1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

SBC and CBF: A Look in Contrast

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Chris Temple, Sep 12, 2001.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 3
  1. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
    He was more conservative than I am, and I consider myself a moderate-conservative.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That depends on one's locus of truth, doesn't it?
     
    #21 Chris Temple, Sep 13, 2001
  2. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBF Coordinator Issues "Open Letter" - Fails to Answer Concerns

    Editors Note: The following is a June 18, 1999 Baptist press article by Don Hinkle, dealing with a series of letters between Daniel Vestal, Coordinator of the CBF and Roger Moran, Research Director for the Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association. CBF has widely distributed "An Open Letter to Roger Moran." However, there were four other letters prior to Dr. Vestal's open letter. Each of those letters are reprinted in their entirety in this Special Reference Edition. The following Baptist Press article has been edited for space.

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A Missouri Baptist layman has come under attack by the top official of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship over distributed materials linking the CBF with groups that support the homosexual lifestyle and abortion and are against school prayer, among a range of liberal stances.


    Roger Moran, of Winfield, Mo., research director for the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association (MBLA) who was recently elected to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, is the target of a June 1999 “open letter” written by CBF coordinator Daniel Vestal. Moran, who also has caught the ire of leaders in the Baptist General Convention of Texas, is criticized for assertions made in the MBLA’s newsletter and a video detailing the association between approximately 30 CBF leaders and a variety of liberal groups.


    The CBF is an organization formed in 1991 by moderate Southern Baptists in protest of the SBC leadership.


    The issues raised by Moran in the MBLA materials prompted a sharp exchange of letters earlier this year between the layman and Vestal. Vestal asked Moran in a March 11 letter to stop making statements tying CBF leaders with liberal organizations that, among other things, tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. Moran responded with a letter April 30 in which he said, “Though we have never charged CBF as an institution with promoting a gay/lesbian agenda, we did raise several questions that we believe deserve an honest answer.” Moran then enumerated 15 instances in which CBF leaders/members were in some way associated with pro-homosexual forces.


    Sandwiched between their exchange was an unusual letter from Vestal to Moran’s pastor, Gary Taylor, of First Baptist Church, O’Fallon, Mo., asking him to intervene in the escalating dispute.


    But Moran remained undaunted, in his April 30 letter challenging Vestal to point out any inaccuracies on the part of MBLA.


    “With all due respect, it is my personal opinion, Dr. Vestal, that your complaint is not with the MBLA, but with those CBF and CBF-related leaders whose activities and statements you apparently are unwilling to criticize and unable to defend,” Moran wrote. “I would call upon you, Dr. Vestal, to correct those things that are within your power that are clearly wrong in CBF.”


    The dispute has spilled over into Texas as well. When Texas liberals and some moderates -- who support the CBF-- became miffed after discovering Moran’s material in some Texas churches, they formed what has been referred to in the Texas state newspaper, The Baptist Standard, as “the slander committee.” Bill Bruster, a network coordinator for the CBF, told members of Calder Baptist Church, Beaumont, Texas, April 18, that the MBLA and Moran prompted the formation of the “slander committee.”


    “Depending on whether or not he [Moran] responds [to Vestal’s call for a public apology and retraction] depends on what we do,” Bruster said in comments taped by the church. “We’re keeping all options open as to what we will do. We don’t want to take him to court.”


    Moran said such threats are meant to keep him from expressing his views and challenging CBF members on their views.


    “I have not condemned anyone in the CBF,” Moran told Baptist Press after receiving a copy of Vestal’s “open letter” and in response to Vestal’s accusation that Moran is making inappropriate judgments against leaders in the CBF.


    “All we have done is publicly repeat what CBF leaders have said and done publicly themselves. If anyone has condemned anyone, the CBF has condemned itself by virtue of the people and organizations they have chosen to associate themselves with and by the things their own leaders have said.”


