CBF Teenaged girl makes ignorant statement and shows the error of CBF's teaching

BB, the CBF was never relevant. The SBC will become irrelevent if it continues to cater to idiots like Warren.

 

When you spend time arguing over a piece of pie rather than getting your own piece then both will get little or no evangelism done.

 

Would hardly consider the work the BGCT is doing as scrambling. It is taking steps to be more relevent then ever and respond to the needs of the churches.

 

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Lacy

 

The comment of this little girl doesn't surprise me at all because I'm sure that it is one that was taught through her involvement with the CBF church. If I had a dime for every time I've heard someone in or around the CBF say, "Let's not elevate the Written Word above the Living Word," I'd be a rich man right now.

It is a well-known fact that many within the leadership of the CBF have made it a habit of explaning away the writings of Paul in regard to women by attempting to "place them in their proper context." In fact, the whole Living Word vs. Written Word argument of many within the CBF demonstrates a flawed thinking of Christ and the Bible. The fallacy is this: Jesus and the teachings of the New Testament don't always agree. When they don't, then I need to side with Jesus and claim autonomy and soul freedom. This is the classic liberal hermeneutic, and indeed the comment of this little girl bring that debased hermeneutic to light.

I agree that it is not always fair to apply the words of a teenage girl to an entire group of Baptists, but in this case I would surely say that the shoe fits.

 

It is so amazing that we cannot find the original autographs of the Bible, but we have such great pictures of Noah and his ark (with all of the animals hanging their heads outside of a boat that looks nowhere like what the Bible describes--but hey, it IS a picture), we have pictures of Jesus, the Lord's supper and all sorts of other pictures.

I wonder what happened to the negatives?

 

That is a distorted presentation of the Jesus as the criterion for interpertating scripture. There is simply a need to try and understand the purpose of Paul's writing to the early churches. The SEEMINGLY non-agreeing passages should simply be interpreted within the light of Jesus'(the pinnicle of God's revelation) teachings and model. When did Jesus tell women to sit and let the men handle it, go take care of the kids, that is your proper "role"? He didn't, so there is simply the belief that Paul would not write, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, something that would contridict what Jesus already said and did.

 

Jesus is not the criterion by which Scripture is to be understood, because you know nothing about Christ apart from Scripture. Disagree? Prove it.

 

Could you know Jesus, be saved without a bible? I sure would say yes, it probably happens everyday. That's not to diminish the bible in anyway. I feel extremely fortunate to have a bible to continue to learn more specifically about Jesus. I don't think the point of the Jesus breaking into the timeline of humanity was to give us book, it was to give us himself as the pinnecle of his revelation. The bible is the record of that revelation. If we didn't have books as a method to record that revelation we could still know Jesus through oral tradition, hymns and the testimony of others. But since we do have the written word, God choose to inspire men to record the events of his coming and since arrival and one day coming again revelation. We now can hold in our hands a completely trustworthy, reliable, inspired record of that revelation. If Jesus isn't the criterion who or what is?

 

Wrong. Scripture is not simply a "record" of that revelation. It is revelation. That is right, it is revelation straight from God.

A person cannot be saved without any biblical knowledge. It is impossible. A person must know the object of his/her faith. How will he/she know that without the Bible? He/she can't.

The Bible didn't merely record events. It is the authoritative standard on EVERY issue. When Christ came, he reaffirmed the authority of the word time and time again.

It is only the liberals with a problem.

 

Wrong. Scripture is not revelation it is revelation from God. Rememeber 2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is inspired by God. In Genesis where it states, "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." The Bible is not light. It is a record of God's revelation of light. When the Bible talks about God it is not God himself but simply a revelation about Him.

 

The Scripture is direct revelation from God. It perfectly matches his character and contains no error on any point, just like God. The Scripture is authoritative.

 

"If Jesus isn't the criterion who or what is?"

This does present a bit of a problem since the Bible claims that scripture is revelation from God. If a scripture, or our interpretation appears to conflict with something Jesus said then we should likely reexamine our interpretation of this verse.

I believe that all scripture is authoritative - but that does not mean that every traditional interpretation thereof is also authoritative.

 

Romans 1 says they are without excuse.

 

The girl's comments aside, our FBC had a prominent CBF preacher a couple of years ago, Dr. Phil Wise. His inclusive feel-good messages were fairly well received until he "came out of the closet" publically with his support of Open Theism, a heresy I have not yet encountered from an SBC minister. Assertions were made like, "God does not know the future" and "God sometimes in the Bible is surprised."

The Baptist Press still has the report online that brought shame to our FBC church in 2002 and ended Dr. Wise's position at FBC. It's an interesting read:

http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=13738

 

The point is???

 

gb, being without excuse only means that they are rightly held as sinful and deserving judgment. Stop making illogical leaps in reversing it to mean that salvation must also be possible with a mere knowledge of the existence of God. Take a logic course or something.

 

Salvation is in Christ, not the Bible. One can be saved with outever reading a Bible. In the NT and OT times only one to two percent could even read.

The Bible says in Ro. 10:13, "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." That is all the knowledge needed for one to be saved.

 

You misunderstood me. I said that a person cannot be saved without biblical knowledge. Romans 10:13 is in the Bible.

 

Btw, gb93433, how do you know that salvation is exclusively in Christ?