Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

[renewedspirit1]

KeeperOfMyHome said exactly what I was thinking "we should remember that Jesus never,ever reffered to Him as God the Mother!"
That's the bottom line for me!

Along with witches and new agers isnt it true gnostics think along these lines also?

 

[Chris Temple]

If one wishes to hone down the major difference between the SBC and the CBF, it is in the locus of truth: The SBC believes it is God and His Word alone, the CBF believes it his man and his experience alone.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Chris,

That is ludicrous. Daniel Vestal is, for all practical purposes, an inerrantist (although I doubt that he would subscribe to any sort of dictation theory or verbal plenary inerrancy). I attended a CBF seminary, and there was a profound emphasis on the centrality of the Bible to everything that we did. All preaching was completely centered on the text. All research was grounded in the Bible. The Bible was at the heart of everything we did.

I don't have to believe that God dictated every word of the Bible for that to be the case.

Joshua

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Daniel Vestal is, for all practical purposes, an inerrantist<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(although I doubt that he would subscribe to any sort of dictation theory<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ... or verbal plenary inerrancy)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this a part of inerrancy. Denying verbal plenary inspiration is the first step on the road to higher criticism. 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). See the post I made to BW in the "Support Your Claims" thread.

To my understanding, the CBF split off of the SBC because of the conservative wing in leadership (by the vote of the people) who subscribed to the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. The founders of the CBF did agree with that position so they split off. While Chris might have been a bit strong in his wording, I think his conclusion is right based on the evidence.

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Rev. Joshua]

The "sufficiency and authority" of Scripture? I think every person in the CBF, even it's most liberal arm, would agree to supporting the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. As I side, after eight years of active involvement in the CBF to include three years at a CBF seminary, everything we've ever done has been under the authority of the Bible with the Bible at its center.

As for inerrancy being like pregnancy, I'd have to disagree. If you look at the Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy (Broadman 1987) you can see that inerrantists come in all different stripes. Some believe the Bible is inerrant only in those areas which it intends to speak to. Some believe only the autographs are inerrant. Some believe in plenary inspiration. Others believe only in thematic inerrancy.

The split was not over the authority of the Bible but over many people's unwillingness to subscribe to an infantile understanding of the Bible's origins and composition.

Joshua

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for inerrancy being like pregnancy, I'd have to disagree. If you look at the Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy (Broadman 1987) you can see that inerrantists come in all different stripes. Some believe the Bible is inerrant only in those areas which it intends to speak to. Some believe only the autographs are inerrant. Some believe in plenary inspiration. Others believe only in thematic inerrancy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you are talking about limited inerrancy in its various forms. Again, higher critics are limited inerrantists. All you need to do to verify this is read their words which I quoted in another to demonstrate it.

However, Inerrancy deals with Scripture as a whole since Scripture as a whole is the revelation of God. If a part of it is errant, then the whole is not inerrant. Limited inerrancy is an oxymoron.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The split was not over the authority of the Bible but over many people's unwillingness to subscribe to an infantile understanding of the Bible's origins and composition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Infantile to whom? To those who deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture? The question is: Does the Bible mean what it says? or Is the Bible simply the musings of fallible men, however bright and prescient they may have been, about the world around them. God made no promise to preserve the truth about doctrine only; It was a promise about the whole from a God who cannot lie. It has been elsewhere demonstrated that inerrancy is a doctrine of Scripture because it (Scripture) emanates from the very nature of God. If you deny it, you deny God. However, I am sure you fail to see the connection. All you must do is look at history. Those who deny inerrancy will not be long in denying cardinal doctrine. It is logical outcome of their belief system.

The infantile understanding of Scripture is the one the NT authors had when they authoritatively and unquestionably quoted the OT Scriptures, both historically and doctrinally. It is the view Christ had when he did the same. They did not know they any better.

