BF&M Hitting Roadblocks Abroad

The tail is wagging the dog: Once again we see the "culture should drive what we believe Scripture teaches" argument, rather than the exact opposite. The latter is the Scriptural norm (Cf. Acts).

 

The Priesthood of Believers does not mean one has the right to interpret scripture any way they want. All that the Priesthood of Believers means is that we all have equal access to God. Baptist theologians such as my CBF friends reinterpret it to mean that I as an individual have a right to interpret Scripture ....when scripture is not open for private interpretation. What we now have, Papacy of the Believer being taught by many. Hey, The Roman Catholic Church has one pope but according to many liberal Southern Baptists the SBC has over 16 million popes.

The missionaries whining is hypocrital. They are paid by Convention money and unlike churches answer to the Convention and are responsible to both the churches and conventions regarding their theological beliefs. If they don't like the BF @ M go get yourself support independantly. Historically Baptists were confessional people (That is why Particular and General Baptists never united in England). Confessions must have some teeth, else they are useless pieces of paper.

[ June 25, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

At the end of the day, the choice still seems obvious to me: you can be a part of the SBC or you can chose to disassociate yourself as an individual and as a church.

Being a Southern Baptist is a choice.

So each individual can chose yes or no -- now there's some individual priesthood for you.

 

"The Priesthood of Believers does not mean one has the right to interpret scripture any way they want."

Yes it does! We must understand that freedom is not really freedom unless you can be free to have the "wrong" opinion.

If being a part of the SBC is a choice then why didn't Pressler and Patterson choose to leave back in 1979 when it wasn't going their way?

 

Quite frankly I don't understand how baptist could have lived back in 1950 and before without dealing with some of the same stuff we read today. I see the hateful things that both extremes say and I scratch my head. How could this have only developed over the last 30 years or so?

I guess Mullins and Hobbs should have added condemnation to their teachings on Baptist destinctives.

I don't know how we can take Jesus seriously about saying "Love one another" when we say such mean things about other Christians.

Shrug

 

SBCbyGrace,
I see grace in your name but not in your post. Maybe you should rethink your login name eh!


[ June 25, 2002, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Mark-in-Tx ]

 

WRONG! Scripture is not open to private interpretation. To say otherwise is unscriptural itself and heretical (2 Peter 1:20). Priesthood of the Believer simply means we all have equal access to God (That's it! ). The 1689 Baptist Confession stated that we have," access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of." That is Priesthood of the Believer! Not that we are free to believe anything we want...such an idea is not Baptist much less Biblical. What you are referring to is Papacy of the Believer.

[ June 25, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

It's all about grace.

Patterson/Pressler had the choice to pull out or to stay and rally the troops. They chose the latter and were successful in doing so (which I would argue shows where the pew people stood from the beginning).

Likewise individuals and churches have the same option today: stay or leave. The mod/libs are welcome to stay and attempt to swing the convention in their direction. They are welcome to stay and voice their opinions. Yet in the end, the people decide the direction of the whole.

Missionaries / employees are a different story. They have an obligation to work in accordance with the decided statement of beliefs. It is only ethical to adhere to the beliefs of those you represent. That is my argument.

If the mod/libs chose to stay, they have that right and I will do my absolute best to work with them in Christian love (while preserving the foundational truths that define who we are). If they chose to leave, I say Godspeed and I pray God uses you to do great things for his glory.

Actually I believe in lots of flexibility in methodologies, philosophies, etc. (all but the essentials). It is all about grace. I have received it and I should give it.

It is only when the Book or the message is attacked or undermined that grace must give way to defending the truth.

 

WRONG! Scripture is not open to private interpretation. To say otherwise is unscriptural itself and heretical (2 Peter 1:20). Priesthood of the Believer simply means we all have equal access to God (That's it! ). The 1689 Baptist Confession stated that we have," access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of." That is Priesthood of the Believer! Not that we are free to believe anything we want...such an idea is not Baptist much less Biblical. What you are referring to is Papacy of the Believer.[/QB][/QUOTE]

No private interpretation seems to be more papal or catholic (follow what the church and catachisms say and nothing else) than Baptist. Not looking for an argument here (or mad face), and I understand that private interpretation is the reason we have so many denominations of Baptists, but I've read it to be one of the principles of the faith.

 

Hi longshot, I simply quoted the apostle Peter who stated in 1 Peter 1:20 that scripture is not open for private interpretation. None of us on this board are in a position to argue with a Apostle. To advocate private interpretation of scripture is in conflict with Apostolic teaching.

