BF&M Hitting Roadblocks Abroad

Mark me down as being on Tom Vols side in this debate.

"The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."

What does that Mean?

1. It must mean that there is exbiblical material about Jesus that will shed further light on the scripture.

2. It must mean that there are different experiences with Jesus that will result in different and valid interpretations.

3. It must mean that the Bible in and of itself is not completely reliable.

I was complaining about Article 1 in the 1963 BF&M long before it became an issue in the SBC and long before the 2000 BF&M statment was drafted and approved.

It seemed to me to be a loophole in logic that guaranteed disharmony among Southern Baptists.

And please could somebody tell me what I can know about Jesus that I can not confirm and cannot find in the Bible?

J Shaver

 

WARNING from the moderator

Please stay away from personal charges and countercharges and discuss the topic.

 

It means that we should use the portrait of Jesus in the gospels as our guideline to interpret the whole of scripture. For instance, we should interpret the Law and Prophets of the Old Testament the way Jesus did -- we should interpret Paul and the other writers of the New Testament by Jesus. Why? Because Jesus reveals God (John 1).

Nope. Never heard anyone say this before!

While people will certainly have individual experiences with Christ that differ in some ways, there is an astounding amount of agreement about the nature of Jesus throughout the ages. If you're trying to say that people like me are pushing experience as the primary interpreter of scripture, you truly do not understand the position.

Um, no... I have no idea where this came from.The Bible *is* completely reliable, but it needs interpretation. "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" is an interpretive key.

I suspect you did not understand the principle. I do concede that it does allow a bit more interpretive freedom since Jesus is a person and not a hardline philosophy. Of course, disharmony only comes when people refuse to give their brothers and sisters the freedom to follow Christ according to the way God has called them. We are all in different places in our spiritual journey, coming from all directions, but we are heading to the same place. (And just for the record, I'm not talking about universalism here... I'm also not saying that there are many different ways to God, there is only one way, Jesus Christ -- but we have been called from where we are, from our culture, from our political views, from our philosophical world views and we are all moving to Jesus.)

You can know Him personally, like I think you do. Here is the mystery: the Bible points us to Jesus, Who is alive and living in believers and among His people. When you were born again you probably didn't know much about the Bible, but God was revealed to you in Christ. As a result of your experience with Christ, you have developed a need to know more about God and have turned to the Bible for information and inspiration. But the Bible is not *the* revelation of God -- it does provide us with information. The Bible is fully reliable and inspired, but it is not "the revelation of God".

Both of us share in the experience of knowing Christ which is something apart from the Bible. Abraham was counted righteous before God without any sort of written text (that we know of) and without knowing all the facts about Jesus (Jesus was simply his descendant by which all the nations were to be blessed) but his faith in God is the model for our saving faith in God (See Galatians 3-4 and Romans 4 and 9).

 

Where from the BF&M 2000 does this impression come from? When the 2000 BF&M says "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's Revelation of Himself to man," It is not saying it is the only revelation. Of course God has revealed himself through History, through Nature and through the person of Jesus Christ.

Baptists existed for over 300 years before Southern Baptists decided to add "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."

The BF&M of 2000 statement on the Scriptures seems to me to be a simple matter of going back to our theological roots.

J Shaver

 

Without a lot of time to reply, I will add just a few points:

1) Sizemore's statement still clarifies the difference in the mod/lib & conservative viewpoints. For the mod, the bible is just a book (thus vulnerable to human limitations and errors). For the conservative, the bible is God's revelation of Himself (not the only revelation but a revelation nonetheless--a revelation without error in its original autographs).

2) This "Jesus as the criterion" argument is a tactic often employed by mod/libs to suggest conservatives elevate Scripture over Christ. It is a misnomer and holds no weight.

3) The SBC people have spoken and decided the direction of the convention. If one does not like that direction they have three primary options: 1) leave, 2) attempt to change it, 3) remain and do nothing. All are viable options and have been utilized by different people throughout SBC history.

