Is there a right of private interpretation of scripture?

Possibly a paycheck.

 

The bigger question should be "why would anyone want to have him as their pastor?"

 

I asked myself a similar question in a church I pastored just a few years ago when I found out that they had a regular practice of inviting the Mormon bishop to teach at some events they sponsored. They also let him participate in the local CBMC. When I asked about that, one of the deaons who was also a volunteer at the state level on the church growth committee claimed the bishop was a Christian and had been for a long time. Imagine the shock I felt! I was almost speechless.

Not much surprises me any more.

 

There are so many baptist teachings which ones?

 

Individuals do have soul liberty. We each have the responsibility to study the scripture and obey it as we understand it. We also have a responsibility to be teachable and to refrain from being dogmatic in our interpretations.

However, the person Mohler is speaking of is not merely an individual. He is a pastor. A pastor is accountable to someone for the doctrine that he teaches. He is accountable, depending upon his circumstances, to his denomination, his board, his congregation, to someone. A pastor is to teach the doctrine of the apostles without any variation. This particular pastor is not doing that. He should be removed from his office. Shame on the Episcopal church for not doing this. Shame on anyone who knows the truth and tolerates his error. Thank God for Al Mohler who is faithful to point out the error.

 

It is not our responsibility to study scripture and obey it as we understand it. Scripture is not to be interpreted subjectively. It is our responsibility to study scripture and obey it in light of its historical context. It is not a subjective responsibility but rather studying truth. Truth is not open to subjective interpretation.

Mohler has been so busy making noise about everyone else I wonder how many disciples he has made in obedience to Christ's command in Mt. 28:19, 20?

 

Just as an aside, religious tolerance is not the same as religious freedom. Tolerance is rooted in the response one individual has toward another and can be taken away. Freedom is rooted in the individual to believe as they see fit and is not dependent on someone else. I understand it could be considered splitting hairs but to me it as different as priesthood of the believer and priesthood of the believerS.

 

I don't really disagree with you here. However, ultimately, a person does not obey objective truth because we are incapable of fully comprehending all truth. We have to obey what we understand, realizing that we may have an imcomplete understanding, and asking God to reveal the truth to us more fully. For instance, a person, in their understanding, may believe that the scriptures forbid them to drink alcohol. If that is their understanding, then they are bound by their own conscience to obey what they have become convinced of.

But, back to the bishop in question, this man's problem is not a matter of not understanding. He has rejected the truth outright. He has no business holding the office of bishop. He is not qualified.

 

I think this comment is inappropriate. Mohler, as president of a leading conservative seminary and as a writer and speaker has tremendous opportunities to teach and lead others. From what I have read of him, he is fulfulling his task faithfully and in an excellent manor. Who are you to judge the Lord's servant?

 

He makes that judgment of everyone. If you interact with him long enough he will judge you in the same way.

 

OF COURSE there is that right. It is EXPECTED of us.

Every individual christian is to be a student of the scriptures, and that does not mean studying what some great body of believers have decided it means, so they can spoon feed us.

Every believer is to "search the scriptures" daily, with the expectation that Almighty God is going guide them and speak to them personally.


:godisgood:

 

Truth is objective and always reliable. It does not waver as subjectivity would. If truth were not objective then truth would be relativistic. It would be different for every person and some sort of thing marshmallow open to individualistic interpretation.

Immaturity and incomplete truth gets people into trouble all the time.

That may be from experience or conscience but not a careful study of scripture. I believe it is wrong to waste food and over eat because people are starving but I will not die on it because I see nothing in scripture to support that value.

Most likely he is surrounded by pagans or lukewarm people. Years ago I pastored an SBC church where the deacons invited the Mormon bishop to teach at the CBMC and at an event they sponsored each year. Leaders at the state and local associations knew about it for years and did or said nothing. When I contacted one of the leaders involved in the conservative resurgence thinking that he would do something, he said and did nothing too. Does that makes those SBC leaders much different than the bishop in question whom Mohler commented on? Where was Mohler when the trustees at SWBTS lied to the press about Dilday and his performance? I would suggest that Mohler help to clean up his own house (the SBC) first while they are reportedly losing numbers and evangelistic boldness. They are about changing the world and commenting about how wrong worldly people are but what are they doing in their own ranks to make a difference outside of words? Have you ever heard Mohler talk about how he makes disciples?

