Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

PL wrote:
> How can this be true? Being an inerrantist is kind of like being pregnant ... either you are or your are not. There is no middle ground.

Uh, that statement is not entirely accurate. There are 8 definitions of "inerrancy", some of which include my views, some of which don't.

Inerrancy: Definitions and Qualifications

> Not many inerrantists do. I certainly don't and I haven't seen anyone on this board that does (apart from some of the most radical KJVOnly-ites). Do not confuse verbal plenary inspiration with dictation.

Unless of course, such confusion gets you votes over those "liberals" at the SBC convention...

> I think this a part of inerrancy. Denying verbal plenary inspiration is the first step on the road to higher criticism.

Amen!

> If not all the words are inspired, then we can feel free to reject some of them as simply the author's lack of true knowledge (i.e., he did the best he could with what he had; he just did not have enough).

I don't "reject" anything, I just interpret it all with the primacy of the theological meaning as first and foremost, not the historical or scientific meaning.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are 8 definitions of "inerrancy", some of which include my views, some of which don't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the variations of inerrancy. My point stands that the Bible exists as a whole and if we talk about being without error then we must mean it all. To talk of part being without error (matters of faith) and the rest being open to error, then it is not inerrant by definition. That is what I earlier said: Limited inerrancy is an oxymoron. It is naive to think otherwise. If I have a math book that is totally correct except on one page is says 2+2=5, then it is not inerrant no matter how many explanations of theorems and equations are absolutely true.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't "reject" anything, I just interpret it all with the primacy of the theological meaning as first and foremost, not the historical or scientific meaning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did not all this start when you rejected what you claim to be the intent of Gen 1 concerning creation? You said you believe it teaches a six day creation, you just think it is wrong.

Furthermore, you have yet to give a basis for what is a theological matter of faith and what is the rest. For instance, creation has some theological implications (nature of God and man, sin and death, marriage, etc.). You claim that Scripture is inerrant about matters of faith yet when it comes to the faith of believing creation vs. the faith of beleiving evolution (which is faith no matter how soundly placed you might believe it is) you suddenly do not think that Scripture is inerrant on matters of faith.

I realize there are some implications of your position you do not want to face and I do not expect you to. But it would be nice to see some support of the "theological true/science up to question" hermeneutic. "I believe it" is not exactly proof worthy of discussion.

 

PL wrote:
&gt; I understand the variations of inerrancy. My point stands that the Bible exists as a whole and if we talk about being without error then we must mean it all.

Why? We don't hold anything else in Christianity to non-faith-related truth? Should we upgrade our expectations of the Baptist Hymnal?

&gt; To talk of part being without error (matters of faith) and the rest being open to error, then it is not inerrant by definition.

Not materially, no.

&gt; That is what I earlier said: Limited inerrancy is an oxymoron. It is naive to think otherwise.

That's why even though I agree with the positions of limited inerrancy, I prefer not to use that term, because it isn't very useful.

&gt;&gt;BWS: I don't "reject" anything, I just interpret it all with the primacy of the theological meaning as first and foremost, not the historical or scientific meaning.

&gt; Did not all this start when you rejected what you claim to be the intent of Gen 1 concerning creation? You said you believe it teaches a six day creation, you just think it is wrong.

That's correct. The basis for that is my belief that the Priestly writers took symbolic source material on Creation literally, which was an honest mistake on their part, but something we should not perpetuate. It's a matter of genre confusion.

I used to wonder if Gen 1 was intended to be taken symbolically, but now that I know more about higher criticism, it is clear that Gen 1's source material was symbolic and the current form was produced by those who took it literally.

&gt; Furthermore, you have yet to give a basis for what is a theological matter of faith and what is the rest. For instance, creation has some theological implications (nature of God and man, sin and death, marriage, etc.).

Science and history are distinct from theology. Science is about the way things work. History is about actual events that really happened. Theology is about the nature of God and his relationship with man. Gen 1 illustrates our theological nature perfectly, but does not constitute literal history.

&gt; You claim that Scripture is inerrant about matters of faith yet when it comes to the faith of believing creation vs. the faith of beleiving evolution (which is faith no matter how soundly placed you might believe it is) you suddenly do not think that Scripture is inerrant on matters of faith.

Evolution has nothing to do with the nature of God and his relationship with man. It is not an issue of faith and practice.

&gt; I realize there are some implications of your position you do not want to face and I do not expect you to.

Some implications are good and some aren't so good. It's more a matter of moving faith to different places than not having faith.

