UnashamedYouth
New Member
no he thinks it's funny that I didn't believe him when he said that Paige is either loved or hated. He and I tease each other a lot LOL
-
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!
Paige Patterson
- Thread starter UnashamedYouth
- Start date
A Fiery Fundamentalist
New Member
Baptist Press is not a reliable source of information for any group the leaders of the SBC oppose.</font>[/QUOTE]I edited my post to correct my trouble with the links. So, Baptist Press is unreliable? Who would you consider reliable? The Baptist Standard? The Associated Baptist News? The publication of the CBF, whose name I cannot remember? The Baptist Press supports Biblical inerrancy. That is what singularly shows its superiority to those other journals. You are CBF, are you not? Is Baptist press true in what it says in the following articles (do not answer the question without following these links): [url="http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12332"]http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12332
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12333
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12334
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12503
If you believe it is true, do you support the CBF supporting that? If you do not beleve it is true, would you support the CBF IF it was supporting that?
no he thinks it's funny that I didn't believe him when he said that Paige is either loved or hated. He and I tease each other a lot LOL</font>[/QUOTE]Oh I see!
Baptist Press is not a reliable source of information for any group the leaders of the SBC oppose.</font>[/QUOTE]I edited my post to correct my trouble with the links. So, Baptist Press is unreliable?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Especially Russell Moore's reporting. I have caught many distortions of events in his work. I recently exposed one regarding a story he did about the CBF meeting in Fort Worth. I read his story and followed up on what he said. (I am a writer by profession and have reported on events for local and national magazines, so I am familiar with the methods of reseaching and fact-checking a story.) Russell Moore severely distorted what happened at the recent CBF meeting. He has also severely distorted what happened at some BGCT meetings in recent years. I know this because I was there. Given his (and Baptist Press's willingness to twist the truth to fit their agenda), I find it hard to believe them without checking the story for myself.
I have found the Baptist Standard to be very reliable -- even when they reported things I didn't want to hear or took the BGCT to task.
I'm not familiar with this organization unless you mean Associated Baptist Press. I have found ABP to be reliable regarding events I know something about from other sources.
I think you are referring to Baptists Today. I don't read Baptists Today very much since it is simply the house organ of CBF. I have not found them unreliable myself, but I don't have enough experience with the paper to have a strong opinion.
Support of a theological position does not necessarily mean that the reporting is accurate. I'd rather all newspapers support the commandment not to bear false witness. I'm not sure if any of the other papers mentioned have taken any sort of theological stance other than to tell the truth.
I am not.
I do not know if it is true. I do not have a copy of Review and Expositor to verify the stories. I do know that Russell Moore wrote most of what has been reported and he is describing the material in the same manner as he has described other things which turned out to be highly overblown and distorted. My first inclination is not to trust him but I try to find a copy of Review and Expositor and find out for myself the real story. Usually when I do that I find that Baptist Press is being less than fair or reliable.
Now, have *you* verified Baptist Press's stories yourself?
To present controversial opinions for the purposes of theological discussion and understanding is a worthy endeavor. It is my understanding that CBF supports the publication of these materials (with some reservations) but does not necessarily condone any of it. To get a balanced theological education that is equipped to deal with the world and competing philosophies it is important to get an understanding of what other people believe and why. That does not mean that you support it at all.
I support the free exchange of ideas... even if I don't agree with them.
Yes. See the statements above.
So who is reliable? The Baptist Standard?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes.
Seems to be.
The Review and Expositor is not a news organization or news publication. The Review and Expositor publishes a variety of opinions on theological issues -- not all of which are meant to be embraced.
I believe the Review and Expositor accurately represents the views of those who write the articles, but not necessarily the opinions of the editors or those who financially support the publication.
[ September 09, 2002, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]
A Fiery Fundamentalist
New Member
For verification, http://www.rande.org/spring01.htm should at least provide a clue. Interestingly enough, they only have the article titles and not the articles themselves. Have they something to hide? The titles are suggestive enough. If you want to, you can order a copy from them for $7. And I am truly sorry that I called you CBF when you are BGCT. Those two organizations will probably be one in the future. You should try http://www.mbla.org You have probably heard of Roger Moran and despise him. Nevertheless, in his Internet articles, he backs up his points with links to your "reliable" news services.
