Question

Nope. Christ is God’s revelation of Himself to humankind. The scripture is additional revelation.

It changes Christ from being our example of God’s intent as a guide to interpreting and implementing the scriptures and instead presents Christ as merely a fulfillment of scripture. While many churches were doing this in practice, the latest BF&M codifies this problem.

1.) By saying that the scripture is God’s revelation to humankind (While scripture is certainly written revelation about God, Christ is God in the flesh. The statement merely points people to a book, the Bible, instead of pointing them to Christ Himself. While the Bible is invaluable and vital to our faith, it should never be promoted as the singular revelation of God today.)
2.) It undermines the principle of understanding our faith through the life, teachings and example of Jesus.

I’ve never had any problem understanding it.

Nope. It changes it.

I’ll try to locate an online recording of the debate at the 2000 Convention so you can hear the discussion for yourself. I’m swamped at work today, so I doubt I’ll have much time to post again until late this evening.

 

You are setting up a false dichotomy, Christ over against Scripture. This is not biblical. Christ Himself says that Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms testify about Him.

Merely a fulfillment of Scripture? I hope that you are not diminishing Christ's fulfillment of God's divine plan revealed in the Old Testament. Perhaps a better word choice here?

Also, the potential problem with Christ "as a guide to interpreting and implementing the scriptures" is when it is said that a certain doctrine (New Testament or Old) does not line up with Christ. For example, women in ministry: many have said that to deny women leadership roles in ministry goes against the message of Christ. Thus, they set their idea of Jesus up against Paul.

How do we know Jesus? How do we know about His life, teachings, and example? I hope that you will not say by some existential encounter with Him. While we certainly know Christ through our encounter with Him (I am not denying that), we would know nothing of Christ apart from the Bible. Christ is God in the flesh: how do we know that? Scripture tells us so. Would any of us know that apart from Scripture? No.

Also, you saying that the statement "merely points people to a book, the Bible, instead of pointing them to Christ Himself" is confusing, as the statement says that Scripture testifies to Christ, meaning that by pointing people to Scripture we are pointing them to Christ. Also, how would you say that we should point people to Christ? Where else should we point them but the Bible?

Even if you point to Hebrews 1:1-2 as saying that Christ is the ultimate revelation of God, your argument is self-defeating. What tells you that Christ is the ultimate revelation? Scripture does.

I appreciate this exchange. I hope that we can maintain a cordial, godly attitude through it. "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

Lon

 

This discussion really is fruitless and pointless.

I would never be able to change your mind about it. You already hate conservatives and are biased against the actions that have taken place in the SBC and its seminaries. You call it "campaign of lies" and smear tactics...but that is true of the moderates (CBF) and those even more liberal than them. Even your abusive language about their character is worse than anything I have heard them say, so don't act like they are the 'bad guys' while the moderates are the champions for all things Christian and baptist...that is definitely not the case.

I know more about Southern...you know more about Southwestern.....we may just have to agree to disagree, because we are never going to reach an agreement. Anything I say to you will be called hearsay or even written evidence will be explained away, I'm sure.

With that I bow out of the conversation. I don't have the time nor energy to fight a battle that will never advance nor retreat. So, good day, sir. No hard feelings...I just choose not to have this debate, as we are not going to reach a consensus and our areas of knowledge don't overlap enough to have a fruitful discussion.

 

You are setting up a false dichotomy, Christ over against Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Christ and scripture are not opposed. However, scripture is not THE revelation of God to humankind… Christ is the fullest revelation of God (see Hebrews 1:3 and John 1:18). Scripture is also revelation, but needs to be interpreted in light of Christ. The Old Testament points to Him and the New Testament (excepting the Gospels) can only be rightly interpreted by first understanding His life and teachings. The story told by the Gospels reveals Christ.

Merely a fulfillment of Scripture? I hope that you are not diminishing Christ's fulfillment of God's divine plan revealed in the Old Testament. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not.

While it mildly oversimplifies the problem, I think it is relatively accurate. Most churches today are more comfortable with Jesus as God’s sacrifice and as someone to adore, but few churches dig deep into the teachings of Christ and seek to respond to Jesus’ command to “Follow Me!” It’s much easier to just affirm a theological stance or attend many Bible studies than to give your life in service of Christ to love sinners, practice mercy and self-denial, and to speak the truth even if it upsets the religious authorities that may be influential in our lives.

Just because some people twist scripture doesn’t mean that the principle is invalid. One can always find bad examples.

Christ and Paul are not in conflict. Those who attempt to do so are twisting the scripture. But we must always interpret Paul in light of Christ – Paul (as well as all the other writers of the New Testament) is a disciple of Christ, so his writing presupposes that you already have a fundamental understanding of Christ. But too often Baptists ignore Jesus in favor of Paul…

How do we know Jesus? </font>[/QUOTE]We know Jesus through a personal encounter mediated by the Holy Spirit.