&gt; But it would be nice to see some support of the "theological true/science up to question" hermeneutic. "I believe it" is not exactly proof worthy of discussion.

What would constitute adequate support for your tastes? St. Augustine didn't have a problem reading Genesis for its theological value and not literal science...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We don't hold anything else in Christianity to non-faith-related truth? Should we upgrade our expectations of the Baptist Hymnal? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the Baptist Hymnal purported to be inspired by God then yes, we should hold consider it inerrant. Since it does not (and nothing besides Scripture does [except apparently you.]), there is no need to hold it to be inerrant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The basis for that is my belief that the Priestly writers took symbolic source material on Creation literally, which was an honest mistake on their part, but something we should not perpetuate. It's a matter of genre confusion.
I used to wonder if Gen 1 was intended to be taken symbolically, but now that I know more about higher criticism, it is clear that Gen 1's source material was symbolic and the current form was produced by those who took it literally. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have supposed a priestly source without proof. You bought the source analysis that has flaws in its very method. Valid reasons have been given why the so-called priestly source is non-existent. Furthermore, what you have said is exactly what the article I quoted the other day said: The biblical writers had no level of knowledge beyond themselves and therefore were prone to mistakes. Such lack of knowledge cannot be limited simply to matters of history and science. If God revealed anything (such as matters of faith) then clearly he had the ability to reveal everything (such as matters of history and science), and it would have been in his best interests not to compromise his theology by calling it into question with false history and science. It is not clear that there is any “Gen 1 source material.” You, nor anyone else, has shown any proof. They have made conjectures beyond what the text will allow.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Science and history are distinct from theology. Science is about the way things work. History is about actual events that really happened. Theology is about the nature of God and his relationship with man. Gen 1 illustrates our theological nature perfectly, but does not constitute literal history. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Scripture makes no distinction about which is true and which is not. Scripture purports is comments on history and science to be just as true as its comments on theology. Until you find a scriptural basis for such a dichotomy you will hold it in spite of Scripture. For instance, since no one was there to observe origins of the world, you hold your belief in origins by faith. You likely have never observed any of the experiments done or witnessed first hand any of the analysis of fossil record. You accept it all by faith. That is the issue. You can say “It is a matter of science;” But you have no credible support for that since you are taking by faith the word of men who constantly change their opinions and reorganize their conclusions based on new evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Evolution has nothing to do with the nature of God and his relationship with man. It is not an issue of faith and practice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it does. Death came by sin theologically and therefore the wages of sin is death … except in evolution where death came by inability to survive. Evolution has denied the theological basis for the causal nexus between sin and death and in its wake it tows the doctrine of eternal conscious torment as the punishment for sin. Evolution has made God capricious by attributing a penalty of death to sin when death was going to happen anyway. In evolution, there is consequent absolute necessity of the death of Christ for atonement; it is merely the one way among many that God could have chosen. I suppose you do not reject the atonement of Christ. However, you likely are inconsistent on why it is necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's more a matter of moving faith to different places than not having faith. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again a statement that is absolutely true and proves more than you want it to. It is a matter of having faith in a different place. Even your views on science are matters of faith placed in a different source than in the revelation of God. It is not a matter of incontrovertible evidence; it is a matter of who you consider as authoritative.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would constitute adequate support for your tastes? St. Augustine didn't have a problem reading Genesis for its theological value and not literal science... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since we have said that the Bible is the final rule for faith and practice, (and I believe you earlier agreed with this), then it would seem that biblical support for your position would be necessary since as you just admitted it is a matter of (differently placed) faith.

 

Bravo, Pastor Larry. Bravo!

 

Verbal Inspiration
By B. H. CARROLL

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It has always been a matter of profound surprise to me that anybody should ever question the verbal inspiration of the Bible. The whole thing had to be written in words. Words are signs of ideas, and if the words are not inspired, then there is no way of getting at anything in connection with inspiration.

If I am free to pick up the Bible and read
something and say, "That is inspired," then read something else and say, "That is not inspired," and someone else does not agree with me as to which is and which is not inspired, it leaves the whole thing unsettled as to whether any of it is inspired. What is the object of inspiration? It is to put accurately, in human words, ideas from God. If the words are not inspired, how am I to know how much to reject, and how to find out whether anything is from God?

When you hear this silly talk that the Bible "contains" the word of God and is not the word of God, you hear fool's talk. I don't care if he is a Doctor of Divinity, a president of a university covered with medals from universities of Europe and the United States — it is fool-talk.
There can be no inspiration of the book without the inspiration of the words of the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From B. H. Carroll's Inspiration of the Bible http://www.baptistpage.com/Distinctives/bible/carroll1.htm

 

Well then, B.H. Carroll is a fool, isn't he?