4) If you think for one second there was not mod/lib hostility toward conservatives, you know nothing about the pre-resurgence days of SEBTS & SBTS.

Bottom line: the conservative leadership of the SBC were willing to pay the price and fight the battle. They believed the need was there and they accomplished what they set out to do. You can agree or disagree that the need was there (that is another issue), but in their minds the need was a life or death reality. I happened to agree with them and am thankful they had the courage to do what they did. I believe they rescued a denomination for the slippery slope of liberalism.

 

This coming from the same one who wants to open the door to homosexuality as a cultural norm.

W/o having to get into a game of listing churches and leaders, I would suggest that the SBC has many more culturally relevent churches that are reaching the masses than any mod/lib church with which I am familiar. Perhaps you can enlighten us on some of those mod/lib churches that are growing at a rapid pace. What are the Saddlebacks of the mod/lib movement?

 

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.</font>[/QUOTE]To accuse me of lying is laughable. Your own quote substantiates his quote. To claim contextual confusion is laughable as well. The thousands of messengers, even cronies from the CBF who tried unsucessfully to distance themselves form the comment, speaks volumes about this outlandish claim.
There is much that is inherently theologically fallacious about this quote which stems from an underlying view of the Bible as being less than the inerrant, inspired, trustworthy Word of God that has been bandied about before on other threads so I won't rehash here.
The straw man about the 2000 BFM placing the Bible above Christ has been debunked on numerous occasions. What Sizemore and others need to do is explain why they find it necessary to divorce the Christ of the Bible with the Christ of their intellectual creation.

[ June 26, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

All I did was quote you. I copied the text. Don't blame me for what you wrote and the computer copied

 

Considering our culture for the time being places little, if any, value on absolute truth, becoming somewhat irrelevant to this culture may be a necessity unless one places relevancy over truth.

Ken

 

First of all, about the Sizemore quote, being at the convention (Assuming I did not hear it firsthand and wasn't there is rather narrow-minded of you and others), reading the articles and clarifications afterwards does wonders. This is much better than blindly swallowing propoganda from the CBF machinery.

I will PM you with some general comments about the above. I just don't feel naming names would be right in a public arena.

[ June 26, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Considering our culture for the time being places little, if any, value on absolute truth, becoming somewhat irrelevant to this culture may be a necessity unless one places relevancy over truth.

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]Well said and worth saying.

 

Personally, I believe they doomed the denomination to irrelevance in a culture that is increasingly no longer defining itself according to modernistic paradigms.

Joshua</font>[/QUOTE]Proclaimers of the Word of God will become irrelevant when the Word of God becomes irrelevant. Societies come and go. Eras and philosophies come and go. The Word of God endures and does not change.

The church is at its best when it stands distinct from the popular culture. To be considered irrelevant by a decadent society would be a grand testimony.

BTW, I am IFB. All of this bickering has confirmed my conviction against any extra-biblical, authoritative organization above the local level. The way the SBC wields its power is not so much the issue as is the fact that it has power at all.

[ June 26, 2002, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Tom,
How about using the whole quote rather then just the part you find offensive. Using only half of what some said would have got the women caught in adultery killed. ("...cast the first stone.").

 

This whole discussion is interesting to me as an outsider. There are a bunch of people who hate the reclaiming of the SBC by the conservatives complaining that the conservatives they revile so much are keeping them out of an organization they hate. That is remarkable to me. If you hate the organization and its stance, why do you complain that you have to agree with their doctrine to be a part of it?? It makes no sense. In the bottom line, it shows that it is a power struggle. For the liberals, it is not about doctrine; it is about power and since they don't have it, they complain.

The present position of the SBC is far closer to its historical roots than the position of 20-30 years ago by any objectives historian's perspective. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that out.

