Why still SBC

What do you do with the phrase Jesus stated that if we do not believe Moses and the Prophets, we will not believe it if someone is to rise from the Grave? Do you think Jesus was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures?

But there is another point. The Trinity is a similar issue. Historically, you don't have to believe the Trinity to be a Christian, but you cannot be a Christian and deny the Trinity. Likewise, the same is said about the Scripture as it comes directly from God.

 

Ruiz wrote to B.B. -

Ruiz, It is difficult for you to say this because Baptist Beleiver has yet (Forgive me if I missed it) to actually say what his view is, other than that he does not hold to inerrancy. He has said he beleives the bible, that he does "Not believe the bible is in error."

I just think we might want to ask Baptist believer to actually state his beliefs on inerrancy before we try to disprove them...

(How bout it Baptist Believer, can you give us a consise summary?)

 

He has said he believes the Bible, but that he believes one can have the view contrary to innerancy. The statement I made was that our founding fathers all the way to the 1800's, said that innerancy is both the doctrine of the church and that we should separate from people who disagree with innerancy. BB's view is that they are okay and should be tolerated. Spurgeon clearly showed that this is a part of the problem, a part of the Downgrade and that historically theologians saw men who disagreed with innerancy as being outside of Christianity. BB's view as accepting such men, is against history.

 

1. B.B. has not said he does not believe Moses and the prophets.

2. Jesus was saying that if someone disbelieves the Word of God as already given, another miracle or two will not convince them. It is true that he was making a point about the importance and sufficiency of God's Word, but he did not word it the way you are wording it, and it cannot be taken (especially by itself) to equate disbelief in "inerrancy" with non-salvation.

3. There are many instances in scripture where true believers were VERY confused about major issues, and yet they are still considered to be Believers. (Peter tried to stop Jesus from being crucified; the Corinthian believers were proud of their tolerance of incest...yet paul says he "thanks God for them.")

 

1. BB did say he believed in the Bible, but he believed it is legitimate to not believe in the innerancy of Scripture. I strongly disagree and believe that Historical Theology has shown that up until the 1800's, it was considered a heresy.

2. The point is noted, without innerancy you cannot know what was and what was not said about Jesus. We have no real understanding of Scripture. One theologian I cited said that if we deny part of the Scripture, we have no reliance on any of the Scripture.

3. Confusion is not a denial of innerancy, but confusion. Augustine addressed this very issue in one of the quotes I provided. As well, I am confused about the Trinity, yet I do not deny the Trinity. Neither is an attack on Scripture nor of the Trinity.

 

1. The statement referring to "our founding fathers all the way back to the 1800's" is very strong when debating the U.S. Constitution, but not so strong when debating theology, since we have (at minimum) nearly 2,000 years to consider ADDED LATER--> [I'll leave this here to show my mistake, but I clearly misread ruiz argument here, and so this point I am making is not valid...]

2. "He believes one can have a view contrary to innerrancy". Again, we should try to determine what exactly he believes that is contrary to innerancy, since "innerrancy" is not a word found in scriptures, and has been defined by men. Because of recent controversies in the church; most know what we mean by "innerrancy." However, we do not know what B.B. believes...I am hoping he will reply with some sort of summary so we can debate with more information.

3. I personally DO hold to innerrancy.

 

Sorry for the confusion on #1

#2. I think I am accurately portraying his view. He believes that a certain person he agrees does not hold to inerrancy should be tolerated and who he respects (not really the right word) is okay to head a group of Baptists. He has said that he believes in innerancy several times. Thus, I do not think I am that far off.

3. I know, but the point was to show the importance of this doctrine.

 

Just checking, I though he was saying he did not believe in inerrancy.

 

Denial of inerrancy is sufficient to be classified as a theological liberal, according to the classic definitions.

Also, you are incorrect in affirming that liberals "would not affirm" the infallibility or reliability of scripture. Many, many liberal theologians have affirmed such, depending on your definition of infallibility (which is defined differently by different people).

No it wouldn't. The most decent, honest, and Christ honoring thing to do would be to tell the truth. The truth is, denial of inerrant has historically classified one as a theological liberal. It is "the" defining characteristic.

The idea that God would pen a document that was without error in terms of faith and practice, yet laden with error in terms of its facts, is absurd and disgusting to say the least. It calls into question the very character of God.

The issues were not about "belief" and "unbelief." That is a broad, meaningless statement, since everyone defines these terms differently. The question was, and has been, is the Bible completely without error, and can it be trusted every single time it speaks? Go read Fosdick, Matthew and Rauschenbusch (on the liberal side). Go read Shields, Machen, Macartney (on the conservative side). THE issue was inerrancy.

There has been no distortion of the gospel among conservatives (at least, as a body). The issue was and is inerrancy. The conservatives saying that the Bible can be trusted, while the liberals, bowing to Jacques Derrida, affirmed that the Bible must mean the meaning to which the reader assigns. This of course led to the Neo-Orthodox (which is actually closer to your own position, it seems).

Though we Southern Baptists are anti-denominational, and thus are almost anal about asserting things like this, the fact is that the BGCT is a part of the "cooperative" and can be booted "out" just like other organizations have been. That one can be booted "out" implies that they are "in." I know we Southern Baptists would never dare admit to such a thing, though.

I pray not. It is getting worse, and quickly. A church that I know just left the BGCT over some particularly grievous things which were ignored by the BGCT leadership.

"Very little" support...funny. "Our church only gives a few hundred thousand dollars to that Satanic church down the road..." Do you realize how preposterous you sound?

What year was that?

I am "in the trenches" on this issue, so too speak. I have seen it. A great number of its participating churches are either involved in, or overlooking, some extremely egregious error.

You can hardly expect other pastors, association directors, etc., to come on here and gossip. Should you really desire to know, I suggest you do some research of your own.

 

The Philadelphia Baptist Association, when first formed (and we know the historic nature of this association) had this rule. To be a part of the association you should adhere to their doctrinal statement, if you did not then you should have the decency and integrity to leave. If you didn't, the association should have the decency and integrity to sever their relations with the church.

I think their view was standard for Baptists at the time. It did not evoke control of the association over the local church but it did say that there are areas that unite the local church with an association, namely doctrine and practice. For the record, their doctrinal statement back then was a slightly modified London Baptist Confession.

To me, those who do not agree with the doctrine of a convention or association and remain have lost integrity and vice versa. Associations and conventions are not for everyone, but they are for those who agree on doctrine and practice.

 

I got the impression that Baptist Believer considered the scriptures infallible but not inerrant.

I'm not sure I know the difference. Maybe BB can elaborate.

 

With regards to the OP, one might also ask why you so-called "Conservatives" decided to remain in the Convention while it was not "stong evangelical" for all those years.

 

Cause we are taking everything captive to the Word of God....duh!

:thumbs:

 

I was not in the SBC until after the resurgence, but some left the convention and others thought they would fight. Paige and Pressler's meeting was a watershed for them. If they won, they would save an entire institution. If they lost, then they would lose even their career.

I am not sure most people saw it as being as bad as it was. This is sorta like the Baptist Union in Spurgeon's day. When Spurgeon announced the problems, even his allies thought he was blowing things out of proportion only years later did they realize Spurgeon probably underestimated the seriousness of the downgrade. The SBC was worse off than then Baptist Union, but most people in the churches did not see it as bad off as it was. Liberalism is nice and subtle so by the time you realized you were enveloped in it, it is too late.