BB influence for good?

[BobRyan]

Similar to my own testimony - had it not been for the BB, I'd probably still be Baptist! How's that for irony?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1152866&postcount=31

In the post above MB argues convincingly for benefit for Baptists that are not really in agreement with "sola scriptura" seeing the true depth to which the sola-scriptura position is out of harmony with their "tradition-first" model.

I point that out in my response.

Bob said
From the very beginning you have been more concerned about extra-biblical statements than actually looking at scripture or ever making a single exegetical "sola scriptura" argument.

You have consistently avoided actual Bible exegesis like the plague since your arrival here - and this predilection on your part that appeared to have predated your participation here was clearly evident by way of stark contrast to the "sola scriptura" methods so common on this board.

This should have helped you see clearly that your methods were never in harmony with evangelical "Sola-scriptura" models and were even PRIOR to coming here totally bent valuing "man-made-traditions" arising AFTER the first century far above scripture and sola-scriptura methods of exegesis -- i.e. "paying attention to the inconvenient details IN scripture"!

So clearly for baptists that are drifting away from sola-scriptura - making personnal choices to reject it over time - will benefit from BB by getting a fresh look at just how far they have drifted off course with evangelicals and will be confronted with the need to find another church that fits their needs.

So that is "one way traffic out".

What about the "traffic coming IN"?

Many here have testified that they came OUT of tradition-shackled denominations to the freedom of a more evangelical "sola-scriptura" denomination.

We probably wont see some groups saying "as a result of participating on the BB I came out of my tradition-shackled prior-denomination" because there are some groups that are not allowed to post.

We "Might" expect some to say "as a result of reading threads here -- though not allowed to participate -- I came out of my tradition-shackled denomination" -- but one would think that it is more likely that people leave a position of error when given a chance to ask questions, express concerns, dig into scripture on questions that interest them.

So by the nature of the existing rules we may find that the benefit such as MB has stated it above - is the primary one for those changing denominations where as the "traffic coming into" evangelical churches as a result of BB participation might be more restricted. (Less likely to be seen)

Thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

Bob,

I think some people just...for whatever reason...have some of type of need or desire to be told what to believe. They want others to do the thinking...so that they can just "fall in line" and be another cog on the wheel.

They dont have any confidence in God. God says He will teach us. God says He will feed us truth. Does God lie? God says "if a son askes for bread, will a father give Him a stone?". God tells us "ask!", and we will recieve. If we sincerely ask God to open our eyes and teach us truth...He WILL!

But some think..."but maybe He wont? How can I be sure?" And they choose instead to seek out an organisation who will do their thinking for them....in the form, many times, of what christians believed centuries earlier.

Of course, the evidence is clear that that is a disasterous choice. The Catholic Church, as the worst example, has produced worse blasphemy and idolatry each century than the century before for 1600 years now. We evangelicals, on the other hand...although we sometimes disagree on periferal issues...manage to stay strongly rooted in truth, because of course every one of us is turning to the same unchanging and inerrant truth standard.

As far as Matt and others claim about the discussions here driving them away, there are of course many scriptural teachings regarding straying from truth and opting for error. Its something that happens, and the discussions that take place here would not be to blame in my opinion.

There are much more significant things going on.

"They went out from among us, because they never were a part of us"

"Let them alone. They are the blind leading the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will end up in a ditch"

I'n not necesarrily saying that Matt specifically, or anyone else, is "blind", or that they "arent a part of us" of course. I'm just speaking generally regarding this issue. Not pointing the finger at anyone specifically.

Mike

 

[Linda64]

Why blame the BB? Blaming someone or something else is simply an excuse...both Adam and Eve did the same thing in the Garden.

Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see "blame" going on here -- did I miss something?

The point of the OP is to show that by filtering with certain rules we are more likely to see "one way traffic out" than "one way traffic in". These people will be making their decisions anyway - but the BB helps them accelerate that process by seeing sola-scriptura methods applied to a number of subjects.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Many here have testified that they came OUT of tradition-shackled denominations to the freedom of a more evangelical "sola-scriptura" denomination.

If we really believed "sola scriptura", there would be no denominations. God's Word unites. Man's opinions divide.

 

[BobRyan]

That is true - the Bible is not "having it both ways".

the extent to which we have differences is the extent to which "man-made tradition" has made inroads into our understanding of God's Word.

Christ had the same problem with the differences that existed between HIS view of scripture and the Disciples view of it.

"I have many more things to tell you but you can not bear them now" John 16.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

"If we really believed "sola scriptura", there would be no denominations."

