-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Our Undergirding
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
In some cases scripture teaches two views is the truth--sensus plenior.
what would be an example of that in the bible as regarding a major doctrine though?
One must reconcile two commands that seem to be opposite.S/N regared the above post of mine, as he so ineloquently put it; garbage.
So S/N, if the above is so wrong then you must not believe that God gives faith and repentance. The Lord never gave you faith and repentance is your view? If what I said is garbage in your esteemed opinion then it follows that you do not think God gives faith and repentance.
God commands faith and repentance, and repeats that command over and over. The one statement in the Bible that says he "gives faith and repentance" must be interpreted in the light of the rest of the Biblical commands to repent and believe. Therefore it would be wise not to just gloss over the verse, but to find out the real meaning of it, otherwise you have the Bible contradicting itself.
Furthermore God does not give either spiritual gifts neither the fruit of the Spirit to unsaved individuals. That position is just ludicrous.
That is true with young graduates from any college. I was the same way when I first graduated. I learned a lot more when I got into the ministry. What Icon proposes is that most people on this board, who BTW are pastors are (even though many be dispensational) are ignorant of other views. That is just insulting.I know several graduates from his school and they know almost nothing about different views. They have told me that he teaches "the truth" which is one point of view. Because he believes he has the truth he does not teach anything that opposes his point of view.
Some of my friends have asked me how I would deal with views present in their congregation that they were not taught about in school.
The local church is the place to teach the truth of God's Word; not another man's heresy. The pastor must get up in front of the pulpit and teach what he believes to be truth. He cannot be wishy washy in doctrine and say: Icon believes thus and thus, and so and so believes this way, but this is what I believe. That is for seminary.I like John M. He teaches a very consistent Dispensational premillenial view.When they say he teaches the truth that is what they mean.
In any premill church I have been in....They teach that all other views are error but never really teach the other views.
He must instill confidence in his people that what he says is from the Lord and is the truth of God's Word. He must preach his convictions. A Presbyterian preacher, for example, is not going to preach about the necessity of immersion. If he did then he would practice it.
That was not true of where I went to seminary. Those I had classes from had been pastors for many years.That is true with young graduates from any college. I was the same way when I first graduated. I learned a lot more when I got into the ministry.
What you said is what every pastor I know personally who graduated from MacArthur's school told me. While it may not be true of others that is what they told me personally and I lived about 200 miles away at one time.
I don't know exactly what you are talking about unless you use specific examples.That was not true of where I went to seminary. Those I had classes from had been pastors for many years.
What you said is what every pastor I know personally who graduated from MacArthur's school told me. While it may not be true of others that is what they told me personally and I lived about 200 miles away at one time.
For example, in eschatology the college I went to was pre-mil., but they definitely taught what the other positions were, and why they were wrong. That was in eschatology.
In history, we took "Baptist History," not "Church history." There is a difference. Later on I picked up some "church history" books, not written from Baptist view points. But I am very thankful for the history taught me, and the way it was taught me. After all, it was a Baptist College.
While he must preach the truths of scripture in light of its historical background and apply it to today, he should be honest enough to admit when he does not know about something in particular at the time. My preaching is just revealing what God has taught me so far. I am not swilling to speculate on something I do not know very well. Once you say something it is out and it cannot be unsaid.The local church is the place to teach the truth of God's Word; not another man's heresy. The pastor must get up in front of the pulpit and teach what he believes to be truth.
What is the truth of how long the day was before and after Genesis 1:6-8?He must instill confidence in his people that what he says is from the Lord and is the truth of God's Word. He must preach his convictions
Confidence in God's word is not the same as confidence in me. I can have and help instill confidence in God's word by telling the people each time I study I learn new things and each of those things I find to be true. They need to know the Christian life is a journey and not just intellectual knowledge.
