Paige Patterson

Hello Baptist Believer,

I hope that my responses and the way that I have replied below make sense.

God Bless You.

What is your source for the assertion that the prophets heard an audible voice? Could they have understood God in a non-audible way as well?

My Response:
1 Samuel 3:1-10 for starters. Samuel heard the Lord call his name and got up and went to Eli thinking that Eli had called him. Now according to the Bible God communicated with Isaiah via visions (Isaiah 1:1); however, Isaiah also uses the words, "Thus says the Lord". The Bible says that the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1-4) Verse 4 of Jeremiah 1 is particularly telling. It says, "Then the word of the Lord came to me saying:" (Jeremiah 1:4, NKJV). The word of the Lord came to Hosea, "When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea:" (Hosea 1:2). All of these, with the possible exception of Isaiah, indicate that the Propherts heard the voice of the Lord. That is why the Prophets were able to stand before kings and nations and proclaim, "Thus says the Lord". God spoke to them and they repeated what God said. I can cite more references if you like.

You are making the assumption that God did not speak to people just because there was no scripture written?!

My Response:
That is one that I will research. I'm not an O.T. scholar. I'll get back to you.

Yes. I agree with your major points -- except where noted.

What is the basis for this assertion?

My Response:
I speak to God through prayer. God speaks to me through his word, the Bible. Does he speak in an audible voice to you? According to the Bible Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to us following his ascent into heaven. The Holy Spirit dwells within us and guides us. I have "felt" God leading me to do something at a particular time, like witnessing to a homeless man in downtown Atlanta, but I did not hear an audible voice in my ear telling me to do so. By the way, the man accepted Christ as his Savior that day. I have traveled all over the earth and I have never met anyone who said that God speaks to them in an audible voice. However, God does speak through the Bible.

Yes. I've made this point in a previous post.

Yes... but the passages I have used as the basis of my belief are Galatians 3 and Romans 4 that indicate that Abraham was saved apart from the Law (it was not yet written). Paul strongly makes the point that salvation is possible without the written word. Why do I insist upon that biblical point? Too many Christians today over-emphasize the Bible as *the* revelation of God (see the latest version of the Baptist Faith and Message) instead of recognizing Jesus as the fullest revelation and exact representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:1-3). The written word of God is also a fully reliable revelation of God, but the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.

My Response:
Both Galtians 3 and Romans 4 discuss the Law and how being saved by faith in Christ is superior to the Law. However, the Law is not the exact same thing as the Word of God, meaning the Bible. You are equivocating terms. Paul does not make the point that salvation is possible without the written word. He reminds his audience that they were saved by their faith in Christ, which he preached to them, and not by the Law because not one of them could keep the Law. You know, he who keeps the Law must keep the whole Law and he who stumbles in one point (of the Law) is guilty of all. The Law is part of the Bible, but it is not the Bible.

Probably.

Yes.

From the way my mother tells it, he didn't actually quote any verses. He told her the difference between venerating icons and saving faith in Christ. To make his point he took the icon she was venerating and threw it into the wood stove -- horrifying my mother. He then explained the difference between idolatry and faith. Not necessarily any verses.

My Response:
Okay, and he learned the difference between venerating icons and saving faith in Christ by reading the Bible. Surely he did not learn that difference by way of Roman Catholic Church tradition. Even if he did not directly quote verses from the Bible his knowledge of saving faith in Christ come from the pages of his Bible. Where else would he find that knowledge?

Not apart from the truth of God.

Yes, that is biblical.

If you mean by "Word of God" = the truth of God and/or direct personal revelation -- then I believe you are correct.

If you mean by "Word of God" = Jesus Christ the "Word of God" (John 1) -- then you are correct.

If you mean by "Word of God" = written revelation -- then I believe you are incorrect. See the teaching of Paul in Galatians 3 and Romans 4 that demonstrates what is necessary and what is not necessary for salvation. The Bible (or the Law) does not bring life. Christ brings life.

My Response:
I mean that the Bible is the Word of God and that no one can come to know Christ as their personal Savior apart from it. Faith in the work of Christ on the cross is what saves us. We come to that faith by way of the Bible. The Bible does not save us, but we cannot know Christ apart from the Bible.

Nope.

If Baptists believe the Bible and the Bible is our written standard for faith and practice, then I am squarely in the middle of Baptist doctrine.

Yes. Abraham was saved apart from the Bible. All those who follow Abraham in faith are saved by faith in God -- not by faith in the Bible. This is not to dismiss the importance of the Bible or say the Bible is unimportant. Rather, I say this to be biblical and not make claims about the Bible that the Bible specifically refutes.