I dont think that really the issue. It goes without saying that "sola scriptura" is true and that we are correct for having that mindset. And we really do believe it. The problem isnt that we dont believe it.

The problem is that none of us have *perfect* hearing, and never will while in our "earth suits".

Mike

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I dont think that really the issue. It goes without saying that "sola scriptura" is true and that we are correct for having that mindset. And we really do believe it. The problem isnt that we dont believe it.

The problem is that none of us have *perfect* hearing, and never will while in our "earth suits".

Mike

I agree. Many denominations claims Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura was a cry out of the reformation, yet many denominations do not agree with reformation theology -- but many will agree to "Sola Scriptura."

In other words, saying "Sola Scriptura" can mean almost anything these days. I think that was kind of the point Matt was making to begin with.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Probably so. I think lots of groups like the idea of sola scriptura, but very few people are actually committed to it. More often than not, man made tradition is given greater allegiance than Scripture. Often those who preach that the Bible is the only rule for faith and practice have in their own creed books or church manuals doctrines and beliefs that are pure tradition based on a fraction of God's word.

 

[D28guy]

"Often those who preach that the Bible is the only rule for faith and practice have in their own creed books or church manuals doctrines and beliefs that are pure tradition based on a fraction of God's word."

But even if they do, those doctrinal statements or "what we believe" statements are flooded with what they believe to be the scriptural support for those positions.

As opposed to groups like the Catholic Church and others who base doctrine and beliefs many times on what fallible men long ago mistakenly added to scripture. (unbiblical tradition, ECF's, etc.)

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

In the post above MB argues convincingly for benefit for Baptists that are not really in agreement with "sola scriptura" seeing the true depth to which the sola-scriptura position is out of harmony with their "tradition-first" model.

I point that out in my response.



So clearly for baptists that are drifting away from sola-scriptura - making personnal choices to reject it over time - will benefit from BB by getting a fresh look at just how far they have drifted off course with evangelicals and will be confronted with the need to find another church that fits their needs.

So that is "one way traffic out".

What about the "traffic coming IN"?

Many here have testified that they came OUT of tradition-shackled denominations to the freedom of a more evangelical "sola-scriptura" denomination.

We probably wont see some groups saying "as a result of participating on the BB I came out of my tradition-shackled prior-denomination" because there are some groups that are not allowed to post.

We "Might" expect some to say "as a result of reading threads here -- though not allowed to participate -- I came out of my tradition-shackled denomination" -- but one would think that it is more likely that people leave a position of error when given a chance to ask questions, express concerns, dig into scripture on questions that interest them.

So by the nature of the existing rules we may find that the benefit such as MB has stated it above - is the primary one for those changing denominations where as the "traffic coming into" evangelical churches as a result of BB participation might be more restricted. (Less likely to be seen)

Thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

As the original thread has been closed, I'll have to answer here.

Bob, I've been here for nigh on five years now. When I joined, I was a pretty-much fundamentalist sola Scriptura-ist who was a member of a Baptist church having come out of a more Traditional (Anglican and Catholic) and latterly charismatic setting. I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I gave Baptist evangelicalism my best shot: I rejected Tradition and tried to go by the Bible alone. But I have also always been concerned for the Truth and, in due course, both here and in my 'real life' home group at church, I experienced the fact that those of us who adhered to SS were bitterly divided on a variety of issues - eschatology, gifts of the Spirit, Calvinism -v- Arminianism etc. All of us appealed to the Scriptures to justify our POVs. We couldn't - can't - all be right. My burning questions then became: where, then, is the Truth and who has it, and how do I know it? Whose interpretation of Scripture is correct. IIRC, I started a thread here round about that time called "The Theological bankruptcy of sola Scriptura" or some such like - you may be able to find it; I can't. So that's my journey.

But you are right - there is a two-way traffic: for every one like me who becomes disenchanted with straight down the line evangecalism, there will be someone coming out of the more Traditional churches where, for whatever reason, they've been unable to enjoy a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (or not the fullness of that relationship that they have subsequently found), and finding that relationship within evangelicalism. For those people, the BB certainly helps I believe and long may it continue.

Just my $0.02

 

[Gold Dragon]

But you are right - there is a two-way traffic: for every one like me who becomes disenchanted with straight down the line evangecalism, there will be someone coming out of the more Traditional churches where, for whatever reason, they've been unable to enjoy a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (or not the fullness of that relationship that they have subsequently found), and finding that relationship within evangelicalism. For those people, the BB certainly helps I believe and long may it continue.

Thanks for sharing and making some great points.