People should be looking to God, not just answers. James 1:5 points that direction. I know a pastor's son who was seeking answers and never knew God. About four months ago he wrote on his blog that God does not exist. He had even preached some sermons from his dad's notes. He was also a leader in his dad's church.
There is a reason why a pastor must not be a new convert. I can have a great desire to make disciples, but if for 20 years I have been making disciples I will have learned a lot about discipleship and encountered bumps along the way. If it just stays at a desire then there will be no fruit and that sends a message too.
An example would be that if you believe Dispensational theology was correct and did not learn about any other views. When you get into a church there will be other views present and if you are not exposed to them that may the first time you ever encounter them. By studying differing views on some passages it helps to know where the person is coming from and be ready to discuss it. If I have had time to digest a differing view then I can give a reason why I would disagree.I don't know exactly what you are talking about unless you use specific examples.
For example, in eschatology the college I went to was pre-mil., but they definitely taught what the other positions were, and why they were wrong. That was in eschatology.
In history, we took "Baptist History," not "Church history." There is a difference. Later on I picked up some "church history" books, not written from Baptist view points. But I am very thankful for the history taught me, and the way it was taught me. After all, it was a Baptist College.
One must reconcile two commands that seem to be opposite.
God commands faith and repentance, and repeats that command over and over. The one statement in the Bible that says he "gives faith and repentance" must be interpreted in the light of the rest of the Biblical commands to repent and believe. Therefore it would be wise not to just gloss over the verse, but to find out the real meaning of it, otherwise you have the Bible contradicting itself.
Furthermore God does not give either spiritual gifts neither the fruit of the Spirit to unsaved individuals. That position is just ludicrous.
There are other verses that teach this truth...not just one.No one is glossing over anything...just teaching what is in there.
DHK
yes it is.....
Correct.....no heresy should be taught at all.Agreed.
Yes he should.The congregation should also do as the Bereans were commended for doing here....
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
If you or any other pastor was infallible like a baptist "pope'...then we would not need to do this...
A pastor should present the truth in the best way that he can.He should also seek primarily to be faithful to God and the teaching of scripture.He should be man enough to also say.....As i have continued to study the scripture I have come to realize that what i formerly held on the issue is changing and here is why......then lay out the texts of scripture.
yes he should....unless and until the lord shows him otherwise.
true and yet i can produce hundreds of sermons where the Presbyterian minister can present a baptist point of view and then offer his own...without feeling threatened.
The local church is the place to teach the truth of God's Word;
yes it is.....
not another man's heresy.
Correct.....no heresy should be taught at all.Agreed.
.The pastor must get up in front of the pulpit and teach what he believes to be truth
Yes he should.The congregation should also do as the Bereans were commended for doing here....
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
If you or any other pastor was infallible like a baptist "pope'...then we would not need to do this...
[/QUOTE]He cannot be wishy washy in doctrine
A pastor should present the truth in the best way that he can.He should also seek primarily to be faithful to God and the teaching of scripture.He should be man enough to also say.....As i have continued to study the scripture I have come to realize that what i formerly held on the issue is changing and here is why......then lay out the texts of scripture.
He must instill confidence in his people that what he says is from the Lord and is the truth of God's Word. He must preach his convictions.
yes he should....unless and until the lord shows him otherwise.
A Presbyterian preacher, for example, is not going to preach about the necessity of immersion. If he did then he would practice it.
true and yet i can produce hundreds of sermons where the Presbyterian minister can present a baptist point of view and then offer his own...without feeling threatened.
That avoids the idea of the pastor having all truth and helps to create a healthy church.Yes he should.The congregation should also do as the Bereans were commended for doing here....
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
That avoids the idea of the pastor having all truth and helps to create a healthy church.
Exactly correct. To ignore other views is to invite disaster. Most growth comes from a healthy search of scripture in light of the fact that we have been given much help over the years , and yet I believe God has allowed differences to exist and be held among godly persons so no one pastor or teacher gets exalted in the flesh, and we all get humbled from time to time to admit we have need to change some of our views.
