.” Jesus Christ, 1977, p. 111 —E. Glenn Hinson, Professor, Southern Seminary

“When it is said that a man is lost or saved, this is what is meant. His sin has caused him to lose all sense of the uniqueness and worth of his being. And through what Jesus did, he is able to see himself like God sees him, and is thus saved from nonbeing. Of course, in seeing our defection we also see our wretchedness and are ashamed that we could take so good a thing and misuse it. But beyond the guilt is the living word that Jesus gives. And that word liberates us to be the sons of God. And God says of
us, his creation, ‘very good.”– Temp Sparkman, Professor, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
“ . . . one cannot begin to understand the clearly provable inadequacies of Scripture . . . ”
– C.W. Christian, Professor of Religion, Baylor University

“ . . . to the question, ‘Are we bound by the Bible?’ we must also answer, no, for within the dialogue of faith are other sources of insight which we must hear. ” – C.W. Christian, Professor of Religion, Baylor University

Well, my opinion is relevant because my membership is still with a SBC church.

I never said there were no problems in the seminaries. I said I believed students should be exposed to all viewpoints. How else is one to get a true education?

My point about the Alliance was that it shows that the SBC was not over-run with liberals, that they were a tiny fraction of the whole -- thus, the fundamentalist reaction was an unjustified hysteria.

You mentioned you might leave the SBC. Where might you go?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Again, I'm still trying to understand what exactly is meant by Soul liberty, specifically how it would practically work itself out in a church or convention...because if this is it, Doesn't that invalidate ALL preaching & Bible teaching...and in fact all debates about scriptures on this thread?

Can anyone who is strongly supporting a return to soul liberty give us a view of what a church or convention would look like if Soul Liberty was the norm? I still don't see how anyone really wants it applied to its logical end.

How about this? Simply go by the criteria that anyone claiming to be Baptist should believe in historic Baptist principles and traditional morality.

That would get rid of the radicals on the left and on the right.

That's what I have attempted with my own independent jurisdiction, the CAC. And, although we do have the episcopate, they may not interfere with local autonomy.

 

[preachinjesus]

BTW, the Baptist distinctive is priesthood of THE BELIEVER, which your statement shows that you do not hold to. One must correctly state and believe this principle to see how it relates to Bible freedom and soul freedom.

Might I suggest you do some more research on historic Baptist principles.

Thanks I think my previous background will suffice. It is priesthood of all believers.

If you do not believe that the right and ability to read and interpret the Bible for yourself under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit is a Baptist principle, you are either suffering from delusion or ignorant of Baptist history.

I'd offer the same question to you I have to nodak....so you're telling me all reads and interpretations of the Bible are correct so long as they're led by the Holy Spirit?

As I said, if you don't believe what I'm saying about Mullins, just read. BTW, why do you wish to denigrate Mullins? Would you also deny him a place in the SBC if he were living today?

P.S. Look, I don't mean to be hostile toward you personally; this is just something that I'm passionate about. This is the one major thing that could prevent me from being a Southern Baptist -- this departure from Baptist principles. I have nothing for those who believe like the Alliance of Baptists; I think it would be good if they and the fundies were all tossed into a ring and had to stay there together. But people like Daniel Vestal and other moderate-conservatives having to leave the convention is a tragedy.

Well I'm not denigrating EY Mullins. I'm saying he's not as influential as you're making him out to be. That isn't denigrating him, that's saying you are making too much out of a historical figure. FTR, I think he and Dr Hobbes would both have a place in the present day SBC.

I appreciate you're passion for this subject, but my position is that through the resurgence we've recaptured historic Baptist principles and divorced ourselves from the modernist (twentieth century) theological drift brought by non-historical Baptist distinctives like soul liberty (which nobody supporting it has defined yet.) The resurgence recaptured historic Baptist distinctives and repositioned the SBC to reengage faithfulness to God's Word and a biblical theology. We have a stronger missionary force and a stronger mission to reach others because of it. There have been excesses and I will not defend them. But if anything is true out of the resurgence it is that we push away the dangerous individualistic, modernist theology that had infiltrated the SBC and reestablished historic Baptist distinctives along with a biblical theology.

