Theological Doublespeak

Bill Clinton did not know how to DEfine, let alone REdefine!

You are correct and the Baptist Infidels are not the only ones who have to keep changing what words mean so they can denigrate the truth!

 

Wouldn't it be nice if "Baptist infidel" was an oxymoron?

 

Mark Osgartharp: " ... the Baptist Infidels will just
redefine inerrancy so they can say they believe in inerrancy
while still harboring their ungodly and evil prejudices
against the Holy Scriptures."

Check the definitions Baptists have of "inerrancy"
over at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001037
Note that traditional baptist ideas of inerrancy are
eroding to be replaced by errancy and by liberal KJB-onlyism.

May all God's best blessing fall upon Brother Mark
Osgatharp, his family, and his ministry. Amen!

 

Ed - what's this about liberal KJV onlyism? I certainly disagree with the KJV only position, but I never in my wildest creative moments would think of calling a KJV only person a liberal. What gives here?

 

Scripture says all scripture is inspired by God. Why redefine that. It is so much more than just inerrancy. It is even generally thought today that some of those original manuscripts were dictated and then corrected by the author.

The scripture teaches, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

The word of God is a dynamic message and not a static work. It is just as dynamic today as the day it was written. It is just as God breathed today as it was when it was inspired.

Why not explain inspiration rather than skip over it and ignore it by using another definition. The Chicago statement is not scripture. I would rather understand scripture rather than a statement on the Bible.

The Mormons have been quite good at using the same language and redefining the same words. So when they talk with the average Christian they are viewed as authentic. Instead they are impostors. They speak the same words with different meanings.

 

Thank you, Brother Paul of Eugene,
for asking. 15% of Baptists are religious
conservatives, 15% of Baptists are
religious liberals, 70% of Baptists are religious
moderates. I am a religious moderate.
I get tired of people on the BB and other
similiar boards assigning me either
of the conservative or liberal minorities.

Conservatives act irrationally to conserve
the outmoded tradions of the past.
KJVO (King James Version only)
is a new doctrine dating from within
my lifetime (i've seen it developing).

Liberals act irrationally to delve into
new and unexplored areas. KJVO is a new
doctrine and so KJVO is a religious liberal
stance. QED!

 

Theological Doublespeak

Some of my favorites are:

"Temporary" Eternal Salvation

Learned "Gift"

You have been "rented" for a price

nearly "whosoever"

 

Help me understand who it is you're talking about here...maybe my brain's just not working this morning. I have my own ideas, but by "Baptist Infidels," you don't mean the SBC, do you?

 

As far as I'm concerned, it already is!

 

As far as I'm concerned, it already is! </font>[/QUOTE]The words are, that's for sure, now if we can just get the people to go along. Hey, I just noticed, you are about to hit the big 10,000 and you have been on here a couple of months less than me . Wait till I get Cable...no, I still won't keep up, I don't think I can even TALK that fast.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

Although I fully expect you to disagree with me, there is an enormous difference between one who does not embrace a theory of inerrancy because it is an inadequate view of scripture and one who has rejected Baptist and biblical principles (a doctrinal “infidel”).

Furthermore, those who do not embrace a theory of inerrancy do not necessarily believe that the Bible is errant and/or untrustworthy.

Yep. Some people are cowards and won’t take a stand for what they believe, but I doubt what you describe is going to be a major problem. Those who do not support the so-called “conservative resurgence” are unlikely to remain at those institutions.

On the other hand I know of quite a few fairly “conservative” preachers who will not take a stand for what is right because they are afraid of incurring the wrath of the so-called “conservative resurgence” crowd. They are just as spineless.

Of course you seem to assume that the seminaries are pleasant places to be for those who do not share the so-called “conservative resurgence” politics and emphases…. From my dealings with people (both faculty and students at Southwestern), nothing could be further from the truth.

But I’m sure some fundamentalists need people to persecute so they will feel religious and important, so I fully expect them to turn on one another.

 

So people who believe in the Bible are bad old meanies…</font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. Where are you getting that idea?

If something has errors it is, by definition, errant.

Nope.

 

Nah, not necessarily.

I mean, when we've got people like you making comments like this, how can you blame us?

 

Nah, not necessarily.

I mean, when we've got people like you making comments like this, how can you blame us? </font>[/QUOTE]Please notice the word "some". I used the word "some" intentionally to make it clear that I was not making a blanket statement. It makes all the difference.

Certainly you know of fundamentalists who are not satisfied unless they are fighting someone...

 

If you are talking about how things are accomplished, that is one thing. There is no integrity where truth is denied though. That is why the CBF was needed. People needed to feel as though they were people of integrity all the while denying truth. Nope, worthless.