We know factual information about Jesus through the gospel story that may be told to us through the scripture or another person.

You just shifted the question.

You shifted the question from “knowing Christ” to “knowing KNOWLEDGE OF Christ”. While factual information is certainly a part of coming to know Christ personally, the Bible itself is not required. Early Christians did not have the New Testament for many years (although the letters from the apostles and others to the churches were collected and the story of Christ was told among themselves). The Bible is certainly very important to Christian faith and life, but it is not indispensable.

Sure we would. If for some reason the Bible didn’t exist, we would have an oral tradition that would inform us of this fact. And if that fact were somehow lost or corrupted, I am confident that God would somehow raise up someone with “fresh” revelation to remind the church. But fortunately, God has given us the scripture which provides an objective foundation for our subjective experiences with Christ. But we must NEVER elevate the scripture as the primary revelation of God to humankind.

I can see how that could be difficult to understand, especially out of its original context… I am merely pointed out the problem with saying the scripture is the primary revelation of God. It helps turn the “salvation experience” into a transaction with God and the Christian life into a self-help program of sin management.

The primary way Jesus called His disciples was to say, “Follow Me.” The Christian life is a life of apprenticeship (discipleship) into a new way of living. It is a transforming lifestyle powered by faith in the abiding presence of Christ in our lives. We are nourished through the study and application of scripture, prayer, worship, obedience, services, celebration, solitude, fasting, fellowship and humility (to name just a few disciplines).

We should give tell them the gospel message and encourage them to follow Jesus. The scripture is their primary guide.

Not at all. I am arguing that the BF&M is in serious error. Hebrews 1 clearly demonstrates that – specifically Hebrews 1:3.

Then why didn’t the SBC “blue ribbon” committee write a scripturally-sound article on scripture? I think you’ve just made my point.

I appreciate it as well. If I have made any errors here, I hope you point them out. I appreciate your attitude and your willingness to discuss this controversial issue with me.

May God bless our discussion!

 

It doesn’t have to be…

Depending on what you are referring to, I wouldn’t be so sure…

Nonsense!

That allegation is completely false. I have close friends on both sides of the issues.

“Biased?” Not really. I used to be fully in support of the “conservative resurgence” (sic) until the late 1980s when I found myself in a closed-door meeting where one of the up-and-coming ‘takeover’ folks was talking about the “liberals” at the Texas Baptist universities I attended. I knew the allegations they were making about both men were unfounded, but they didn’t care. They were working on ways to find a scandal so that they could get both men ousted from the School of Christianity. Strangely enough, they didn’t seem to notice another faculty member that had some serious theological problems (he was pretty close to a real liberal). The school ended up getting rid of him on their own – apparently without the “takeover” folks getting involved.

At that point, I started watching the situation more closely, knowing that some innocent people were obviously being singled out as “liberals”. I assumed it was merely folks getting overzealous. But when the ‘takeover’ folks fired Dr. Dilday at Southwestern and told an incredible number of lies about what really happened, I realized that a significant portion of the “resurgence” (sic) leadership did not seem to care about truth. And since then I have seen it repeated over and over in regarding to people I know personally, the BGCT and often the CBF. Baptist Press has become particularly adept at taking a few facts and then distorting them by putting them into a completely different context so that the total effect is a lie. (For example, just compare what Anthony Sizemore actually said IN CONTEXT at the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention and what Baptist Press reported about it – while Anthony Sizemore did utter the words, “…the Bible is just a book…”, he did not utter those words in the context that Baptist Press presented it.)

Yes I do because that’s what it is. I can document a number of examples if you actually care to check it out yourself.

For what it is worth, not all “moderates” are CBF and not all CBF folks are “moderates” or “liberals”.

And I have freely admitted that at times “moderates” and those conservative folks who have rejected the political takeover of the SBC have been guilty of using the same tactics.

“Abusive language about their character”? If someone purposely and consistently lies about someone else, should I not call them a “liar?”

If they consistently do bad things, they are indeed “bad guys”.

I have never said such a thing.

Why do you make that assumption? We’ve barely begun discussing it and I have already told you that I will check out what you tell me to see if it is true. (If it is true, I will affirm it.)

Sounds like you have an incredibly low opinion of me. I can’t help but notice that this accusation comes directly on the heels of the one where I asked you if you could point me to a source that will confirm your allegation that Molly Marshall left her husband for another woman.

When you tell me something that might be verifiable, I’m going to check it out. If what you say is verifiable and it can stand up to research and honest scrutiny, I will believe it. But if your allegations can’t stand up to a bit of research, I can see why you would want to bow out.

 

Here's video from the discussion of the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/videos/videos.html

For what it's worth, this is how Sizemore's statement was reported by Baptist Press. Baptist Press distorts Sizemore's statement to make it sound like Sizemore thought that the Bible had no inspiration or authority:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=6063

 

See, you have proven my point by pointing to Scripture to prove yours. If the Scripture is not necessary for knowing Christ, why then do you use it to prove your point? If it is dispensable, why use it now? Maybe because you are debating a backwater fundamentalist? ?

