Are liberal religionist sending

[AF Guy N Paradise]

Our church's theme verse is Acts 17:11 (KJV) and I think it applies here.

Aloha!

 

[Rev. Joshua]

On what basis do you call yourselves Baptists? What historical confession or description or acknowledged set of biblical distinctives do you ascribe to?

The Covenant of the Alliance of Baptists can be found ]url=http://www.allianceofbaptists.org/covenant.htm]here[/url]. I think it is squarely consistent with the historic baptists principle described by baptist historians like Buddy Shurden.

I remain baptist because I believe, when properly exercised, the baptists distinctives of local church autonomy, regenerate church membership, baptism of the believer, soul competency, and separation of church and state are the fullest expression of Christian community.

Why would someone like you want to be called a Baptist requiring you to explain how you disagree with what most (and the best known) Baptists promote as truth?

I'm a baptist because I believe in baptist distinctives. The fact that the newly resurgent right wing of baptist life is the most prominent does not make them the benchmark for authentic baptists. In addition, remember that I'm not the one who moved. When I was a kid, the Southern Baptist seminaries were turning out people like me.

BTW, can you name a sin that you consider a sin 100% of the time regardless of the situation? If so, can you please cite the authority by which you make your claim?

Well, I think there is a clear pattern of moral relativism regarding specific behaviors when the biblical writings are taken together - so I prefer to speak in terms of general principles. Nevertheless, there are probably some actions that always violate those principles. Rape, for instance, is always wrong. There is no context in which it might be healthy or good behavior. As for why its wrong, theres is some biblical support for the fact that the early Israelite viewed it as an acceptable way of acquiring a wife (Judges 10:21-24, for instance) but the clear teachings of Jesus and the precedent of the early church are that we should not use violence to dominate others.

Joshua

 

[dianetavegia]

Brother Joshua, Until I went to your site and read it, I assumed YOU were homosexual. I didn't realize you're a husband and father.

However, I still think you're wrong.

Diane

 

[bapterian]

I'm conservative, but I've seen some KJV-Only remarks that would cause christians to stumble. Legalism can be just as harmful as liberalism. I define liberalism as denying some or all of the central tenets of Christianity. I define legalism as teaching rules or doctrine where the Bible is silent.

When "liberals" visit, just give your response with grace and don't get emotional. If you're speaking truth, the Holy Spirit will convict. Let Him do the work.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Istherenotacause: // "Repent ye! And believe the Gospel!"
Mark 1:15, AV 1611 //

IMHO you should correctly idenify the
source as such:

S.Mark I:15b (KJV1611):
... repent ye, and beleeue the Gospell.

Mark 1:15b (KJV1769):
... repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Thank you for your prayerful consideration of
this request. We Boreans like to check the
Holy Scripture references.

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by Scott J:
My contention has long been that "Baptist" is what I believe, not what I am. Many of your views depart from the historical baptistic beliefs.

It is a mystery as to why liberals such as yourself would want to be identified with traditions and beliefs that are contrary to much of what you espouse.

Joshua came out of fundamentalism, conserving what he perceived to be most valid among the various principles various men (and occasional women) have called "Baptist distinctives".

Then there are those like me, who were raised in a Baptist church with a Baptist minister for a father, and who didn't discover there were actual Christians in America who could vote for Nixon and for war with a clean conscience. I had no idea that fundamentalism was a dominant trait in Baptist circles until I was in my late teens. It was an eye-opening discovery. But it didn't make me give up my Baptist identity. Nor did the discovery that most Baptists did not accept their gay coreligionists as equals, even though (like Joshua) I am not gay.

So this mystery exists on both sides, Scott.

Haruo
constantly amazed by God's commitment to diversity

 

[new man]

Boy this gets old.

They might start disagreeing with you about particular sins or the age of the Earth, but they'd still get the same old gospel of salvation through Christ and repentance of sins.

That is debatable as what you label sin and what the Bible labels sin seems to differ rather significantly.

Good preaching, therefore, offers models of God which are as comprehensive as we can manage. None of us will convey the fullness of Holy God, but we can offer as many theologically healthy ways as we can for people to relate to God. God as "Mother" as well as "Father" falls into that category.

This is pretty standard stuff in mainstream Christian theology...

Baloney. This "theology" is out on the absolute fringe and is light years from the historical apostolic understanding of the God of the Bible. It has already been pointed out that there exists not ONE instance in the scriptures in which God is portrayed in the feminine gender, and has no basis in fact. As you pointed out feminist "Thealogy" has attempted to wrest the Proverbial wisdom passages to fit their abberant understanding of God.

I'm willing to bet that if you were to poll 100 seminaries and divinity schools, the vast majority of them encourage the use of inclusive language in reference to God.

It wouldn't matter if 10,000 seminaries encouraged heresy. It is still heresy. With some notable exceptions, today's seminaries aren't exactly bastions of truth anyway.

Rape, for instance, is always wrong. There is no context in which it might be healthy or good behavior. As for why its wrong, theres is some biblical support for the fact that the early Israelite viewed it as an acceptable way of acquiring a wife (Judges 10:21-24, for instance)..

My bible doesn't have Judges 10:21-24.


I would proffer that there is a huge difference between being liberal minded and being a Liberal

. Being liberal in giving is good. Being liberal with love and kindness is also good. Jesus was liberal, but not a Liberal

. Myself and a friend have discussed this to some degree and he has has expounded on it here. I think he is right on the money (there are in fact still a few good Wesleyan Methodists out there

).