[ September 09, 2002, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: A Fiery Fundamentalist ]
[ September 09, 2002, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: A Fiery Fundamentalist ]
I checked it last night. Just having the titles does not prove a thing. I fully expected the titles to be accurate.
They want you to subscribe and not get the articles for free. That's how they support themselves. Expecting them to post everything is somewhat unrealistic.
I'll probably do that.
It did not offend me.
I'm not so sure about that. The BGCT will probably continue to work with CBF on certain projects but the BGCT will likely develop into a national denomination that will join with Baptists in Virginia and other groups who have had to seperate themselves from the SBC. Many people in the BGCT are not very interested in joining CBF (I'm not.)
I am familiar with Roger Moran and have investigated much of his alleged evidence for myself. He likes to use guilt by association to make his points. Both the CBF and BGCT have responded to his slander.
For instance, he and others have made much of Kirby Godsey's book, "When We Talk About God, Let's Be Honest..." I've seen a list of alleged heresies that are contained in the book with partial quotes that Moran and others have distributed. I purchased a copy of the book and checked each quote against the list. I discovered that the quotes are yanked out of context and used dishonestly.
Moran has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he is not trustworthy, so I tend not to believe him until I verify his wild stories.
Is there anything he has written that you find compelling?
[ September 09, 2002, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]
I never said I worshiped Dr. Patterson. I said he was a great guy who I look up to and respect.
you make me sound like I bow down and kiss this guys feet. I don't.</font>[/QUOTE]
Where ARE my manners???
I did not intend to put you down, Unashamed!!!
It is so refreshing to see a young person choose good role models and I pray for your every success in your education!!!
I was thinking of when Paige was an eager youth like you, with good role models of his own.
You see, he grew up in our town. His dad, Dr. T A Patterson was pastor of FBC Beaumont, TX until he left to become Executive Secretary to the Baptist General Convention of Texas.
Paige conducted youth revivals in most of the small churches in our area, and even as a youth, he was grounded in the Word.
It really got to him when they went to Korea on mission and saw the utter dedication of the Korean Christians. Christianity was so new and precious to them.
Many people in our area adopted Korean orphans after they went, including the Pattersons.
We have a new one in our family, Lindsey Van Dim Burns, 2 yrs old now.
But when Paige came home, he really noticed that the Christians here are so much like the rest of Society, you couldn't tell the difference unless they told you.
I know you don't worship him, but do keep him as your good role model and I apologize for insulting you. Believe me, it was unintentional!
Shalom
Alli
Interesting. So you are from Beaumont?
Hello Golden Triangle!
I’m not sure who you are referring to here, but I take great pains not to refer to someone as a “fundamentalist” unless they identify themselves that way. I have no clue who you think might be a “libby”
I think I did refer to “more fundamental Baptists” somewhere along the way on this thread, but that is hardly a slur.
From an outsider, hasn't the exchange in this thread shown that teh comments of Patterson were right? Whether you agree with him or not, it seems you can hardly deny that his comments over the years were right. The moderates (their term, not mine) took over the convention in earlier years. They dominated the seminaries (some of which recovered; see Southern) and teh colleges (most of which did not; see Baylor and a list too long to mention). When the "moderates" lost their hold, they took their ball and went home, complaining loudly as they went.
It makes me laugh ... and cry at the same time. Something that is so simple has become so difficult.
It makes me laugh ... and cry at the same time. Something that is so simple has become so difficult.
Where do you get that idea?
Um, yes I can… because he was not right. Again, where are you getting this idea?
When was this “takeover”? Seems to me that there was a board spectrum of Baptists leading the convention until the last 25 years.
Many of the moderates and conservatives who did not go along with the “conservative resurgence” were slandered and pressured to resign. Some were fired. Now you are saying they took their ball and went home? Not at all. Most of them wanted to participate and have been shut out. Now they are trying to be obedient to their calling and they have to do it some other way outside of the convention. That’s quite a bit different than taking their ball and going home. Why should we support something that is constantly slandering us, belittling our faith and doing everything possible to stop us from following the leading of the Spirit and the call of Christ?