[ June 25, 2002, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Absolute nonsense. This blatent misrepresentation is the unfortunate motto of the left and it shows an ignorance of the BFM 2000 and the issues at stake. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess you've heard the position before... For the record, I noticed the problem the day the preview of the 2000 BF&M was released to the public... long before I heard anyone else point out the shift from Jesus being the criterion by which scripture is to be interpreted to an assertion that the Bible is "the" revelation of God. There are also numerous, less serious, problems but the shift of authority and revelation is enough for me to reject it as heretical.

They were and still are. The stories are many and very saddening. Careers were destroyed, characters attacked, lives turned upside down, all because they dared not march in lock step with the political machine of the left. Very very sad. </font>[/QUOTE]I find this very interesting and somewhat hard to believe. I was on the so-called "conservative" side until 1991, participating in a few closed door strategy meetings, ready to report "liberals" to Paige Patterson like several of my friends, and sticking up for SBC leadership when I detected unfair accusations against them. (I publically corrected a detractor of Dr. Ronnie Floyd's one Sunday evening at Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth when the guest speaker made an accusation against him that I knew was inaccurate. I would still do the same thing even though I strongly disagree with Ronnie about quite a few things.)

But during all of my experience, I never heard any complaints of people being persecuted... but I have seen the "Bible believers" toss aside all ethical teaching to destroy good friends of mine and tell lies about everything from the circumstances surrounding changing the locks on the door to Russell Dilday's office to doctoring the minutes of trustee meetings so that no one would know what really happened except those in the room.

I've seen this thing from both sides and know and love people who don't like each other.

Whether or not "conservatives" were persecuted by the "moderates" in the past in largely irrelevant according to New Testament ethics. "Conservatives" should take responsibility for themselves and repent of their falsehood and demonization of people they disagree with... If they truly believe the Bible, it is their obligation.

Why this will not happen is there is still some infiltration by the old political machinery of days gone by. If you have multiple conservatives, the libs are instructed to nominate their candidates. Besides, we did have multiple nominees in 1994 I believe it was, when two conservatives ran against each other (Fred Wolfe and Dr. Jim Henry). </font>[/QUOTE]If you're still reacting against the "libs" (as you call them), you're not living in reality. Those dreaded "libs" don't go to the SBC conventions anymore. Yes, I remember the Jim Henry election -- it really shook up the leadership. It was a very good thing. Do it again!

 

This ranks up there with the famous CBF line about "The Bible is just another book" for being telling and giving a snapshot of why reformation was necessary. We cannot make the Bible say whatever we like. That is simply not our perogative. If the Bible is at the mercy of our editing, then all is permissible.

 

As Dr. Hobbs, one of the original drafters of the 63 BFM stated, this supposed "shift" is a fallacy.

There is no question that if you wrong me, I have no right to wrong you. However, I merely point out that liberals have been steamrolling their opposition because it is never pointed out. The liberals would have us believe that they were sitting around praying, smelling daisies, minding their own business, when conservative bullies came along and shoved them out the door. This is as untrue as it gets and I get tired of hearing people give that false caricature.

If you honestly deny that CBF folks have their cronies at the SBC ready to swoop, just in case, you're the one not living in reality. I know this for a fact. I have many friends in the CBF. I used to run with many of that crowd, and still have many friends there. Why do you think many CBF churches still give a dollar so they can send messengers based on membership?

And the only leadership that got shook up over Dr. Henry was the liberals who didn't like either of the candidates that year because they were conservative.

 

At the risk of offending go2church, I actually agree with you.

The priesthood of the believer describes the doctrine that each one of us is responsible to God for our relationship with Him and for all that we do in this life. I'll take you through the basics:

1.) The only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ. No church can provide effective sacraments, no good work we do can help our condition, no earthy priest or religious authority can confer on us any sort of effective power, wisdom or relationship that will connect us to God. The Bible itself certainly provides some revelation, but knowing the Bible does not make us right with God. The only way to the Father is by turning our lives over to Christ. PRINCIPLE: CHRIST IS OUR HIGH PRIEST, WITH NO MEDIATING FACTORS, DEVICES, AGENTS, OR HUMAN MEDIATORS.

2.) We are personally responsible for following Jesus as individuals and cooperating together. In the church, we are to use our spiritual gifts as well as our common call to love our brothers, sisters and enemies to do God's work in the world. As individuals, we are called to study God's word, develop spiritual disciplines and be obedient to God's call. PRINCIPLE: WE ARE CALLED AS INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR SPIRITUAL LIVES AND NOT RELY ON THE CHURCH TO DO IT FOR US.