    Among the examples cited by Moran in his April 30 letter to Vestal is the tie between Richard Groves, pastor of the Wake Forest Baptist Church, Winston-Salem, N.C., and the CBF. Moran noted Groves served on the interim steering committee of the CBF and was on the CBF Coordinating Council from 1991-95. Moran asked Vestal in the April 30 letter if it is indeed true that the church has allowed its ministers to perform homosexual unions and has “openly allowed homosexual members serving on the deacon board, in the choir, and as Sunday School teachers?”


    As another example, Moran quoted from a CBF AIDS packet published by the organization in 1994 which states, “We do not choose our sexual orientation, but rather we ‘awaken’ to it.” Moran noted no where in the packet does it declare homosexuality a sin.


    Moran, in an interview, said the disagreement between the MBLA and Vestal is indicative of the intensifying battle that is bubbling to the surface in various state conventions between liberals and some moderates in the CBF and people loyal to the SBC.


    “Neither I nor the MBLA are on a crusade against the CBF,” Moran said. “The CBF or those sympathetic to the CBF were rapidly taking control of the Missouri Baptist Convention to the point that conservative leaders of the MBC were beginning the process of pulling out of the state convention. We were on the same path as Virginia and Texas.”


    Conservatives in Virginia split from the state convention in 1997 over what they viewed as a liberal drift, while conservatives in Texas formed their own convention in 1998 after the BGCT revamped the way it does mission work, distancing itself from the SBC.


    “The CBF is attempting to take back on the state convention level what it lost on the national level,” Moran said. “They can’t get the churches to fund them directly. … They are trying to steer the state conventions toward the CBF and away from the SBC.” Many church members are not yet aware of what is taking place, Moran said, “and what is at stake.”

    In his open letter to Moran, Vestal says, “You make a bold statement that liberalism has found a place within CBF … [and] that simply is not true. What is true is that there are Baptist Christians who have found a place of ministry and fellowship in CBF whom you [Moran] would call liberal.”


    But Moran noted Vestal has failed to address any of the assertions made by the MBLA’s newsletter or its increasingly popular video now making the rounds in Baptist churches.


    “For years we have been raising specific, documented concerns and they have failed and refused to respond,” Moran said, asking, “Will he [Vestal] say what these guys are doing is biblically correct? I have always spoken to them in respect, unlike Currie’s remarks about one of our outstanding SBC seminaries that is run by our SBC president.”


    In his open letter, Vestal notes that within the CBF, beyond some who would be identified as “liberals,” “There are many others who have embraced our mission and joined our efforts for the sake of Christ whom you would call conservative. And still many others have found a home in CBF who fit somewhere else in the spectrum of political and theological labels. For you, this kind of diversity around a common mission is seen as a weakness. I see it as a God-given strength.”


    Vestal also has produced a six-minute video addressing the growing rift with the MBLA, according told Associated Baptist Press, which receives funding from the CBF.
    The issues raised by the MBLA create a dilemma, Vestal said.


    “How much do you respond to the accusations, and how much do you engage those making the accusations, and how much do you ignore it?”


    Concerning specifically homosexuality, Vestal responded to the issue in a question-and-answer session on the CBF’s Internet website.

    The CBF’s approach to the issue, Vestal said, is “shared by well-known Christian groups like the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the American Bible Society, the Willow Creek Association, the Salvation Army and many others. Neither we nor they make official pronouncements on these or many other issues.”


    However, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association does address homosexuality on its official Internet site, calling it a sexual perversion and a sin. Then there is this: “While many people in our society and some churches today are engaging in sexual sins, this in no way changes God’s judgment on these practices. Those who engage in immorality or encourage others to do so will answer to God, even if they are ministers or leaders of the church. The fact that there are groups in the world that are accepting such behavior as normal, does not in any way mean that God accepts it. God loves those who engage in sexual immorality and perversion too much to leave them in their sin to face destruction. He longs to free them from their bondage if they will repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior.”