 

PL wrote:
&gt; If the Baptist Hymnal purported to be inspired by God then yes, we should hold consider it inerrant. Since it does not (and nothing besides Scripture does [except apparently you.]), there is no need to hold it to be inerrant.

The Protestant canon does not declare itself to be inerrant. Period.

&gt; You have supposed a priestly source without proof.

Ever read Wellhausen? He gives ample proof of a priestly source.

&gt; You bought the source analysis that has flaws in its very method.

None that affect the obvious existence of a Priestly source.

&gt; Valid reasons have been given why the so-called priestly source is non-existent.

Where? I must have missed them.

&gt; Furthermore, what you have said is exactly what the article I quoted the other day said: The biblical writers had no level of knowledge beyond themselves and therefore were prone to mistakes.

They had knowledge of God and His revelation, yes. They had no knowledge of science and only received knowledge of history.

&gt; Such lack of knowledge cannot be limited simply to matters of history and science.

I agree, but we take it on faith that they got it right, and the evidence is all around us that they did.

&gt; If God revealed anything (such as matters of faith) then clearly he had the ability to reveal everything (such as matters of history and science),

I don't question that God could, but I question whether God did, and He apparently didn't. Apparently, God has better things to do than to teach us all astrophysics and biochemistry through the prophets.

&gt; and it would have been in his best interests not to compromise his theology by calling it into question with false history and science.

Unfortunately for all of us, God created that little thing called "free will" that enabled the Biblical writers to frame the Word of God that they received in whatever form they chose. The Priestly writers thought that Gen 1 served as an excellent polemic against the Enuma Elish based on what they received in Psalm 104. It served the same purpose then as it does now: revealing God as the one true God, a God of order, who made man as the pinnacle of Creation.

God assumed that we were smart enough to know what the purpose of the Bible was. That's why the new covenant is "written on our hearts", to get our heads out of the books. That's why he came in person to earth to warn us about the dangers of worshipping the letter of the law.

But I suppose some of you just can't take Jeremiah and Jesus at their word, can you? Please believe God when He tells you that the Bible is not a science book.

&gt; It is not clear that there is any “Gen 1 source material.” You, nor anyone else, has shown any proof. They have made conjectures beyond what the text will allow.

Gen 1 is theologically based on Psalm 104, which itself is an expanded version of Pharoah Akenaten's "Hymn to the Aten". It served as polemic against the Babylonian Enuma Elish, whose similarities with the Biblical version are well documented.

&gt; But Scripture makes no distinction about which is true and which is not.

It's ALL true. Why do you not understand that?

&gt; Scripture purports is comments on history and science to be just as true as its comments on theology.

Because that's what the Biblical writers had before them when they put everything together.

&gt; Until you find a scriptural basis for such a dichotomy you will hold it in spite of Scripture.

So what, do I have to find a verse that says, "And lo, something happened which is not really true, but I am telling it to you anyway..."? Unless the Bible explicitly "calls itself a liar", so to speak, you won't believe it?

It's obvious that the Biblical writers used source material. They even quote the names of the books from which they got their material. It's also obvious that individual stories have been brought together in a unified historical framework that isolates them from their original context but preserves their original etiological function. There are some instances where the poetic original and prosaic revision are preserved side-by-side and we can see how the Biblical author took a symbolic statement and interpreted it literally.

&gt; For instance, since no one was there to observe origins of the world, you hold your belief in origins by faith.

Faith that is shaped by the evidence at hand, which overwhelmingly supports evolution.

&gt; You likely have never observed any of the experiments done or witnessed first hand any of the analysis of fossil record.

And hence, I'm unaware of the great conspiracy theory that is the "evolutionary model"?

&gt; You accept it all by faith. That is the issue. You can say “It is a matter of science;” But you have no credible support for that since you are taking by faith the word of men who constantly change their opinions and reorganize their conclusions based on new evidence.

You do the same thing with "ICR science", which is fully refuted over and over by scores of mainstream scientists, but you refuse to accept that refutation because you think that the ICR consists of men who are committed to the truth.

&gt; Death came by sin theologically and therefore the wages of sin is death … except in evolution where death came by inability to survive.

We die because our bodies were made to die. The notion that we die because somebody else sinned is a myth.

&gt; Evolution has denied the theological basis for the causal nexus between sin and death and in its wake it tows the doctrine of eternal conscious torment as the punishment for sin.