I realize that this does not jibe with the latest doctrinal statement handed down by the 2000 convention and the SBC leadership, but of course that document is not infallible. This is but one of the reasons why the BF&M should not be an "instrument of accountability".</font>[/QUOTE]My Response:
There was no written Bible in Abraham's day. He was saved by his faith in and obedience to God, and God spoke directly to Abraham. That is how he learned to trust and obey God.

Regarding the BF&M, are you are referring to the fact that the IMB is requiring our missionaries to state that they uphold the BF&M? Those missionaries are supported by SBC funds. Therefore, the majority of Southern Baptists, who do support the BF&M, have the right to expect those missionaries to support their beliefs while those missionaries are being paid by offerings given to the SBC. This is the natural outcome of our congregational (majority) rule beginning with the local church and extending throughout the entire SBC.

[ September 13, 2002, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Baptist Believer, Brother JP has been with the Lord for several years and I can't remember how long.

You did not want to rehash some info, but some of us are newbies who do not know what you are talking about. Are there archives?

I agree with your author who compiled all the things Paul taught about family relationships and women in the church. I have not read his book but I have compiled them myself.

I am puzzled that you believe 'real truth' apart from the Bible. Jesus is not going to give any truth that contradicts His written word. I also noticed that you equate 'the law' with 'the Bible'. In the first place, the Old Testament Saints were not saved by 'the law' any more than we are. If there had been a law that could have given life, God would surely have not allowed His Son to die for our sins, and righteousness would have been by the law.

The Bible, however shows how those Old Testament Saints related to God by faith.

The 119th Psalm goes through the Hebrew alphabet with a praise for the Word and the Law following each letter, such as "Thy Word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee." "The law of the Lord is PERFECT, converting the soul." We know now that it does that by showing us how sinful we are so the Holy Spirit can draw us to the Savior.

Believe me, Baptist Believer, no one would ever in a million years think up the real plan of Salvation that God gives us through His Word.

Our whole ego system wants to be rewarded for some good thing we do to deserve a place in His kingdom. It is still the world's plan of salvation.

Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. The Bible was not written yet.

Cain and Seth married their sisters. The Holy Spirit, through Moses wrote in the Scripture that it would not be wise to continue that practice. With today's science, we know why, but back then a 'thou shalt not' was needed and they were to follow the Scripture as given to them by Moses.
We are not 'under the law' now, but that is still a good commandment and I marvel that Moses wrote it without our knowledged of genetics. It could only have come from God.

Today the Holy Spirit, who was sent to us by Christ, guides us by bringing to our remembrance the things He has spoken to us.
These things are written in His word.

The big trouble in the Christian community is people saying things like, "God told me to get a divorce and leave my family, and I am absolutely at peace about it." To them that is a 'truth' apart from the Bible.

I hope that is not what you are referring to.

Please, spell out for us what words in the revised Baptist Faith and Message that you object to, and why you think all those Scripture references that go with each point are not applicable.

For other newbies who need to see it for themselves try:

http://sbc.net

On the left, click, "Statement of Faith".

Sometimes I wish I was a pack rat. There were explanations of the teachings of Elliot, Hunnicutt, and others that contradict plain teaching of Scripture in the Baptist Standard back then, and I didn't save mine.

About the time you were born, the division was over whether the Scriptures, especially Genesis, Daniel, and some others that I can't remember were to be trusted. They didn't believe Daniel could have known ahead all the things prophesied about the world kingdoms, and so were teaching that the Daniel of the exile did not write those parts of the book and gave it a much later date.

Daniel was bilingual. He was a Hebrew who lived most of his life in Babylon. He did write part of his book in different dialect and to the critics that 'proved' that someone else wrote it.

Daniel also had a Hebrew audience and a Babylonian one, which could account for the different language.

Daniel even included a chapter written by old Nebudchadnezzar.

Jesus verified the prophecy portion of Daniel and said it was from Daniel and that shuts the mouth of the critics.

Back then none of our Literature included prophecy.

The terminology was that Genesis contained the Word of God, but also had add ins that were merely myths that were circulating back in those times.

And of course those teachers were smart enough to know which ones you could trust and which ones you could just ignore, sort of like those ghastly 'Jesus Seminar' people in Peter Jenning's special who do not believe more than a small percentage of the Red Letters in the Gospel's are actually Jesus' words.

Then Jennings went to Nazareth and Bethlehem, etc., and conveniently found people who denied the historical accuracy of what we know about Jesus.

His special was called, "In Search Of The Historical Jesus" and his conclusions led the uninformed to believe that there is no historical Jesus.

One of our most fruitful pastors left Southwestern without finishing because they were teaching him to doubt and actually hate the Scriptures he had loved from his parent's knees.

Sadly, other young students swallowed all that unbelief hook, line, and sinker.

Shalom

Alli

[ September 11, 2002, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Alliswell ]