As for authority, the CBF decided Scripture was not authoritative when they denied it was sufficient to speak about its own inerrancy. They decided it was not authoritative and sufficient to address church order when they allowed women to hold authority over men. They decided it was not authoritative and sufficient when they bought higher criticism that destroyed the very foundations of Scripture. You don't have to say it is wrong to do this; but it seems you must admit that is what they did. No amount of gymnastical verbage can avoid the outcome.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CJoshuaV:
The split was not over the authority of the Bible but over many people's unwillingness to subscribe to an infantile understanding of the Bible's origins and composition. Joshua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said earlier, The SBC believes in God and His Word alone, the CBF believes in man and his experience alone.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


As I said earlier, The SBC believes in God and His Word alone, the CBF believes in man and his experience alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually,

They believe in the Bible and the BFM2K...as a matter of fact, they have taken the creed that was by its own admission never meant to be a creed, and lifted it up to the level of inspired, inerrant, literature, making themselves no better than the Catholics who say, "No one shall presume to interpret the said sacred scripture contrary to that sense which the Holy Mother Church hath held and doth hold." (The Council of Trent, 1545-1563). I see the SBC holding on strongly to this anti Christian philosophy. Maybe that is the reason you must sign their creed in order to keep your job as a seminary professor or to do anything in the convention. Well, no thank you, I will stick to sola scriptura and will

NEVER...EVER sign any creed. You tell me the difference between this and the RCC...there is none.

I believe that the CBF believes in sola scriptura, the priesthood of all believers, soul competency, and the working of the Holy Spirit in every individual believers life as a help to correctly interpret scripture. This is a far cry from your accusation of "...the CBF believes in man and his experience alone". But it does make good rhetoric and hit all of the emotional hot buttons to turn others off, doesn't it?

Joseph

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; They (SBC'ers) believe in the Bible and the BFM2K ... I believe that the CBF believes in sola scriptura, the priesthood of all believers, soul competency, and the working of the Holy Spirit in every individual believers life &gt;

Neither SBC nor CBF believe *sola scripture* if ANYTHING is added... "and the BFM2K", "priesthod of all believers...and the working..." The statement would end with 'sola scriptura.'

I recall an application to SWBTS years ago, long before the 2000 or 2001 BFM, and the 1963 BFM was declared the establishement's "Artricles of Faith," which an applicant must "ascribe to" and sign. But now with these recent revisions the word "creed" emerges because students or faculty must sign these "Articles of Faith."

Llimiting this to faculty, as the example used in this thread, did faculties of SBC seminaries before 2000 sign or declare *nothing* as to what they believed, or were they required to sign any articles? If so, how does this make the BFM a "creed" now and not before?

[For the record, I find 3, perhaps 4, points of both BFM of 1963 and BFM of 2001 that I do not agree with, and in both several other points that are only traditionally Baptist and neither required nor refuted by scripture.]

 

[Chris Temple]

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

They believe in the Bible and the BFM2K...as a matter of fact, they have taken the creed that was by its own admission never meant to be a creed, and lifted it up to the level of inspired, inerrant, literature, making themselves no better than the Catholics... yada yada yada
Joseph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is typical CBF ad hominem, Joseph. A statement of Faith is a confession of belief - bo more, no less - not of what every individual holds to, but what is generally acceptable among its adherents for the sake of unity. Confessionalism is Christian and Baptist; only those who wish no barriers on Scripture interpretation rely on the anti-confessionalism mantra. Yet those who cry "The Bible alone" and no creed are thereby establishing their own creed.

To interpret the Bible outside of orthodox confessionalism is falling into the trap of being able to believe whatever one wants to because, like the cults, they "found it in Scripture".

Scripture is the sole authority, but it must be interpreted within the borders of orthodoxy or else anything at all can be (and is) believed.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


This is typical CBF ad hominem, Joseph. A statement of Faith is a confession of belief - bo more, no less - not of what every individual holds to, but what is generally acceptable among its adherents for the sake of unity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what Herschel Hobbs said...but it has become a creed that is used as a litmus test and a weapon to hurt fellow believers.


Confessionalism is Christian and Baptist;[/QUOTE]


True...but, creedalism is not.


only those who wish no barriers on Scripture interpretation rely on the anti-confessionalism mantra.[/QUOTE]


Actually, only those who wish to allow the Holy Spirit to work through the individual believer without cohersion from the church rely on anti-creedalism mantras (it is different from confessionalism...get it straight).