We are all sinners, but it's because WE sin, not because Adam sinned.

&gt; Evolution has made God capricious by attributing a penalty of death to sin when death was going to happen anyway.

If you haven't noticed, accepting Jesus doesn't save you from physical death. The wages of sin is spiritual death that comes from separation from God.

&gt; In evolution, there is consequent absolute necessity of the death of Christ for atonement; it is merely the one way among many that God could have chosen. I suppose you do not reject the atonement of Christ.

Christ died to atone for OUR sins, not Adam's. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

&gt; However, you likely are inconsistent on why it is necessary.

Nope.

&gt; Again a statement that is absolutely true and proves more than you want it to. It is a matter of having faith in a different place.

In the RIGHT place, where God wants us to have our faith. Your kind of faith in a book leads to endless warfare with those who disagree on unimportant issues. My kind of faith in Jesus allows the Spirit to move in ways we can't understand.

&gt; Even your views on science are matters of faith placed in a different source than in the revelation of God.

My faith is in the revelation of God. The Bible is not the revelation of God. Jesus is.

&gt; It is not a matter of incontrovertible evidence; it is a matter of who you consider as authoritative.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are authoritative. It's a shame that you follow the example of the Pharisees and reject the path of God.

&gt; Since we have said that the Bible is the final rule for faith and practice, (and I believe you earlier agreed with this),

It's the standard measure (kanon) for faith and practice, yes.

&gt; then it would seem that biblical support for your position would be necessary since as you just admitted it is a matter of (differently placed) faith.

Sure, God has created a new covenant on our hearts. Why do we say that we have the law when the scribes have made it into a lie?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BWSmith:
Well then, B.H. Carroll is a fool, isn't he?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. Let me add you to the long list of historians and scholars who share your sentiments. Let's see...adding you, that makes....ONE. Hmmm.


[ August 18, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

After reading this rather lengthy thread about CBF, there are a couple of things that are apparent.

1. Those who are not involved with CBF are generally ignorant of what it is, what it involves, what it believes, what direction it is heading, and just about anything else related to it.

2. It seems that Baptists of any stripe are willing to gossip about a lot of things they don't know about or do not understand.

My own spiritual journey has taken me from the independent, fundamentalist Baptist church where I grew up, to the nominally Southern Baptist church where I now am involved. I chose the church I attend now because it has 1. a pastor who exhibits strong, Biblical leadership characteristics and spends a lot of time studying the scriptures to make sure he is accountable before the Lord in his teaching and preaching and 2. because it has an incredible sense of being a redemptive community of believers above and beyond just meeting a couple of times a week.

It also has a number of members who have become increasingly uncomfortable with the rather inconsistent and somewhat dictatorial direction of the SBC and as a result have turned to the CBF for fellowship and emotional support, if nothing else. And so as a result I also became interested in the CBF.

After having attended four of the last five general assemblies, my perception of this group is quite different from what most of you have posted here. I can tell you with great certainty (as a former journalism student and newspaperman) that most of what Baptist Press and CBF's other detractors say about it is patently false.

First, there was no attempt to push a pro-homosexual agenda at this year's assembly, nor was that the action that "dominated" the proceedings. There was an action aimed at keeping CBF from entering in to doctrinal definitions that would interfere with local church autonomy. The IFB background in me cringed just a bit when CBF decided to go ahead and interject itself a short distance into local church autonomy, by going ahead with a positional statement.

Rather, the general assembly focused on worship, including several features involving local churches that I never encountered at an SBC meeting. Business discussions are always kept brief, while worship and fellowship are planned in abundance. The fact that Baptist Press and other media focused on the few, short discussions in which there was disagreement and chose to ignore the general attitude of insistence that disagreement would not be allowed to be divisive shows just how biased and unfair their reporting is.

I know from having been involved in an IFB church that the general modus operandi is "attack it if you don't understand it, or if it doesn't look and act like you think it should." That's why I left. I think the best advice for dealing with new groups as they pop up is from Gamaliel, in the book of Acts, "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." 5:38b-39.

CBF very obviously has a ministry and a niche in areas and among groups of people that other Baptists and other Christians have not been successful in reaching. Its steady growth and high level of committment to missions and ministry have made it an extremely efficient and effective outreach. Unless you want to join it, it might be best to leave the criticism to those who know it best, lest you be guilty of the sin of gossip or slander.null

 

I thought there was no male, no female, no Jew, no Gentile. Doesn't Abba mean father in a daddy kinda sense. I have been in Many UMC that pray Our Father/Mother but it is because in these particular congregations angry femenist are looking to settle a score with what they consider Male dominated religon and doctrine. I'm not saying that is your motivation but you are clearly going against thousands of years of tradition. Is it wrong to do so? I don't know, it probably depends on your motivation. If you are looking to show adoration probably not, if you are trying to vent or overturn what you see as antiquated dogma probablt so.