 

[preachinjesus]

I think there was a gross over-reaction and misrepresentation about what was going on in the denomination and seminaries prior to the fundamentalist takeover. The "cry wolf" hysteria over liberalism in the convention was way overblown, as the size of the Alliance of Baptists shows. Regarding the seminaries, are they supposed to be education centers or indoctrination centers? Why shouldn't all views, all across the theological spectrum, be taught? How can anyone get a true education otherwise? Also, how can anyone go out in the real world and teach what they consider the truth against opposing views if they don't know what those opposing views are? Keeping the seminaries as isolated little enclaves of fundamentalist propaganda does not serve the students who go there for an education. Of course I realize many who go there now do so not for an education but precisely to continue to be indoctrinated and propagandized.

Wow, I really challenge this view of our seminaries. In fact I challenge whether you've actually stepped foot on a campus of any of them in the past 10 years.

There's a lot here but I'll keep my points simple and direct:
1. Academic freedom doesn't give license to teach unbiblical doctrine and non-Baptist theology. A seminary is a trust from its sending convention to its students, and future ministers, that they will keep their theology lashed to the Cross, grounded in the Word, and expressing the Great Commission.

2. While our seminaries are theologically conservative all but one isn't fundamentalist (sadly I can't say good things about SWBTS leadership right now.) They remain confidently biblical and professors have the freedom to challenge students to engage deeper and think more broadly...and it happens.

3. Our seminaries aren't any more indoctrination centers than state schools and universities. All education has a re-educational component. What makes our six seminaries unique is they have a biblical standard by which we teach and are held accountable. What is wrong with that?

4. I would encourage you to check into our current seminaries and see what you find. Though my experience is not as recent as others, when I was attending SWBTS I was required to read broadly and not stay isolated in evangelical scholarship. I had to read Barth, Moltmann, Pannenberg, Schleiermacher, the Tubigen school, and others along these lines. That wasn't a bad thing and I grew immensely because of it. I don't think you actually know what is going on in our seminaries.

No, the SBC has seriously departed from the SBC that Mullins and Hobbs knew -- and that is not a good thing; it is sad.

Show us how...I completely disagree.

 

[preachinjesus]

Also, how can a Baptist seminary graduate be either well educated or well equipped when they are taught that the post-takeover SBC is the one true way to be Southern Baptist?

Who teaches this? Name me names? Because that isn't what is being taught in the six seminaries of the SBC. That absolutely isn't what is being taught.

You're making wild speculations without any base for them right now. I doubt you've actually sat in any of our seminaries for the past ten years or so. I doubt you actually know what is going on and being taught. I doubt you can make these kinds of claims with any substance.

BTW, I'm still waiting for Resurgence supporters here to say that Mullins and Hobbs would be welcome in today's SBC. I say they wouldn't, and that tells me all I need to know about how "Baptist" the SBC is now.

They would be part of the SBC today. I've said it before.

 

[preachinjesus]

Found this site online....it's late..I did not read through it yet...but the listing is helpful!

These are great links so thanks. :thumbsup:

I will note that in the soul competency article there are no historical (pre-20th century) citations. My point is that soul competency is an abused doctrine that too many confuse with priesthood of all believers when in fact priesthood covers the essential ground but provides appropriate theological boundaries for what soul competency erroneously posits.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

These are great links so thanks. :thumbsup:

I will note that in the soul competency article there are no historical (pre-20th century) citations. My point is that soul competency is an abused doctrine that too many confuse with priesthood of all believers when in fact priesthood covers the essential ground but provides appropriate theological boundaries for what soul competency erroneously posits.

You are wrong. Soul competency goes hand-in-hand with the priesthood of the believer, as I have maintained and the articles support. And you keep getting the Baptist principle wrong -- it's the priesthood of THE BELIEVER.

 

[mandym]

The Priesthood of all Believers is the orthodox view

http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/distinctives_Priesthood.html

http://www.baptiststart.com/print/priesthood_believers.html

http://www.theopedia.com/Priesthood_of_all_believers

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj03/article1_fr.html

 

[nodak]

Um-preachinjesus, please edit your posts. You have me listed as originally posting some quotes that I did not post.

And for those that want more to read: in the books I recommended you will find citations that will give you a good long list.

Plain definition of soul liberty: 1 John 2:27 We hear directly from God, by reading the Word under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and then test or try the preaching/teaching we hear to make sure it lines up. In other words, we go directly to God and then judge the human teaching, NOT go to "the right" human teachers and believe whatever they say about God.

Scripture tells us plainly also that some will consider some days special, and others consider every day the same. We are not to judge each other, but rather let God deal.

 

[JonC]

Well, my opinion is relevant because my membership is still with a SBC church.