The local church is to preach the truth of God.Exactly correct. To ignore other views is to invite disaster. Most growth comes from a healthy search of scripture in light of the fact that we have been given much help over the years , and yet I believe God has allowed differences to exist and be held among godly persons so no one pastor or teacher gets exalted in the flesh, and we all get humbled from time to time to admit we have need to change some of our views.
It is not to lay out the various schemes of mankind and let them choose. The pastor must teach that which the Lord led him to believe to be true. Doctrine is not a smorgasbord.
There is no way I would ever present:
This is the premil view...
This is the amil view...
This is the postmil view...
Now you choose what you think is right, but I think premil is right for these reasons.
If the pastor only has an opinion on the Scripture he is wishy-washy and spineless and knows not what he believes. He needs to instill confidence in his congregation not confusion. His aim is not to change the thinking of the congregation but rather to instill in them the truth of God's Word. Why would he preach another man's heresy, as he sees it?
The local church is to preach the truth of God.
It is not to lay out the various schemes of mankind and let them choose. The pastor must teach that which the Lord led him to believe to be true. Doctrine is not a smorgasbord.
There is no way I would ever present:
This is the premil view...
This is the amil view...
This is the postmil view...
Now you choose what you think is right, but I think premil is right for these reasons.
If the pastor only has an opinion on the Scripture he is wishy-washy and spineless and knows not what he believes. He needs to instill confidence in his congregation not confusion. His aim is not to change the thinking of the congregation but rather to instill in them the truth of God's Word. Why would he preach another man's heresy, as he sees it?
In my church home, the pastor holds to certain beliefs, but we also hve studies in theology where in a class setting go over the varying views such as pre/post/A,il, calvinist, arminian, and we do not call those other views heresy, just differing than ours!
The local church is to preach the truth of God.
It is not to lay out the various schemes of mankind and let them choose. The pastor must teach that which the Lord led him to believe to be true. Doctrine is not a smorgasbord.
There is no way I would ever present:
This is the premil view...
This is the amil view...
This is the postmil view...
Now you choose what you think is right, but I think premil is right for these reasons.
If the pastor only has an opinion on the Scripture he is wishy-washy and spineless and knows not what he believes. He needs to instill confidence in his congregation not confusion. His aim is not to change the thinking of the congregation but rather to instill in them the truth of God's Word. Why would he preach another man's heresy, as he sees it?
I know many pastors who learned things in seminary, but really learned more later in life and explained what took place in the lives.
You do not learn everything in Seminary.
How would you explain your statement in light of Acts 18:24-26?The pastor must teach that which the Lord led him to believe to be true. Doctrine is not a smorgasbord.
Acts 18:24-26, Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
For some that is not the case. In fact some have lost some of their skills because they have not kept them up. So in a real sense they are coasting.You do not learn everything in Seminary.
That is true, and I have already said that. I studied many of these things out in far more detail after I graduated.I know many pastors who learned things in seminary, but really learned more later in life and explained what took place in the lives.
You do not learn everything in Seminary.
What I am trying to emphasize, and some here fail to grasp, is that when I preach from the pulpit on a Sunday morning (usually unsaved present), I am not going to preaching about preterism, amillenialism, supralapsinarianism, etc. I am going to be preaching the truth of God's Word so that all can understand it; the simplicity of the gospel, the exposition of His Word, a faithful exegesis that all may understand. A debate (even I am the one presenting the various positions) on a Sunday morning between various theological positions (during a worship service) is totally unwarranted.
As the first few verses of John 19 indicate, he knew the gospel that John the Baptist preached. He was zealous but with little knowledge. He needed to be instructed further. And that is why Priscilla and Aquilla took him aside and gave him more instruction, or discipled him further. What is the problem here?How would you explain your statement in light of Acts 18:24-26?
Acts 18:24-26, Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.