 

Actually, it isn't going against thousands of years of tradition. Look at the writings of Julian of Norwich or Hildegard at Bingen for examples of Christian leaders who prayed to God as Mother.

Many of us who advocate inclusive images of God are not "angry feminists" but pastors and theologians who are concerned that limited views of God hurt our churches and our congregations.

Joshua

 

RobertLynn said, "After having attended four of the last five general assemblies, my perception of this group is quite different from what most of you have posted here. I can tell you with great certainty (as a former journalism student and newspaperman) that most of what Baptist Press and CBF's other detractors say about it is patently false."

Robert, I can relate to what you say. I take no sides about the CBF because I'm basically uninformed. But the same can be said for the SBC convention. My pastor is much like you described yours. He is young, on fire for the Lord, and diligently in the Word. Each year he comes back from the convention saying it was awesome; that there was minor dissentions! Then we read the news media . . . ah yes, our beloved news media, who would sell their grandmother's souls to Satan for a headline! Not saying the SBC is free of problems or dissention, just don't believe much of what you read. Get facts from reliable sources who were there.

 

Robert Lynn,

The "gossip and slander" is about the acceptablity of calling God "Mother" within the CBF. I've been a CBF pastor, and a part of the CBF for 8 years. I also graduated from one of the CBF partner seminaries. In my experience, calling God Mother as well as Father is not unusual in the CBF churches I've been in, and is certainly not unusual in CBF schools (note the syllabus link I posted).

Now that there is money in being conservative, the CBF leadership is trying to sweep its left wing under the rug. I take great offense to that.

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
RobertLynn said, "After having attended four of the last five general assemblies, my perception of this group is quite different from what most of you have posted here. I can tell you with great certainty (as a former journalism student and newspaperman) that most of what Baptist Press and CBF's other detractors say about it is patently false."

Robert, I can relate to what you say. I take no sides about the CBF because I'm basically uninformed. But the same can be said for the SBC convention. My pastor is much like you described yours. He is young, on fire for the Lord, and diligently in the Word. Each year he comes back from the convention saying it was awesome; that there was minor dissentions! Then we read the news media . . . ah yes, our beloved news media, who would sell their grandmother's souls to Satan for a headline! Not saying the SBC is free of problems or dissention, just don't believe much of what you read. Get facts from reliable sources who were there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last SBC meeting I attended was in Atlanta in 1990 or 1991 (can't remember exactly). It was pretty raucous, with most votes going close to 50-50, microphones on the floor getting shut off, nominations manipulated so as to avoid two man races for office followed by calls for "unanimous votes". On several occasions, the chair declared "motion passes" when clearly three fourths of the hands had raised against the motion (mainly for cutting off debate). President Bush spoke on the last day and you could only get in with a messenger registration badge. A number of messengers must have sold their badges because there were a number of protesters inside the hall the next day, including a gay-rights activist who stood on a chair and began chanting in the middle of the speech. I've never been back.

It was interesting to read the accounts of the meeting in the newspaper each day. The Television media mainly reported on the presence of the convention itself and the angle of how much money it brought into Atlanta, and how empty the bars were in the hotels. After reading the newspaper accounts, it was hard to realize that I had been at the same event. Even though I had been at the meetings, the accounts left the impression that there were beaten, bloody people lying on the floor after every session.

Unfortunately, the Christian media is not immune to this type of reporting.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RobertLynn:



I can tell you with great certainty (as a former journalism student and newspaperman) that most of what Baptist Press and CBF's other detractors say about it is patently false.

null<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an insider, what is your perception of the statements that CJoshuaV has made here about the CBF?

 

Wow, this thread has gotten long. Jim, is there a comment of mine in this lengthy discussion that you are challenging?

Rev. Joshua

 

All of them.

 

In all seriousness, without going back through all six pages, what have I said about the CBF that you disagree with?

Joshua

 

Jim, I would certainly not consider myself an insider but my wife and I do support CBF financially. I will tell you that while Joshua is probably left of me on some issues (my friends think that is impossible)he has presented CBF as Ive experienced it honestly and fairly. Its frustrating to see what Baptist Press writes about us. What I experrience vs what they write is quite different, and has been since they decided they would start covering us.
Russell