What about John 17:17: "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." The word of God is truth. He does not say "true" but "truth." By saying that it is "truth" He is saying that it is the standard of all things. If He had said that it was "true" then that would mean that it should be held up to something else that determines its "true-ness." But He says "truth." It is the standard of all things in this world, even claims about Christ. Also, note that our sanctification comes in Scripture.

Again, you have defeated yourself by referring to digging deep into the teachings of Christ and responding to His command to follow Him. Where do you find the teachings of Christ? Scripture, not an encounter with Him. Where do you find His command to follow Him? Scripture. By what you say here, you affirm that absolute necessity of Scripture. Yet below you deny that. I think (and I am not saying this to judge you, but to help) that you are being inconsistent.

To your credit, I agree with your vision of the Christian life: to "give your life in service of Christ to love sinners, practice mercy and self-denial, and to speak the truth even if it upsets the religious authorities that may be influential in our lives." If only you did not cut the legs out from under it by denying the necessity of Scripture for it!

True, though I think that your doctrine of Scripture leaves the door open too wide for people who wish to twist it.

"we must always interpret Paul in light of Christ" What mean you? If you mean the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, then I am with you all the way. But if you mean interpreting Paul in light of our subjective encounter with Christ, then I am not. Also, does not Paul teach us about Christ? As you said, the New Testament reflects upon Him; would that not involve teaching us about Him?

We know Jesus through a personal encounter mediated by the Holy Spirit...We know factual information about Jesus through the gospel story that may be told to us through the scripture or another person...You just shifted the question.

I did not shift the question. To make a hard and fast distinction between knowing someone and knowing about someone is fallacious. For example, if I said that I know President Bush but knew nothing about Him, would you doubt that I really knew Him? Or, I know my wife and know a lot about her. I only can say that I know her well because I know a lot about her. It is the same with Christ. If I say that I know Him well, yet I know relatively little about Him, would you say that I know Him well.

"While factual information is certainly a part of coming to know Christ personally, the Bible itself is not required." Romans 10:17: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." The word of Christ here must mean Scripture. If it means some oral tradition (which we no longer have), then none of us have the hope of salvation, as we would not have heard the oral tradition. It can mean nothing other than Scripture. The Bible (or, at the very least, some part of Scripture) is very much required. Also, remember John 17:17? Our sanctification comes through the word.

"Early Christians did not have the New Testament for many years (although the letters from the apostles and others to the churches were collected and the story of Christ was told among themselves)." They had the writings of the New Testament from quite an early time. Also, should we base our theology and practice on something we know relatively little about (the history of the early church)?

"The Bible is certainly very important to Christian faith and life, but it is not indispensable." This is where we part theologies. I would never say (and I do not think that the majority of Christian history would say) that the Bible is dispensable. I think this dishonors God tremendously. Also, I think that this is the dividing line between "liberals" (or "moderates" or "people who do not believe the Bible"...KIDDING!! If we cannot laugh at ourselves, right?) and "conservatives" (or "backwater, uneducated fundamentalists).

You had to know that this paragraph would get the most response from me.

I am not dealing with hypothetical situations. The Bible does exist and it makes authoritative, exclusive claims about itself, God, and Christ.

"God has given us the scripture which provides an objective foundation for our subjective experiences with Christ. But we must NEVER elevate the scripture as the primary revelation of God to humankind." You just did! If Scripture is the objective foundation for a subjective experience of Christ, then it is more authoritative than our experience of Him. Thus, it interprets claims even about Christ. You frustrate me with these sorts of statements. When I read the first sentence I quoted ("God has given us…"), I was like, "Yes! That's it!" And then I read the next one and my spirit deflated.

How so?

Again, you are appealing to Scripture and defeating yourself. How do you know that the Christian life is a life of discipleship? Scripture tells you. We should tell them the gospel message? Where would we get that message? Also, how do we judge whether or not they are following Jesus? You answer that Scripture is their primary guide. But if it is dispensable, how can it be a guide to them? I would answer that Scripture is their only guide. How else would they know what it means to follow Jesus?

I, of course, do not think so.

I have made no such point!

AMEN!!

 

Here's video from the discussion of the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/videos/videos.html

For what it's worth, this is how Sizemore's statement was reported by Baptist Press. Baptist Press distorts Sizemore's statement to make it sound like Sizemore thought that the Bible had no inspiration or authority:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=6063 </font>[/QUOTE]Sizemore very clearly made a statement borne from theological neo-orthodoxy. His words were not taken from context.

 

I don't adhere to either. Both lead down a dead end road. Sounds a lot like the same kind of dogmatism of Mormonism--progressive revelation. They might have progressed some but it is still wrong. Truth is not a progression but an absolute. Biblical theology is that which comes from the historical context of the books of the Bible not some man-made theology.