Agreeing to the BFM is a matter of determining doctrinal bases for fellowship. In far too many organizations, doctrine is minimized. The apostles would have never tolerated the doctrine of the liberal/modernist wing of the SBC. Paul took Peter to task over something as simple as his associations in Gal 2. Today, the doors of "orthodox doctrine" are far too open. I think the BFM is very weak personally. And I think like Scott said, this illustrates many of the problems of the SBC. There are many good people in it -- why?? I'll never figure out.

Many are the men in history who have made conscientious stands against false doctrine adn lost more than their pensions and the like. If the liberals are convinced they are right, they should gladly make that sacrifice. Their hesitancy to shows that, in the bottom line, they are pragmatic. Standing for what they believe is right doctrine is fine so long as it doesn't cost too much.

Just some outsider perspective ...

 

Please note, I did not accuse you of lying. I said what you have repeated here is a disgraceful lie. Whenever I talk to people I disagree with, I always try to assume the best of others. I assumed you had been misled by the Baptist Press and the SBC leaders.

No it doesn't. He's using the statement to make the comparison between the record of God's revelation (the Bible) and the living Lord Jesus. Now you may disagree with the statement that the Bible is the "record of God's revelation", but you can certainly tell he did not mean what you say he means. To claim anything else is dishonesty or extreme denial.

I don't think anyone has been trying to distance themselves from it -- rather, they've been trying to ensure that Sizemore is reported accurately. I think Sizemore is absolutely right and wouldn't dream of distancing myself from it. Of course, I'm not taking his statements out of context...

Did you just say that "the Bible is less than the inerrant, inspired, trustworthy Word of God"???? I'm shocked!! I thought you believed the Bible! Why are you denying God's word like that! It just goes to show what happens with weak theology... you go on the slippery slope. I guess all of your friends and your church believes the same way too huh?

(How does it feel? That's exactly what the SBC leadership has done to Anthony Sizemore.)

We are talking about the Christ of the Bible.

Deal with it.

[ June 26, 2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[QB]

Hmm... I saw it on video. I don't know how anyone could misunderstand what he was saying. The SBC leaders understood him, that's why they immediately painted him as some sort of liberal. I was assuming the best about you and thought you could comprehend what was being said... I guess I was wrong.

 

I don't hate the organization. I do not like its new stance. I'm not a part of it anymore and recognize that the SBC is on a path to self-destruction. I do care about the people who are being lied to and the terrible public witness.

It's about doctrine. That should be obvious from our discussions. It's also about telling the truth.

Rocket scientists are necessary... But the SBC is doctrinally closer to the Particular Baptist root of its beginnings. It's moving away from the General Baptist root though. As far as polity and local church autonomy goes, it's racing in the opposite direction from historic Baptist ideals.

It is becoming that way now. Previously, Southern Baptists were united by a common desire to do mission work more effectively. Money and people flowed out from the local church to do the work. All that was necessary to become a Southern Baptist church was to financially participate in the mission program. Since the convention had no authority over the churches, there were no doctrinal tests for fellowship.

Nice subject. You need to bring it up when we are sitting together with Peter, Paul and the Lord Jesus at the wedding feast of the Lamb. It will make good conversation.

They have. Of course, they're only branded as "liberals" -- They really aren't.

Personally, it has cost me quite a bit to follow Jesus where he has led. I've been a voice of dissent several places and it has cost me a church, quite a few friends and financial rewards. It has cost some others I know much more. Don't ever believe that people like me don't truly mean what they say.

 

Gotochurch, actually the conservatives were in control before the liberals, that is why it is called a resurgence.

anyways, regarding the subject if those in other countries don't agere with the BF&M they shouldn't sign it. One should be willing to live or die by their convictions. I believe in the Bible, through and through, I will live and die by it. I am a southern Baptist, but first I am a Christian, if the SBC goes away from the truth of the Scriptures, I will go away from the SBC. We have to abide by God, after all, He is the one that will judge us in the end

 

They call it a "resurgence", but it seems to be more of a surgence. I don't think any "liberals" were ever in leadership in the SBC...

Amen! That's why I've left. The reason I still care is that there *is* a judgement coming and I feel obligated to warn others...