Featured Is the SBC really Baptist?

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.

 

Thank You:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

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.

 

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.

Show us how...I completely disagree.

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

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.

 

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

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.

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.

 

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:

 

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.