3.) God has given the Holy Spirit to all believers to guide them into all truth. Because of this indwelling Spirit and personal responsibility to God for our lives was cannot afford to vacate our responsibilities of rightly interpreting the word of God by simply trusting our leaders to do our thinking and theology for us. If we find we disagree with people who are in leadership, we should listen to their opinions, ask questions and go back to study for ourselves whether our leaders are correct. If we still find that we do not agree, we should discuss it with our leaders to determine what God has really said. Sometimes we will find that we do not agree (sometimes strongly disagree) we should try to continue to serve God together even through we don't always see eye to eye. (I think God is most pleased when we put ourselves aside and let the bond of Christian love demonstrate our unity in the midst of diversity.) PRINCIPLE: THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER IS NOTHING BUT THE CALLING OF GOD TO LOVE RESPONSIBLY WITH THE TRUTH AND CALLING WITH WHICH GOD HAS ENTRUSTED US.

Saying that the priesthood of the believer means that people have the right to interpret scripture any way they want is a gross characterization on the level with saying that people who are Calvinists are anti-missions.

You are correct, scripture is not open for private interpretation. If you are the only person to believe a certain doctrine, you are almost certainly heretical. Theology is done in a community of believers. The CBF is a community of believers, therefore not a private interpretation. But in any case, you have an obligation to personally interpret scripture (see above).

"Papacy of the Believer"? It makes good rhetoric, but little sense. The SBC has 16 million priests responsible to God to interpret scripture personally.

Creeds have teeth, confessions don't. Confessions are statements to the outside world as a general statement of what most believers in the group believe. Confessions are very useful as a teaching tool and for evangelistic work.

[ June 26, 2002, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Your characterization of that quote is blatantly dishonest and disgraces the name of Christ and shames his church.

Of course, you may only be repeat what you heard from the SBC leadership who distorted it, so I do not necessarily blame you for the dishonesty.

I made a transcript of what he said from the convention video that used to be at the Baptist Standard website, but I can't find it at the moment. I'll keep looking and post it when it turns up. But I did a quick search and was able to find the quote in more context:

"I believe the Bible is God's word, and I strive to obey the standards it prescribes," Sizemore said. "The Bible is a book we can trust. ... That being said, the Bible is still just a book. Christians are supposed to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, not a book."

"For one must see that the Bible is a record of what Christ has done," he said. "Christ is the revelation of God. He is not the focus of divine revelation. ... We must be careful not to elevate the written word above the one to whom it points."

Even if you don't agree with his point, it is clear to any half-wit person that Sizemore is not saying the Bible is simply a pleasant devotional book of meditations -- he's drawing a clear line between having a relationship with the living Christ and worshipping God's word.

Of course the SBC leadership couldn't stand to let someone disagree with them without distorting it for their own purposes.

Now you that you know more about what Anthony Sizemore, a BGCT (Baptist General Convention of Texas) pastor by the way, actually said, you are under obligation not to repeat the lie.

But you are right, reformation is necessary... people who claim to represent God need to repent of their lies and speak the truth in love.

 

Argh! Double posted again!

[ June 26, 2002, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Tom,
Did you go to the SBC school of misquotes and half-truths, because you sure are good at it. I never said it was OK to misinterpert scripure, I just simply stated that God allows us the freedom as fallen beings to be wrong when we handle scripture. That doesn't mean He likes it or that it is benefical to our Christian walk. But we do have that freedom. Throughout history individuals and even groups of people have misapplied scripture (maybe you heard of this group called the SBC, speaking in favor of slavery and segregation) to favor there own agenda, countless examples. That never made it right, but it was their right as Christians. It would and does break my heart when good, Godly people willfully walk in opposition to the clear teaching of the Bible, but it is there choice, their right, they will have to live with the consequences on earth or upon divine judgement. Though it is sometimes painful, it is not freedom if the freedom will not allow us to be wrong.

Baptist Believer already covered the Sizemore issue, so I won't rehash the point.

 

Tom,
Your responses are ridiculous. But you already knew that didn't you.

Another case where power and oneupsmanship get in the way of the truth. Believer has documented Sizemores quote which was at the SBC meeting, to attempt to associate it with CBF is blatantly dishonest and reminiscient of the tactics Baptist Press uses, Oh I forgot thats probably where your getting your misinformation.

Why dont you take your own advice given to those in another thread....Try studying the issue before opening the mouth....

 

Tom

Ok now lets try to get back to the discussion at hand.

Can you document for me someone who the left "steamrolled" as you put it. A good friend of mine does a lot of research on this subject, and I will honestly check out your accusation and report back here to the board what the findings are.

Thanks