G. A. Riplinger and fundamentalism

[Mexdeaf]

Personally, I would not say that anything "the Convention as a whole has to say is irrelevant," but it is certainly not "binding" in any way upon any SBC church or member of such a church. Some things whether "relevant" or not, however may be completely "binding" on a 'denominational worker', missionary, or any other such official of the SBC, however.

Ed

Ed,

You said it better. Thanks! :thumbs:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

To me as a Northern Baptist what the SBC has to say is ordinarily about as relevant to me as the positions the British Parliment takes is relevant to me as a US citizen and resident.

 

[Salamander]

This is all well and good. However, what is your answer to AQ's question?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1122393&postcount=107

 

[Salamander]

Salamander, I wouldn't be so quick to assume I'm on your side in this matter. In this case, it comes down to a decision made back in the 1830s and 40s by some of the brethren:

I only assumed you were "on my side" concerning anything the SBC has to say.

 

[Salamander]

If Bro Sal truly believes that women can teach men Bible and doctrinal truth any time outside of a regularly scheduled church service than his view would allow Riplinger to do so.

Thats really pretty simple - but would run contrary to the view of most IFB churches that I am aware of.

IN fact, this is the first time I have been exposed to this teaching.

Nice conjecture there, my Brother, especially since I have NEVER taken that position as you would like to presume.

Riplinger never teaches the Bible. She only teaches English as far as I am concerned and what other versions have misrepresented in them concerning the Bible.

I would agree with you if she ever tried preaching or teaching the Bible.

If she has I don't really know nor do I really care.

Now if she were to be behind the pulpit and open her Bible and start teaching? I would walk out. But if she were holding a seminar on the English of the Bible I would be all ears.

You should be more specific in your interogations before making so many assumptions.:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Better to be "ignored" than "edited" for personal attacks. I'll lay claim to the former, as you keep many mods busy with a firm hold on the latter.

I was chastising you for your unwarranted and overgeneralized attack on the SBC. You do have brothers and sisters in the Lord that belong to SBC churches. You did know that, didn't you?

I see no where you are authorized to chastise me or anyone else.

Those "personal attacks" were presumed.

You are discussing things concerning moderators actions and that is blatant disregard for BB rules.

You repeatedly complain about the things I say and seem to be stalking me in that regard.

If you don't want to carry on a discussion with me that's fine, but please quit stalking me.

 

[Salamander]

Ed,

You said it better. Thanks! :thumbs:

Why I am not a member of the SBC and can even become independent of my local church at this present time if the pastor wishes to try and lord over God's inheritance.

I am IFB, btw, and called of God to preach the Word. I have experienced controlling pastors and went about my Father's business and preached,attended, tithed, etc. elsewhere.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Salamander, to many of us while Mrs. Riplinger does not teach or speak on theology proper or soteriology, she most certainly does teach on the doctrine of Bibliology. That, to us, puts her beyond the limits we see in Scripture. Your Mileage Obviously Varies.
Many of us take the position its never right to do wrong in order to do right. I.e., the ends never justify the means.

 

[Salamander]

Salamander, to many of us while Mrs. Riplinger does not teach or speak on theology proper or soteriology, she most certainly does teach on the doctrine of Bibliology. That, to us, puts her beyond the limits we see in Scripture. Your Mileage Obviously Varies.
Many of us take the position its never right to do wrong in order to do right. I.e., the ends never justify the means.

I only have a copy of a couple of her books on the langauge of the Bible, which limits her on the subject of teaching the English of the Bible.

I know no other teachings she has that could be called Bibliology, and even if her books on the langauge of the Bible are considered Bibliology, that still isn't preaching or teaching Bible doctrine.

I have no problem with her writing books. I have no problem with her teaching the langauge arts of the Bible. I would have a problem with her teaching the Bible or attempting to preach the Bible.

I suppose some may misunderstand my position, but it seems more that I agree with everyone in this area. I am only making the distinction between where I stand.

Though many IFB's take a very harsh stance and even are likened to male chauvenism, I am too much of a realist to be so dogmatic that a woman cannot teach me anything.

It may seem like compromise on my behalf, but let me be perfectly clear, I in no way advocate any form of violation of a woman teaching men biblical truths or her usurping authority over a man.

I'm beginning to realize the bias against my person is clouding the minds of those same people.raying: :tonofbricks:

 

[Salamander]

Just of note: I had a conversation with a lifelong friend on this very subject last night, but he came real close to losing this friend in that he wanted to down people we hae both known for many years.

He is entitled to his beliefs and is certainly welcome to keep his mouth shut when it comes to downing my friends.

I suppose his mother, too, never taught him anything after he reached the age of 18.

 

[EdSutton]

For the benefit of Ed, it was "The Douay" printed on the cover.

Did I not just say "Anglicized"?

The version was translated and produced in France at a College, known as English College at Douai, or as an alternative Anglicized spelling, Douay. The college however, had temporarily relocated to Reims, France, when and where the translation of the NT from the Vulgate was done, and published in 1582. Hence the Reims (Anglicized as Rheims) New Testamant.