Yet those who cry "The Bible alone" and no creed are thereby establishing their own creed.[/QUOTE]


No...they are making a personal choice through the leading of the Holy Spirit...there is a difference between proclaiming sola scriptura for yourself through the leading of the Holy Spirit and then shoving it down someone else's throat...which is what Southern Baptist are doing with today's present evil leadership.

To interpret the Bible outside of orthodox confessionalism is falling into the trap of being able to believe whatever one wants to because, like the cults, they "found it in Scripture".

Scripture is the sole authority, but it must be interpreted within the borders of orthodoxy or else anything at all can be (and is) believed.[/QUOTE]

Would you explain exactly what you mean by interpreting scripture within the borders of orthodoxy...? Please put this is very simple non jargon language so that all will see that what you are really talking about is nothing more than Catholic creedalism.

Thank You,

Joseph

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

BTW,

Chris...this is not Seinfeld and I find the use of the words "yada, yada, yada" to be rather disrespectful toward me when quoting me. I don't do that to you and I wish you would not do that to me. Or, maybe you don't think that someone who is against creedalism is worthy of respect?

Joseph

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Joseph, As I stated elsewhere, I do appreciate your emphasis on getting the facts straight. And, I admit as an IFB I am not up on all the details of SBC, CBF, etc. HOWEVER...imho it seems to me that your arguments in favor of the CBF boil down to 1) there is some good to be found in the CBF and 2) there are some things that bother you about the SBC. In light of the apparent apostasy in the CBF, is it wise to spend time in their defense on technicalities?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I don't see the evidence of the apparent apostacy, PJ. I have heard lots of accusations and gossipping and sensationalism...but have not seen much evidence. When confronted about the accusation, Daniel Vestal responded, as is seen on the first page of this thread, and affirmed the basic fundamentals of the faith and clearly stated that they reject goddess worship and that the story and accussations were taken out of context. After that, I asked Chris...or anyone at that, to provide a transcript of the meeting and the comments within context. Nothing along those lines have been produced. It all boils down to reality not being as sensational as perhaps Chris and BP might have wanted it to be in order to decry the evil CBF. Therefore, they resorted to the age old tactic of repeat a lie long enough...maybe it will become believeable. Show me the evidence. Be like C-SPAN and set the camera in the room without all of the commentators and let me make my own decision.

BTW,

I am still investigating this whole matter on my own as well. I am not going to die for the CBF. On the other hand, I am not going to condemn something without evidence. However, this is what I do know. Many people whom I know personally who are or have been part of the CBF are moderately conservative, which is probably what I would classify myself as. They do affirm sola scriptura and are opposed to creeds being used as a litmus test to go on witch hunts within the convention. They believe in the autonomy of the local church instead of the SBC running everything from the top down. On all of these things, I am in agreement. Now, are there people within the CBF with whom I disagree...certainly. Does that mean I should condemn them...nope...I leave that to the Holy Spirit. My job is to pray, study God's Word, follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in my life, and speak the truth in love. It is not my job to convict them of their sin and coherce them to change or ask them to sign a creed. Just the same way as there are probably evil people in the CBF, I know for a fact that there are former seminary presidents in the SBC who could not control their anger and keep from cursing out their staff. In other words, there are also evil people within the SBC. Should I therefore turn my back on the SBC. Should I therefore turn my back on every church in the world because of the fact that there are evil people within those church's. I don't think so...but that is just my opinion.

There are certain things that I will die for...but to my knowledge of the evidence, the CBF has not crossed that line for me yet. If they do, I will publicy dissociate myself from them and thank God for his spirit leading me to the truth (which I am fully confident that he is able to do this).

Joseph

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CJoshuaV:
To be honest, I don't know anyone in the CBF who believes in plenary inspiration. Then again, I don't know everyone in the CBF

.