It is simple if you don’t have all the facts.
Baptist Believer,
I don't know who on the thread was mentioning 'fundies' every other word. Sometimes you can't get to the text of the other posts after clicking on "Reply".
Fundamentalist is a respectable real word. When I was a child, I heard my parents talk of the 5 fundamentals of the faith.
I don't know if I can remember them, but one fundamental is the Deity and Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
Another was the absolute Truth of God's Word.
Another was salvation by grace through faith as a free gift, only.
Another was growth in grace and the knowledge of our Lord for all true born again believers, who cannot be unborn.
The last was probably the assurance of resurrection or rapture at our Lord's return for His saints.
I think those things were included but was too young to really grasp some of them.
I did grow up with a great respect for the term 'fundamentals'.
To me they meant 'foundational tenets of the Bible.'
Will Rogers used to say, "All I know is what I read in the newspapers!"
(Now that I've typed that, I think it was Will!)
Anyway, the most that I know about the controversy, I read in the Baptist General Convention of Texas' Newspaper, the Baptist Standard, to which we were subscribers for many years until they defunded the Seminaries.
We are now subscribers to the Southern Baptist's of Texas paper. There is more teaching of the Word and less vitriolic gossip in it, although some of the statements of 'higher critics' are reported.
Anyone who cannot accept the Statement of Faith as recently updated, doesn't really want to participate in SBC life.
It is so Bibical, but openly states that it makes NO CLAIMS to being inerrant and reserves the right to update it again if the need should arise.
That is why the labels and insinuations saying Paige should dress like the Pope are unChristian and unTrue.
We have not lived in Beaumont since 1966, but still do business there. What church did you go to in Nederland.
We got a long time area missionary from FBC, Nederland. Brother J P Owens, who has gone to be with the Lord. His son is prominent in the Legal profession in our County.
Our beloved nursery coordinator was trained by Grandma Woods at FBC Nederland. There was one lady who knew the right way to start those babies out in Church.
I think I saw on one of your posts, (I am a newbie on this board) that you believe that a person can be saved by Jesus without the Word.
Well, I do give Him glory that He can do anything He wants to, but:
Which Jesus would that be?
The Mormon's have one who used to be like us but obtained Godhood after battling his brother Lucifer for the privilege, or something like that.
The JW's have one who was the first thing that God the Father created and has been assisting Jehovah as a less than god creation ever since.
There would be as many Jesuses as there are people if each made up his own, and the one who would preside over a Baptist Church for Homosexuals would be one of them.
I will take the Pure and Holy, virgin born Son of God who will sit on the throne of His father, David and of His kingdom there shall be no end, for I am complete in Him.
I appreciated what you said about Phebe and woman deacon's (servants) because that is what the Greek word in the Scripture calls her: 'diakonos'!
I understand the key word in Paul's teaching about women in the church would be usurp.
Women asked to speak by the pastor, with the approval of their husbands, would not be out of order.
Women pastoring men is not a Scriptural teaching.
Shalom
Alli
From seeing what he said and seeing how you and David and others prove what he said to be true.
The reality is that in the early days of the SBC there was a wide divergence but not on issues like Scripture, the virgin birth, and some of these other fundamental doctrines. The Holyfield thesis showed the depths to which the "moderates" took the convention. The SBC of 30 years ago was not the SBC of John Broadus and others. Those moderates at the seminaries who undermined and denied fundamental doctrines should have been fired, no questions asked. There is no room in a Christian organization for those who undermine its essential tenets. This is not a matter of soul liberty; it is a matter of contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. If there was slander, it was wrong. It was also unnecessary. It should have been a statement to the effect, "You have until 3:00 this afternoon to have your office cleaned out."
"Being obedient to their calling" is a pious way to argue for the unbelief that many demonstrate. I am not talking here about issues on which there has been a historical spectrum of divergence. I am talking about the fundamentals such as bibliology, virgin birth, miracles of Scripture, etc. Baptist ideals have never allowed for one to retain the distinctive of "Baptist" while denying the very things that "Baptism" stands for.