I took your comment that the SBC “departure” from historical doctrine as being one major thing that could prevent you from being a Southern Baptist as meaning that you were not a Southern Baptist (post #74). I apologize for that misunderstanding on my part. If you are an active member (you have a voice in a local SBC church) then your opinion is certainly relevant.

Personally, I didn’t see Daniel Vestar’s departure anything close to a tragedy. Cultural issues that are contemporary to our world have historically played (the anti-missions movement, Landmarkism, etc.), does play (homosexual stance, etc.) and will play significant roles in the future as the SBC and Baptists in general are segmented according to their beliefs.

My point about the Alliance was that it shows that the SBC was not over-run with liberals, that they were a tiny fraction of the whole -- thus, the fundamentalist reaction was an unjustified hysteria.

That’s exactly the point. The liberal voice was a minority. Had it been a majority then the conservatives and fundamentals should have rightly left the SBC. I also don’t blame the liberals for voicing their convictions – it was the fault of the SBC local churches for allowing this tiny fraction to influence the SBC as it did. A good historical example would be when J.R. Graves held sway over Union or Dayton's influence at the Bible Board– or Daniel Parker’s influence in the anti-missions controversy (although regionally that was not a tiny faction).

You mentioned you might leave the SBC. Where might you go?

I can’t leave the SBC. I’m a member of a local church that is a member of the SBC – (my voice is in the local church). If the SBC returns to liberalism, or perhaps if it retracts much of its stance that is stated in the BF&M, then the local church will have to evaluate whether or not to continue its affiliation. If it does, then I will have to evaluate my membership within that local congregation. If I were to leave, I would look for a church that stood for those biblical doctrines that would have been abandoned. Maybe I’ll become Amish – instead of computing I’ll be farming (just kidding – I’m way to lazy to be Amish).

 

[preachinjesus]

This is the amended post #88...my cut and paste didn't cut and paste...this is how it should have read (we're past the 5 minute edit time)

BTW, the Baptist distinctive is priesthood of THE BELIEVER, which your statement shows that you do not hold to. One must correctly state and believe this principle to see how it relates to Bible freedom and soul freedom.

Might I suggest you do some more research on historic Baptist principles.

Thanks I think my previous background will suffice. It is priesthood of all believers.

If you do not believe that the right and ability to read and interpret the Bible for yourself under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit is a Baptist principle, you are either suffering from delusion or ignorant of Baptist history.

I'd offer the same question to you I have to nodak....so you're telling me all reads and interpretations of the Bible are correct so long as they're led by the Holy Spirit?

As I said, if you don't believe what I'm saying about Mullins, just read. BTW, why do you wish to denigrate Mullins? Would you also deny him a place in the SBC if he were living today?

P.S. Look, I don't mean to be hostile toward you personally; this is just something that I'm passionate about. This is the one major thing that could prevent me from being a Southern Baptist -- this departure from Baptist principles. I have nothing for those who believe like the Alliance of Baptists; I think it would be good if they and the fundies were all tossed into a ring and had to stay there together. But people like Daniel Vestal and other moderate-conservatives having to leave the convention is a tragedy.

Well I'm not denigrating EY Mullins. I'm saying he's not as influential as you're making him out to be. That isn't denigrating him, that's saying you are making too much out of a historical figure. FTR, I think he and Dr Hobbes would both have a place in the present day SBC.

I appreciate you're passion for this subject, but my position is that through the resurgence we've recaptured historic Baptist principles and divorced ourselves from the modernist (twentieth century) theological drift brought by non-historical Baptist distinctives like soul liberty (which nobody supporting it has defined yet.) The resurgence recaptured historic Baptist distinctives and repositioned the SBC to reengage faithfulness to God's Word and a biblical theology. We have a stronger missionary force and a stronger mission to reach others because of it. There have been excesses and I will not defend them. But if anything is true out of the resurgence it is that we push away the dangerous individualistic, modernist theology that had infiltrated the SBC and reestablished historic Baptist distinctives along with a biblical theology.

 

[preachinjesus]

And for those that want more to read: in the books I recommended you will find citations that will give you a good long list.

We're not looking for books, because none of us are going to research stuff that much here...we're asking your definition.

Plain definition of soul liberty: 1 John 2:27 We hear directly from God, by reading the Word under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and then test or try the preaching/teaching we hear to make sure it lines up. In other words, we go directly to God and then judge the human teaching, NOT go to "the right" human teachers and believe whatever they say about God.