Joshua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Joshua,

I just looked at my Herneneutics book again to read the five major views of inspiration: Humanistic, Dynamic, Plenary Verbal, Mechanical Dictation, and Multi-Methodological Approach. I believe that I would probably fit in with the Plenary Verbal point of view...although I would not affirm this for all English translations of the Bible, I believe this of the originals. I don't think I would officially be called a CBFer...although I tend to agree with them a lot about things that are occurring in the convention...but I thought you might want to know that there is one with CBF leanings who holds to Plenary Verbal inspiration. BTW...which view of inspiration do you hold and why?

Joseph

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Joseph,

I've been trying my darndest to remember if anyone did actually call God "Mother" at that meeting. I know She was referred to as "She," and I know that the leadership of BWIM and the folks in the CBF seminaries are comfortable with calling Her "Mother;" but I cannot remember if the two came together that morning. I should have drunk more coffee.

Believing in plenary inspiration will certainly put you in the minority in the CBF, but I assure you that you are still welcome there. Unlike the SBC, where orthodoxy is a prerequisite for membership, the CBF works very hard to cooperate with all baptists.

As to which version of inspiration I believe in, I'd probably need those terms defined to answer using them (although "plenary" is one that I know - and know does not apply to me). I believe that the Bible is fully authoritative and inspired by God, but that its themes should be taken as a whole and that individual pericopes should be evaluated in the context of those larger, key themes. I also believe that there are certainly places where the advice or instructions are based in culture, and that the lessons to be learned are contextual, not explicit.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CJoshuaV:
Joseph,

I've been trying my darndest to remember if anyone did actually call God "Mother" at that meeting. I know She was referred to as "She," and I know that the leadership of BWIM and the folks in the CBF seminaries are comfortable with calling Her "Mother;" but I cannot remember if the two came together that morning. I should have drunk more coffee.

Believing in plenary inspiration will certainly put you in the minority in the CBF, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JBotwinick,

What more do ya need?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Josh,

Would you please explain to me why you refer to God as "she" and as "mother" when the Hebrew text clearly uses the word "Ahv" (father) and the masculine tense when referring to God? Are you talking about goddess worship...are you talking about worshipping another god besides the God is Israel? Honestly, I have never heard this whole idea of referring to God in the feminine sense untill now. Would you please explain scripturally why you do that? Is there scriptural support for this practice or is this a cultural thing that you do to promote a feminist agenda?

Joseph

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Joseph,

It really is funny how different baptist circles can be. You've never heard of referring to God in the feminine, and I thought it was generally a settled issue except in certain extreme circles.

No, I am not talking about goddess worship or any other deity besides the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Generally, the two passages I point to are Genesis 1 where God created us male and female in the image of God; and Isaiah 66 where God will comfort us as a mother comforts her child. There are other passages that people who have built their career around this issue point to.

As I've said on other threads, Sallie McFague offers a fairly exhaustive treatise on this subject in Models of God. She is careful to point out, as I am, that recognizing that God is inclusive of all genders is not a way of saying that certain stereotypical traits are limited to one gender or another. Nevertheless, most people relate to people differently based on their sex, and it is consequently important to help them find models of God to which they are most comfortable relating.

Praying to God as "Mother" has a long history in the Christian tradition, to include people like Julian of Norwich and Hildegard of Bingen.

As to this mythical "feminist agenda," I don't see how faithfully being a steward of the complexity and holiness of God advances anyone's agenda but God's.

Joshua

P.S. Here's the link for the syllabus for the Women's Studies course at my alma mater, the McAfee School of Theology:
http://theology.mercer.edu/MIN/women.htm

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: CJoshuaV ]

 

[BWSmith]

Chris Temple wrote:
&gt; If one wishes to hone down the major difference between the SBC and the CBF, it is in the locus of truth: The SBC believes it is God and His Word alone, the CBF believes it his man and his experience alone.

As long as you're oversimplifying the issue, why don't you go all the way? The SBC believes in the good things that come from God, and the CBF believes in the bad things that come from Satan.

Isn't that what you REALLY think, seeing as how you don't bother to understand the dichotomy as it really is?