I think it is important to add that the direction of the traffic is not necessarily the most important thing. In both situations people find themselves at a point in their journey of faith where their current church tradition/viewpoint can no longer allow them to grow in their faith and knowledge of Christ. The change allows for that growth and I believe that is what is really important.

I support changes in denomination/tradition when that change promotes growth in the person's spiritual life. Sometimes that is from evangelicalism to more tradition-centred churches.

 

[BobRyan]

As the original thread has been closed, I'll have to answer here.

Bob, I've been here for nigh on five years now. When I joined, I was a pretty-much fundamentalist sola Scriptura-ist who was a member of a Baptist church having come out of a more Traditional (Anglican and Catholic) and latterly charismatic setting. I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I gave Baptist evangelicalism my best shot:

Wouldn't you agree that in the history of your posting here you have never (or should I say "almost never") made a sola scriptura argument? you are always arguing from the writings of men - and perceptions of flawed men in the past -- and never making arguments based soley on the inspired Word of God.

Your methods have been to rely on the word-of-men rather than exegesis and The Word of God alone to make your case.

Clearly from the very beginning on this board you seem to have been "most comfortable" with "tradition plus some scripture mixed in at times".

I rejected Tradition and tried to go by the Bible alone.

But not as a participant on a subject on this board?

But I have also always been concerned for the Truth and, in due course, both here and in my 'real life' home group at church, I experienced the fact that those of us who adhered to SS were bitterly divided

As were the RCC and Eastern Orthodox (tradition-shackled) faith traditions.

As we have already seen "the existence of differences" was never seen to "be absent" from the bitter divisions that existed historical been tradition-bound faith groups.

EVEN the RCC theologian Martin Luther argues that Popes AND their own RC church Councils "were in disagreement with each other" on matters of tradition.

Looking at all the varieties in views between Lutheran, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, RCC, Episcopal etc "

"They couldn't - can't - all be right."

So given that these TRADITION burdened group do NOT agree ask yourself the question " where, then, is the Truth and who has it, and how do I know it?"

Is it sinful man and the many conflicting traditions of sinful man -- in that case -- the Methodists have "traditions" and the "Baptists" and the "Church of Christ" and the "Lutherans" and the Presbyterians etc.

ALL of them have their own Magesterium.

ALL of them have their own closely held traditions

ALL of them have scripture.

"Whose tradition is correct"

You started a thread called "The Theological bankruptcy of sola Scriptura" or some such like - but did you EVER find that "There is NO differences between RCC, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian ..."

Even WITHIN the RCC there is debate over Vatican II and the assumption of Mary and almost every other tradition let alone BETWEEN RCC and other groups.

The case has NEVER been made in all of these threads "There is NO tradition differences between tradition-based denominations".

No not even once.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

My argument is that you benefit from the BB by seeing the extent to which your reliance on tradition does not agree with the "Sola Scriptura model".

I also argue that you can avail yourself of the BB opportunity to explore the tradition-gaps "of tradition topics" to see EVEN more clearly all the ways the varies tradition-shackled denominations DIFFER among themselves on matters of tradition.

Purgatory anyone?
Indulgences?
Pope as infallible head of the CHRISTIAN Church? Vicar of Christ?
Mary as "sinless"
Mary as having only ever had one child?
Mary as "Queen of Heaven"?
IMAGES to Mary?
Altars to Mary?
Magic transubstantiation phrases?
Infallible RCC council decrees?
"Extermination of dissenters"?

List of man-made-traditions and the existence of tradition-based groups that would NOT agree to the same points -- is almost endless.

MB

But you are right - there is a two-way traffic: for every one like me who becomes disenchanted with straight down the line evangecalism, there will be someone coming out of the more Traditional churches where, for whatever reason,

Indeed - IF We were more "OPEN" to those denominations steeped in man-made-tradition and we could present to THEM the list above - showing them that tradition is a failed solution for the panacea of "no division - no differences" we would see THEM leaving and coming to the INFALLIBLE source of scripture -- God ALONE -- God's WORD as the infallible source.

they've been unable to enjoy a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour

I would not argue that those coming out of the tradition-shackled groups did so because "Jesus was not there" or "Could not be found" or ... I think they just see the light of leaving a dark-ages model and going to a more Protestant "Sola scriptura" model is truly following the Acts 17:11 model and embracing the words of Christ in Mark 7 where we are told that "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" is pure error.

Because the board tends to shy away from letting them in -- the "benefit seen" here is going to be more for people in your position than for those leaving the tradition-based groups.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Wouldn't you agree that in the history of your posting here you have never (or should I say "almost never") made a sola scriptura argument? you are always arguing from the writings of men - and perceptions of flawed men in the past -- and never making arguments based soley on the inspired Word of God.