2:27 Now as for you, the anointing that you received from him resides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, it is true and is not a lie. Just as it has taught you, you reside in him. 1 John 2:27

No one is saying that believers don't have the intellectual capacity to be able to read and discern. What I believe our contention is over, and my particular criticism of soul liberty, is that it allows for private interpretations that go against the basic teaching point of a text(s) and harm theology. It also has difficulty reconciling its parameters with 2 Peter 1:20, Above all, you do well if you recognize66 this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination,

I would suggest that in the present day SBC we are more bound by Scripture as our anchor for interpretation than before the resurgence.

Scripture tells us plainly also that some will consider some days special, and others consider every day the same. We are not to judge each other, but rather let God deal.

There are certain actions and interpretations that are violations of Scripture. They are to be judged, gracefully and patiently, when made obvious. To say we aren't to judge each other is a denial of Scripture. We need gracious church discipline and gracious restoration.

 

[Iconoclast]

Excellent resources, Icon! Thanks for posting them. There is a wealth of information in these resources.

In the first one especially are articles supporting what I have been saying about soul competency and the priesthood of the believer and how these are related, and also about Bible freedom.

I'll read them more thoroughly later.

Yes...the site looked worthwhile,and these are very important issues..
I am still having to drive now...but will try and give it more of a read later on tonight.....these each could be the basis of good discussion and a help to understand what we are called to be in serving the Lord:thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is the amended post #88...my cut and paste didn't cut and paste...this is how it should have read (we're past the 5 minute edit time)



Thanks I think my previous background will suffice. It is priesthood of all believers.



I'd offer the same question to you I have to nodak....so you're telling me all reads and interpretations of the Bible are correct so long as they're led by the Holy Spirit?

I'm saying that no one has the right to interpret scripture for another -- that's what is meant by Bible freedom and soul competency. You know, everybody believes their interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit and is right and every denomination believes it's interpretations are Spirit-led and right. We all see through a glass, darkly. But Baptists have traditionally believed that each individual is and should be free to interpret scripture for himself/herself.



Well I'm not denigrating EY Mullins. I'm saying he's not as influential as you're making him out to be. That isn't denigrating him, that's saying you are making too much out of a historical figure. FTR, I think he and Dr Hobbes would both have a place in the present day SBC.


What as -- janitors? Since Mullins was a strong proponent of soul competency, a principle which you and today's SBC have a problem with, how could Mullins possibly be accepted in the SBC of today?


I appreciate you're passion for this subject, but my position is that through the resurgence we've recaptured historic Baptist principles and divorced ourselves from the modernist (twentieth century) theological drift brought by non-historical Baptist distinctives like soul liberty (which nobody supporting it has defined yet.) The resurgence recaptured historic Baptist distinctives and repositioned the SBC to reengage faithfulness to God's Word and a biblical theology. We have a stronger missionary force and a stronger mission to reach others because of it. There have been excesses and I will not defend them. But if anything is true out of the resurgence it is that we push away the dangerous individualistic, modernist theology that had infiltrated the SBC and reestablished historic Baptist distinctives along with a biblical theology.

I have been gone most of the day, but I wanted to respond to a couple of things; see my responses, in red, in your post above.

 

[JonC]

I just ran across an article that reminded me of this particular thread. The author writes to address the controversy within the SBC by demonstrating a relationship between the arguments to undercurrents that have existed within the SBC and manifested within their struggles with Campbellism, Landmarkism and hyper-Calvinism in the nineteenth century.

“Baptists of the nineteenth century rejected Campbell’s strong anti-confessionalism. In the early part of the twentieth century, however, the ideal of American individualism was wedded to the Baptist concept of ‘soul competency’ resulting in the triumph of what Ralph Waldo Emerson called ‘the infinitude of the private mind.’ Many contemporary Baptists would be surprised to learn that venerable shapers of the Baptist tradition such as Andrew Fuller, Richard Furman, B.H. Carroll, and even E.Y. Mullins often spoke in an affirming way of ‘the Baptist creed,” For example, in 1923 Mullins, the champion of ‘soul liberty,’ outlined various basic Christian beliefs (e.g., biblical inspiration, the miracles of Christ, his vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection, literal ascension, and final return) and declared before the SBC: ‘We believe that adherence to the above truths and facts is a necessary condition of service for teachers in our Baptist schools.”

Source: Timothy George, “Southern Baptist Ghosts,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life no. 93 (May 1999): 18-24, 20.