If you want to follow the call of Christ, then repent of false doctrine and false teaching. Repent of encouraging and tolerating the things that God hates. Separate from those who teach contrary to the Word of God and return to an earnest contention for the faith. But don't humor us with your assertions of "following the call" and "serving Christ." Those who are doing that, do it the way said. They do not compromise.
Again, I have no particular interest. I am not a southern baptist by conviction. I think long ago, those committed ot biblical orthodoxy should have pulled out. As it is, it is as of now the only apparent time in church history that a major denomination/convention has been rescued from theological liberalism (moderatism). Time will tell how solid the rescue is.
I did to. I still believe the fundamentals of the faith -- yet there are those who have reinterpreted what the fundamentals must now be and I can't go along with that.
That's a pretty harsh statement... I have wanted to participate in SBC life, but the revisions to the Baptist Faith and Message have made that impossible to do without violating my conscience. Also, the treatment of numerous people I personally know by Southwestern Seminary and SBC leadership motivate me to disassociate myself from the convention.
It is very close to being biblical, but -- in my opinion -- it comes up short. (The reasons have been hashed and rehashed too many times and I don't feel the need to lay it all out here.) Also, if the Baptist Faith and Message is not infallible, why is it being used as an "instrument of accountability" over and above the Bible? Baptists have historically resisted creeds and I see no reason to embrace one now.
I have never made statements along those lines.
I was born in 1965 and lived in Nederland until the mid-1980s. I grew up in First Baptist Nederland.
Yes, I really liked Brother Owens. He was often a guest preacher at FBC Nederland and at one point in the 1980s was an interim. I can still hear his laugh. When did he pass on?
Yes, I have very good memories of Grandma Woods.
Yes. That is a fairly accurate way of putting it. Please note that I am talking about written scriptures, not revealed truth.
Well, I do give Him glory that He can do anything He wants to, but:
The Jesus of the New Testament. Abraham was saved without any written word and he is our example of saving faith according to Paul in Galatians and Romans. My mother was also born again without knowledge that the Bible even existed. A Roman Catholic priest in their prison camp during World War II told my mother about saving faith in Jesus Christ. She had no Bible and little church upbringing except for the sacraments, the icons and the Latin Mass. He told her that those things were unimportant and wouldn't do a bit of good without personally committing herself to Christ. When she came to the United States a few years later she visited a Baptist church and heard a preacher preaching from a Bible. She had wondered for several years why God didn't reveal something in written form so people could understand His will. When she heard the words of the Bible, she knew it was from God. The Spirit is not restricted by the lack of the written word of God. It happens quite a bit more than we probably realize.
But we are not making God in our own image if we say that there is salvation in Christ apart from the written revelation of God. Again, Paul in Galatians and Romans make that clear with his discussion of the Law.
Yes. So am I. (I never suggested anything else.)
Yup. In practice, most of the female deacons in our church exercise their gift teamed with their husbands. Both the male and female deacons have the authority to commit deacon ministry resources (food, monies and prayer support) to those with whom they minister. They are actively involved in visitation, homebound ministries, ministering to the sick and new member support.
That's the opinion I used to have until a few years ago. When I did more study on the subject, my convictions changed. I will not fault anyone who believes otherwise (unless they are clearly misogynistic) because the English translations of the Greek usually include the assumed bias of the translators and render Paul's teaching to only be understood one way. As I have mentioned earlier, E. Earle Ellis's treatment of Paul's writings on women changed my mind. He deals only with what the scripture actually says and correlates that with the full force of Paul's other teachings on household order and the roles of men and women. The real clue for me that something was wrong with the classic "conservative" view of women in ministry is that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 11 that a woman should have her head covered when she is preaching. If a woman is supposed to be silent in the churches, why does he give guidance on head coverings (signs of submission) to women who are preaching? Ellis takes all of the strands of Paul's teaching and puts them together in a way where it does not contradict and is consistent with all the teachings of Paul and the gospel of Christ.
From seeing what he said and seeing how you and David and others prove what he said to be true.
</font>[/QUOTE]From your response, the only thing I can figure out is that you think my beliefs are liberal... Is that your opinion?