Your methods have been to rely on the word-of-men rather than exegesis and The Word of God alone to make your case.

Clearly from the very beginning on this board you seem to have been "most comfortable" with "tradition plus some scripture mixed in at times".

Bob, with respect, I would disagree with your assessment of my early postings here. In those earlier times I used to post in the 'Baptist-only' sections and my posts were by and large based on SS; the trouble was that I pretty soon butted up against other Baptist posters who were arguing a position contradictory to my own, based likewise on SS - they would claim that their interpretation of Scripture was correct and mine wasn't and I would likewise repay the compliment, and so round and round we went in ever-decreasing circles, and it was this which first sparked my train of thought which lead me to where I am now. I don't know whether you were around back then (c 5 years ago) or whether you lurked on the Baptist-only sections but I had several spats with someone called Mark Osgatharp and various other members in the manner referred to above.

But not as a participant on a subject on this board?

See above - try the Baptist only sections in the archives

As were the RCC and Eastern Orthodox (tradition-shackled) faith traditions.

As we have already seen "the existence of differences" was never seen to "be absent" from the bitter divisions that existed historical been tradition-bound faith groups.

EVEN the RCC theologian Martin Luther argues that Popes AND their own RC church Councils "were in disagreement with each other" on matters of tradition.

See my thread on Scripture and Tradition re significant differences pre and post 1054 and the sufficiency of the deposit of faith prior to that.

Looking at all the varieties in views between Lutheran, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, RCC, Episcopal etc "

"They couldn't - can't - all be right."

See above re pre-1054. BTW, Anglican and Episcopalian are the same animal

So given that these TRADITION burdened group do NOT agree ask yourself the question " where, then, is the Truth and who has it, and how do I know it?"

The consensus of the pre-1054 Undivided Church as stated above

Is it sinful man and the many conflicting traditions of sinful man -- in that case -- the Methodists have "traditions" and the "Baptists" and the "Church of Christ" and the "Lutherans" and the Presbyterians etc.

ALL of them have their own Magesterium.

ALL of them have their own closely held traditions

ALL of them have scripture.

"Whose tradition is correct"

You started a thread called "The Theological bankruptcy of sola Scriptura" or some such like - but did you EVER find that "There is NO differences between RCC, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian ..."

Even WITHIN the RCC there is debate over Vatican II and the assumption of Mary and almost every other tradition let alone BETWEEN RCC and other groups.

The case has NEVER been made in all of these threads "There is NO tradition differences between tradition-based denominations".

No not even once.

in Christ,

Bob

Pre-1054, my friend, pre-1054...

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, here's one of my early threads as an example

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, with respect, I would disagree with your assessment of my early postings here. In those earlier times I used to post in the 'Baptist-only' sections and my posts were by and large based on SS;

In that case I would not have seen them. I am just posting from the POV/context of seeing your solutions posted here.

- they would claim that their interpretation of Scripture was correct and mine wasn't and I would likewise repay the compliment,

Same is true in the list of traditions I gave.

Nothing new there.

See my thread on Scripture and Tradition re significant differences pre and post 1054 and the sufficiency of the deposit of faith prior to that.

See above re pre-1054. BTW, Anglican and Episcopalian are the same animal

The consensus of the pre-1054 Undivided Church as stated above

Is it your claim that "tradition USED to be sufficient to keep all denominations in line under the RCC but now even that does not work"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, here's one of my early threads as an example

Unless I really missing the boat here - this thread you point to is arguing about KJVO -- pro-vs-con. I have no idea how that would be debated "sola scriptura" and i don't see anyone arguing "Paul says in his letter to the Galatians that you can only read the KJV" etc.

Did I miss your point??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Is it your claim that "tradition USED to be sufficient to keep all denominations in line under the RCC but now even that does not work"??

in Christ,

Bob

Yes to the "tradition used to be sufficient" part, no to the "all denominations in line under the RCC" part - prior to 1054 there were no denominations and no RCC

 

[BobRyan]

The question is -- do you now claim that "it doesn't work like it used to"?

If it is no better than "sola scriptura" why not use the Bible method approved in Acts 17:11?

Recall that when speaking to the magesterium of the one TRUE church started by God at Sinai and fully steeped in tradition Christ condemned them saying that they 'teach for doctrine the commandments of men' - Mark 7.

This is significant becase ALL DENOMINATIONS agree that GOD started the nation-church of Israel at Sinai and that pre-cross there was "no other church" in existence. Was "tradition just not working then either"?

in Christ,

Bob