Russ <><

[ May 08, 2003, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: new man ]

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Sorry, typing quickly - Judges 21:10-24.

Joshua

P.S. Diane - I assumed you were straight, but I still think you're wrong. .

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello Joshua,

I have done some pretty extensive searching of the BB (using the search function) and I can not locate the thread where we discussed your Mother God theory. However, I remember that you started the thread and you expressed something about how we here on the BB have effected your preaching. Then you put up the text of a recent sermon that dealt with the Motherhood of God issue and asked what we all thought about the sermon. I wish that I could locate that thread; however, it appears to have been deleted. I even searched on your name and on BibleboyII and the particular thread did not surface. Oh well....

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
I have done some pretty extensive searching of the BB (using the search function)

As far as I can tell, the search function on BaptistBoard is nearly useless for any discussion that has been inactive more than a few months. For instance, I tried to locate the thread on Pete Townshend’s arrest for child porn a few days ago so I could post the relevant link to the new developments, but could not find the discussion after about 2 hours worth of searching.

It doesn’t surprise me that you can’t find the discussion… But I do remember it because I was involved in it.

…and I can not locate the thread where we discussed your Mother God theory.

I think it is a distortion to refer to it as a “Mother God theory”, but I have little doubt that you understood it in those terms. I think a fairer way to describe it is that Joshua understands that God has revealed Himself not only in male imagery but in female imagery as well. Since God has no physical gender (except during the Incarnation), it is helpful for many people to recognize that God is Parent, expressing both stereotypical male and female characteristics. (Genesis 1:27 explicitly and boldly states that God created both male and female in His image.)

However, I remember that you started the thread and you expressed something about how we here on the BB have effected your preaching. Then you put up the text of a recent sermon that dealt with the Motherhood of God issue and asked what we all thought about the sermon.

Yes, that’s substantially how I remember the discussion… although the issue of God as Parent was only a side note in the sermon (perhaps one sentence), not the focus… that’s probably why Joshua doesn’t make the connection.

Maybe he will now?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by bapterian:
I'm conservative, but I've seen some KJV-Only remarks that would cause christians to stumble. Legalism can be just as harmful as liberalism. I define liberalism as denying some or all of the central tenets of Christianity. I define legalism as teaching rules or doctrine where the Bible is silent.

Amen, and Amen.

 

[massdak]

i would just say anyone left of dr. bob griffen should resign and leave their office

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by massdak:
i would just say anyone left of dr. bob griffen should resign and leave their office

Congrats Dr. Bob, you're the new standard of orthodoxy!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Resign? No way. Afraid I'd be the only one "left" on the BB.

Now if you said pile up the faggots and light the fire, then I'd mention that I happen to have a match.

(BTW, how did "I" become the butt of this joke? Am I perceived as being THAT conservative?

Must be the bowtie.)

 

[Jim1999]

Now if you said pile up the faggots and light the fire, then I'd mention that I happen to have a match.

______________________________________________

Now, there you have it. I don't believe in smoking fags either...or cigars..or pipes.....

Cheers,

Jim

 

[new man]

Sorry, typing quickly - Judges 21:10-24.

I didn't see even a hint about rape in that passage.


Russ <><

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
I think it is a distortion to refer to it as a “Mother God theory”, but I have little doubt that you understood it in those terms. I think a fairer way to describe it is that Joshua understands that God has revealed Himself not only in male imagery but in female imagery as well. Since God has no physical gender (except during the Incarnation), it is helpful for many people to recognize that God is Parent, expressing both stereotypical male and female characteristics. (Genesis 1:27 explicitly and boldly states that God created both male and female in His image.)

How about if I refer to it as Joshua's "Mother God Interpretation"?

You'll get no argument from me that the Bible is clear that God chose to create both male and female to somehow better reflect his own image (as opposed to male only). However, I hold to an interpretation of Genesis 1:27 that focuses on the one flesh union of Adam and Eve and the Triune nature of God. That one flesh union of the two (Adam and Eve) somehow reflects the image of God.

You know, two distinct people (Adam and Eve), equal in essence, both with different roles to fulfill; yet, one (in their one flesh union). This helps to reflect the Triune nature of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--three distinct persons, equal in essence, each with different roles to fulfill; yet, one God.

I know it is not a direct numerical correlation, but if we can understand how a man and a woman form a one flesh union it helps us to grasp how God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one.

But we digress...(the interpretation of Genesis 1:27 is not the point of this thread).

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by new man:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Sorry, typing quickly - Judges 21:10-24.

I didn't see even a hint about rape in that passage.


Russ &lt;&gt;&lt; </font>[/QUOTE]See?, if they had been good fundamental Baptist girls and not gone to dances, then none of this would have happened.

 

[massdak]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:


(BTW, how did "I" become the butt of this joke? Am I perceived as being THAT conservative?

Must be the bowtie.)

actually i dont perceive you to be all that conservative, in fact the guide line is you are as liberal as could be tolerated and anything even slightly to the left of you would be intolerable my good friend. it would even be nice if by that standard you would be considered the liberal on the board.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by massdak:
actually i dont perceive you [Dr. Bob] to be all that conservative, in fact the guide line is you are as liberal as could be tolerated and anything even slightly to the left of you would be intolerable my good friend. it would even be nice if by that standard you would be considered the liberal on the board.