I've seen the Hollyfield stats bandied about for years, but I've never seen anything of the thesis to make me believe its conclusions. What questions were actually asked? (The reports I have seen say he used a "standard 37 question questionaire" --whatever that means. I've been around statistics and polls enough to know how easily they can be manipulated if you want to gain evidence to support an opinion. The fact that a three member committee approved the thesis does not necessarily mean that they approved the conclusions, the selection of the statistical sample, the survey questions or even the overall methodology.
If the situation was like they say, it would have been the honest thing to do.
There is no room in a Christian organization for those who bear false witness against their brothers and sister in Christ.
I fully agree.
Yes. If thing were as they say, that would have been the best way to handle it.
Just because many people misuse that statement doesn't mean it is invalid or that someone is suspect because they use it. People use the name of Jesus all the time for ungodly things, but that does not mean people who use the name of Jesus are necessarily wrong.
Historically, the majority of Baptists have believed the fundamentals (as popularly defined). But they have also believed in soul liberty and institutional seperation of church and state which is often incorrectly maligned as evidence of some sort of unbiblical liberalism.
I have. That has shaped my theology to be what it is today. I want to teach and preach a message that is biblically accurate and represents the holiness and grace of God. The Southern Baptist leadership has a different opinion about my beliefs. Therefore I no longer consider myself a Southern Baptist.
I have. That's why I speak out about the lies, hypocrisy and slander of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. God hate that and I feel compelled to say something about it.
I don't need to "seperate" or "return". I am exactly where God wants me. I am contending for the word of God and the truth.
I've never tried to "humor" anyone. I've never made any bones about where I stand. I am following God's call for me and I am following Christ. If you disagree, please take it to my Master. He is very good about getting my attention.
No compromise here. I often take the unpopular stand. Liberals like Joshua often do not like my convictions. So-called "conservatives" get upset when I ask them to pay attention to what the Bible teaches. I usually get shot at from both sides. (I must stress here that Joshua has never said an unkind word to me. Frankly, we rarely ever communicate.)
Do you still have a conviction against the Southern Baptist Convention?
I'm afraid the foundation is rotten.
Hello All,
Above Baptist Believer said:
"The Jesus of the New Testament. Abraham was saved without any written word and he is our example of saving faith according to Paul in Galatians and Romans. My mother was also born again without knowledge that the Bible even existed. A Roman Catholic priest in their prison camp during World War II told my mother about saving faith in Jesus Christ. She had no Bible and little church upbringing except for the sacraments, the icons and the Latin Mass. He told her that those things were unimportant and wouldn't do a bit of good without personally committing herself to Christ. When she came to the United States a few years later she visited a Baptist church and heard a preacher preaching from a Bible. She had wondered for several years why God didn't reveal something in written form so people could understand His will. When she heard the words of the Bible, she knew it was from God. The Spirit is not restricted by the lack of the written word of God. It happens quite a bit more than we probably realize."
I want to address what you said about Abraham. He was saved by his faith in and obedience to God. It was God who spoke directly to Abraham. During the O.T. times God spoke in various ways to his people. To some by visions, other by dreams, and others by his audible voice, and to some by his angelic messengers etc. Later God spoke to the nation of Israel through the Prophets (however, he still spoke audibly to the individual Prophet). For 400 years he was silent then he spoke through John the Baptist. Then God spoke by way of the words of Jesus Christ. Then the Holy Spirit of God breathed the N.T. Scriptures by way of inspiration of the Apostles. Now we have that Holy Spirit inspired Word of God, the Bible.
Now that we have the Bible, God's Holy Word, God does not speak to us audibly as he did to Abraham and the other O.T. saints. He speaks to us through the Bible. Can one have a "Holy Spirit" experience? Yes, but if that experience contradicts the Bible I would suggest that you had an experience with some type of spirit, just not the Holy Spirit.
In Hebrews Abraham and the other O.T. saints are given as examples of faith to a group of Jewish Christains who are under a mild (not unto death) persecution and are in danger of turning back to the Law as an escape from that persecution. The author of Hebrews (I believe it was Paul, but that is a whole other debate) is saying to them, "Look Abraham was justified by his faith and all he had was the promise. Now you have the fulfillment of the promise, the resurrected Jesus Christ, and you are considering turning back to the Law. Don't be foolish. Continue to live out your faith in the light of that fulfilled promise, which is the resurrection of Christ!"