 

I have high respect for Albert Mohler. I was born and raised in Louisville. I'm just curious, would that by any chance be Walnut St Baptist church...downtown?

:godisgood:

 

gb, you are about criticizing Mohler, but what are you doing? Take the beam out of your eye my friend before you take the splinter out of Mohler's. That's a statement of objective truth, BTW.

 

Zenas, thanks for your comments and inquiry. In a sense, all truth is important and all truth has consequence(s) if not obeyed. However, there are levels of truth. Some things are so clear in scripture and so well established in the history of the church that they cannot be denied if one is to profess to be a Christian. None of the examples that you mentioned, baptism, eternal security, and divorce, fall into that category. The greatest command is to love God with your whole being and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. I can disagree with you on any of the topics you mentioned, but we both can love God and we both must love each other. We might both hold either position on those matters and we both might change our position multiple times over the course of a lifetime of study. So on those matters, I think Paul's advice in Philippians 3 is apropo: "...as many as are mature, have this mind:[the mind of Christ] and if in anything your think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind".

 

Everyone of us has tremendous opportunities to teach and lead if we will get out there and reach people. The harvest is plentiful. Jesus leads the largest volunteer organization in the world. Jesus commanded his followers to make disciples. Is it inappropriate to expect that of every leader? Shouldn’t that characterize every leader in every Christian organization. The church is to judge itself first. Does anyone lead a larger volunteer organization than the one Jesus leads? The problem today is that we expect so little of leadership in the church and religious organizations. Too often the organizations are run as if they are an administration and not a church with people being reached. We are to judge the actions of those in the church. It is really not about condemning another but about picking the log out of our own eye before we spend our time picking others apart. What business does Mohler have picking another denomination or man apart on the outside when the SBC has enough troubles of its own?.

Faithful in what? That would depend on the standard that is held. When I considered church planting in the SBC I was never asked about the disciples I made. In none of the SBC churches I interviewed at for a pastors position was I ever asked about the disciples I made. So what does that say about what people expect of their leaders in SBC churches? When he was considered as president was he asked about the disciples he made? Those I know who have taught at SBC seminaries and were making disciples have told me that very few professors were making disciples at the time I asked. Being an administrator is not the same as making disciples as Jesus commanded. I see in no place in scripture that administration can be substituted for making disciples.

The basic job of every pastor is to make disciples. If Mohler’s job as a leader is to teach future pastors how to make disciples and lead a church in that effort, how does he teach that in writing columns and blogs? Were there any of the NT writers, church planters and leaders who did not make disciples? If a "leader" is too busy to make disciples is he not busier than God intended? No amount of “other” work will make up for what God commands.

I do not think it inappropriate to ask questions of prospective leaders and to expect them to lead in a godly way as an example to the church of what God commanded in the Bible. My wife and I were married in a church where every prospective elder and deacon whop agreed to serve was brought before the pastor first and then the existing elders and deacons and asked about their testimony and Christian ministry. Then after that the person was brought before the congregation. If there were no objections by the congregation then a time was set aside for the congregation to ask the person questions. In that church there was never a lack of high quality, godly, leadership. The first time I saw that I was impressed in that they want men who are good examples and there is nothing in them that would bring reproach on the church. Every leader in that church knew how to make disciples including all of the pastors and Sunday School teachers.

 

The history of Mohler is he does like the wild and wholly world of the individual Baptist, that is why he helped to take it out of the revised Baptist Faith and Message 2000 edition. That ground has been tread plenty here but compare the 2000 and 1963 editions to see for yourself.

I have no doubt that he would prefer the SBC exercise even more control over it's member churches and institutions. This is just an article that nibbles around the edges of his desired reality.