Categories of Truth

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Squire Robertsson, Sep 14, 2002.

  1. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,629
    Likes Received:
    310
    I took the following from Pastor David Innes' (senior pastor of Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco for twenty five years) series What is a Fundamentalist.
    I hope these will help us as we discuss matters here. Pastor Innes refers to them as "Columns" as he had printed materials accompaning his speaking.</font>
    1. Very Clear-to deny these truths is to deny the meaning of words. Such doctrines would include: the Virgin Birth, the Blood Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection, the Diety of Christ, ect.</font>
    2. Logical Conclusions-truths drawn by inference from Catagory 1. Such truths would include: Immersion=Baptism, anythingelse is just getting wet; the form of church government congregational vis presbyterian; standards in music, ect.</font>
    3. Informed and uninformed opinions. Such matters come from ones own personal walk and study. These would include the Textual questions, Sunday Schools, Head Covering for Women, ect.</font>
    4. Petty, personal preferences. Such matters would include: robed choirs, church dinners, ect.</font>
    I in no way have sought to be exhaustive in my examples for the different catagories. And many will want to move these examples (and some of them are mine) around.

    Hoping to shed more light than heat,
    Keith

    [ December 04, 2002, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: The Squire ]
     
  2. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except for head coverings and text issues, I agree with everything else.
     
  3. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, a BJU lad that explains why he put textual issues where he did. They have left the TR in the classrooms though they still use the KJV in Chapel. If they are convinced that the root of the MVs is good then why not use the NIV or one of the other children in Chapel? It would most likely cause the loss of a lot of financial support since a great many folks probably do not know that they have made that shift in the Greek classes.
    BJ is still seem as some as the bastion of fundamentalism. In another decade or so that will most likely not be true as most if not all denominations and such that have left the TR have also taken a decidedly strong turn to the Left theologically as well. While I do not bow towards Pensacola anymore than I do Hammond, I would only send anyone I know to Pensacola because I think they are academically superior to H-A. So, Kathy may want to e-mail them for some of her questions.
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,629
    Likes Received:
    310
    Brethren and Sisters: I tried to leave the BJU aspect out of the discussion. For one thing, I heard the messages when they were first given during Sunday evening services at HSBC. I would also quibble about where Pastor Innes puts certain issues. But, these messages go a long way in explaining why we are here with a Fundamental Forum. We may not agree on the exact divisions of the pie. We do agree that the pie is to be divided.
     
  5. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,629
    Likes Received:
    310
    So, has anybody taken the time to go to these messages and listened to them? One of the problems dealt with is the problem of how close a relationship we have others is based on where we agree on the catagories of truth. We are Christians based on what we believe in the first catagory. We are Baptists based on what we believe in the second. We are Historical/Fundamental ones based on what we believe in the third catagory (I trust we are basing this on Informed Opinions). You go to your church and I go to mine based on the fourth.

    Hoping to shed more light than heat,
    Keith
     
  6. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,629
    Likes Received:
    310
    With a slight variation (I think Pastor Innes expanded on his original over time), here is the chart he used to lay out the Categories Catagory Chart
    I hope this helps.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have heard Innes messages several times. I have them on tape. Innes is exactly right. There are informed and uninformed opinions on the textual issue and it has nothing to do with BJU. BJU holds the position that historic fundamentalism held. I have never seen a TR Only school remain true to the truth for very long. It is not long until they are off in false doctrine about bibliology. However, that is my personal observation, not a scientific study. Historic fundamentalism has always regarded textual preference as a matter of informed opinion (or uninformed as the case is for some).
     
  8. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,629
    Likes Received:
    310
  9. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,629
    Likes Received:
    310
    For our newer posters, bump again
     

Share This Page

Loading...