Likewise, your mother may not have ever read the Bible when she accepted Christ as her Savior; however, the priest who witnessed to her had read it. He told her about the Christ of the Bible. God's Word is God's Word whether it is read first hand from the Bible or is spoken, quoted, by someone who has read and memorized it. If that priest had not read his Bible and memorized the texts that he used to lead you mother to Christ would she have been saved? Did she really come to know Christ completely apart from the Word of God? I don't think so. No one can be saved apart from the Christ of the Bible, apart from the Word of God. That is unless you are going to go down the Pentecostal/Charismatic path. If so you are not holding to Baptist doctrine.
This post also goes along with my earlier discussion with David because he said some very similar things about O.T. saints and people being saved apart from the Bible.
[ September 10, 2002, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
Above Baptist Believer said:
"The Jesus of the New Testament. Abraham was saved without any written word and he is our example of saving faith according to Paul in Galatians and Romans. My mother was also born again without knowledge that the Bible even existed. A Roman Catholic priest in their prison camp during World War II told my mother about saving faith in Jesus Christ. She had no Bible and little church upbringing except for the sacraments, the icons and the Latin Mass. He told her that those things were unimportant and wouldn't do a bit of good without personally committing herself to Christ. When she came to the United States a few years later she visited a Baptist church and heard a preacher preaching from a Bible. She had wondered for several years why God didn't reveal something in written form so people could understand His will. When she heard the words of the Bible, she knew it was from God. The Spirit is not restricted by the lack of the written word of God. It happens quite a bit more than we probably realize."
I want to address what you said about Abraham. He was saved by his faith in and obedience to God. It was God who spoke directly to Abraham. During the O.T. times God spoke in various ways to his people. To some by visions, other by dreams, and others by his audible voice, and to some by his angelic messengers etc. Later God spoke to the nation of Israel through the Prophets (however, he still spoke audibly to the individual Prophet). For 400 years he was silent then he spoke through John the Baptist. Then God spoke by way of the words of Jesus Christ. Then the Holy Spirit of God breathed the N.T. Scriptures by way of inspiration of the Apostles. Now we have that Holy Spirit inspired Word of God, the Bible.
Now that we have the Bible, God's Holy Word, God does not speak to us audibly as he did to Abraham and the other O.T. saints. He speaks to us through the Bible. Can one have a "Holy Spirit" experience? Yes, but if that experience contradicts the Bible I would suggest that you had an experience with some type of spirit, just not the Holy Spirit.
In Hebrews Abraham and the other O.T. saints are given as examples of faith to a group of Jewish Christains who are under a mild (not unto death) persecution and are in danger of turning back to the Law as an escape from that persecution. The author of Hebrews (I believe it was Paul, but that is a whole other debate) is saying to them, "Look Abraham was justified by his faith and all he had was the promise. Now you have the fulfillment of the promise, the resurrected Jesus Christ, and you are considering turning back to the Law. Don't be foolish. Continue to live out your faith in the light of that fulfilled promise, which is the resurrection of Christ!"
Likewise, your mother may not have ever read the Bible when she accepted Christ as her Savior; however, the priest who witnessed to her had read it. He told her about the Christ of the Bible. God's Word is God's Word whether it is read first hand from the Bible or is spoken, quoted, by someone who has read and memorized it. If that priest had not read his Bible and memorized the texts that he used to lead you mother to Christ would she have been saved? Did she really come to know Christ completely apart from the Word of God? I don't think so. No one can be saved apart from the Christ of the Bible, apart from the Word of God. That is unless you are going to go down the Pentecostal/Charismatic path. If so you are not holding to Baptist doctrine.
This post also goes along with my earlier discussion with David because he said some very similar things about O.T. saints and people being saved apart from the Bible.
[ September 10, 2002, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
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?
You are making the assumption that God did not speak to people just because there was no scripture written?!
Yes. I agree with your major points -- except where noted.
What is the basis for this assertion?
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.
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.
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.
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".
[ September 10, 2002, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]