BTW, the translation was done from the Latin Vulgate, as opposed to the Greek, in two grounds. First, Jerome's Latin Vulgate had been declared authoritive for the Catholics at the Council of Trent; secondly, the argument was made that the text of the Vulgate was 'purer' than any manuscripts at that time which were extant in the original languages. While the second may or may not have been technically true, obviously, the powers that were in the Roman Catholic church, missed (or were taking special pains to ignore) the efforts of such as Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, with the varied editions of what would become known after as the Textus Receptus, in the NT texts. (Likewise, the dictum of the Elzevirs, in 1634, that the text, basically, as it had been produced in varied editions for 120 years, and "was now received by all", did not include Roman Catholics in the "all" bit.) I guess you won't find too many of another fairly common sort of "ONLYists" with the Reims NT, hunh?

Similarly, the OT was completed and published in two parts in 1609 and 1610, by which time, English College had returned to Douai, hence the Douai (or Anglicized Douay). Put the two together, and you have the Douai-Reims, or Douay Rheims as it is styled by the English, Somtimes it is shortened to merely Douay, granted, and the English also sometimes called it the Doway Bible.

One interesting sidenote is that John Reynolds, or Rainolds, the chief architect (and later chief translator of his company) of the call to King James for the "new translation", also did some work on the Douai-Reims. A little mercenary work, maybe??

He should have had a card like the old western TV character Paladin. It could have read:

Have Quill,
Will Travel
Contact Reynolds,
Corpus Christi College, Oxford



:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

You are discussing things concerning moderators actions and that is blatant disregard for BB rules.

Outta' curiosity, what rule or rules are you here referring to, since I don't recall reading that one, but I do grant I could have missed it?

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

Bro. Salamander's statement should have been:

If you are discussing things concerning moderators actions;
Then that is blatant disregard for BB rules: unwritten
&/or written.

I haven't read back to see if Bro. EdSutton is
indeed discussing moderator actions, But it has been
a longstanding BB rule, probably unwritten:
don't discuss & evaluate moderator actions
(you can't know why the mods done it and not always
exactly what the mods went & done).

However, There is another written rule:

Bro. Salamander should have PMed or e-mailed brother
EdSutton.

 

[Salamander]

Bro. Salamander's statement should have been:

If you are discussing things concerning moderators actions;
Then that is blatant disregard for BB rules: unwritten
&/or written.

I haven't read back to see if Bro. EdSutton is
indeed discussing moderator actions, But it has been
a longstanding BB rule, probably unwritten:
don't discuss & evaluate moderator actions
(you can't know why the mods done it and not always
exactly what the mods went & done).

However, There is another written rule:

Bro. Salamander should have PMed or e-mailed brother
EdSutton.

Thanks for the admonition, but you really should read the entries before running off with the bath water.

My response was to some one else who is stalking me. Are you forming a mob?

 

[EdSutton]

Thanks for the admonition, but you really should read the entries before running off with the bath water.

My response was to some one else who is stalking me. Are you forming a mob?

Always remember one thing.

Just because you are paranoid, don't mean everyone is not out to get you! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

EdSutton:

How did your Dr. visit go?
1. gave you less than a week
2. pronounced you healthy, no need to drop in again
(in between #1 & #2 -- specify)

 

[EdSutton]

EdSutton:

How did your Dr. visit go?
1. gave you less than a week
2. pronounced you healthy, no need to drop in again
(in between #1 & #2 -- specify)

My radiologist dismissed me for a year. I saw her yesterday, on Halloween, and my next appointment is actually on next Halloween.

My oncologist wants to see me at three mos. intervals, but I will not get another CAT scan for 6 mos., in place of three. I'll see him after the first of the year, and get the next CAT scan around Easter.

Obviously if anything seems to be going wrong, I am to get back with both of them sooner.

But all my doctors seem to expect to be annoyed by me a bit longer, apparently.

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

Maybe God won't call you soon & you shall enter
what is called by some 'the Golden years'.

(I did a study once, this comes from the fact that
when you turn 60 you more Gold in
your mouth then ever before AND that will
be the most Gold you will ever have in your mouth.
Of course, the dental industry has ruined all that
by coming up with tooth colored cavity fillers,
even tooth color caps for dead teeth. Now if they
can learn to put in faux gums - I'm in for the long haul :type: )

Meanwhile, back on Topic. I notice that Ms Riplinger
uses fancy text coloring now -- she uses a printing
program to print her books!!!
At least that is state of the art, sharp looking
books!!
(not that I, being a man, can ever learn anything
from it; but it is duly noted, in fairness.)

I also noted in fairness that one of the Brothers was
correct & he suggests, in turn, that I'm part of a mob.
Maybe that is an incouragement in return? I used
to feel all alone, a SBC-iete here amoung the fundy brothers:
like the GIECO Gecko in a world of Budweiser Bullfrogs

 

[Salamander]

Always remember one thing.

Just because you are paranoid, don't mean everyone is not out to get you! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

Nice observation there, but me? paranoid? Not.

Don't? or doesn't?

 

[Salamander]

My radiologist dismissed me for a year. I saw her yesterday, on Halloween, and my next appointment is actually on next Halloween.

My oncologist wants to see me at three mos. intervals, but I will not get another CAT scan for 6 mos., in place of three. I'll see him after the first of the year, and get the next CAT scan around Easter.

Obviously if anything seems to be going wrong, I am to get back with both of them sooner.

But all my doctors seem to expect to be annoyed by me a bit longer, apparently.

Ed

Did the CAT scan show any indications of your eating Chinese?