    The Billy Graham Internet site also offers the phone number and address to Exodus International, a Christian organization that specializes in helping homosexuals leave their lifestyle.

    Vestal's Letter to Moran

    Vestal's Letter to Moran's Pastor

    Pastor's Letter to Vestal

    Moran's Letter to Vestal

    Vestal's Open Letter to Moran
     
    #22 Chris Temple, Sep 13, 2001
  3. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michael Wrenn

    ==Was Paul the husband of one wife? Was Jesus? Neither of them, then, would qualify to be pastor of your church,==

    It does not say they have to be married, but the emphasis here is on the fact that they males, once you read the entire passage.

    It doesn't matter how many ordain women, it is wrong no matter how many do it. if you find that other churches are more right, then maybe your in the wrong church.

    ==1)If Paul was living today in your town, he could not be the pastor of your church, according to your interpretation of scripture; the same is true of Jesus--your own Lord and Savior could not pastor your church, according to your interpretation of scripture. This shows how ludicrous your method of interpretation is.==

    None of this is scriptural.

    God has given men a place to be in service to Him, and like wise He has given women a place to be in service to Him. They are not the same. Just because women are not ot be pastors does not mean they are any less then men, which is the usual argument in support of ordained women. God has greatly blessed women, to be women. It is secular feminism that leads many to believe in ordained women. feminisim is anti-biblical, it has no place in the church or the lives of christian women. It is a lie of satan, not a new lie, but the same old one, " you can be so much more then you are ( as in our being created as women, and not men), God hasn't given you the best He has, He has given you less then the best, you can do what you want, it won't make any difference God is wrong on that, do what you really want too." Sound familiar? It does to me, I believe Eve was the first woman to fall for that lie. Men and women are different and God created us to be, and gave each different roles. Do you not believe men are the head of thier household? Saying we can and should ordain women and accept them as pastors underminds this teaching from scripture. It shows the order we are in, Jesus is the head of man it say, and man the head of woman. Then how can woman be the head over man as pastor and still be biblical.

    My mother always told me, well if your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too?
    Nope I wouldn't, I'm not following some other church, or I wouldn't be a Baptist.
    Go ahead and follow if you like, but don't try to persuade anyone else to jump with you.
     
    #23 donnA, Sep 13, 2001
  4. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by katie:
    It is secular feminism that leads many to believe in ordained women. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Have you read any of the scholarship on the issue of ordaining women? It is by no means "secular feminisim." It is responsible biblical scholarship that examines the Timothy passages in their appropriate cultural context.

    Have you ever attended a church (baptist or otherwise) where a woman was the pastor or one of the clergy leadership? I have, and have sat on women's ordination councils as well, and there is no question in my mind that there are women whom God calls to be pastors. If God has not called them, then everything I know about the presence of the Holy Spirit is false.

    Joshua
     
    #24 Rev. Joshua, Sep 14, 2001
  5. Eladar

    Eladar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    I nicer way of putting it is that then you would wrong.

    Anyone who believes in something that is wrong, believes in something that is false. If they believe it, then they know it. Therefore what they know about the subject is false.

    If what you believe about the spirit is true, then why doesn't eveyone come to the same conclusion? I would think this is proof enough that what you believe about this subject is possibly wrong.
     
    #25 Eladar, Sep 14, 2001
  6. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    I recognize that I could be wrong. Nevertheless, based on the biblical evidence and the evidence of my own faith journey and experience I think I am right.

    Joshua
     
    #26 Rev. Joshua, Sep 14, 2001
  7. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Poor, poor brainwashed Katie! Perhaps you should go on back and "graciously submit" to your husband, as the SBC says you should, and stop putting forth your ideas in a spiritual arena where only men are presumably led by the Holy Spirit.
     
    #27 Michael Wrenn, Sep 15, 2001
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michael,

    The SBC or anyone else does not claim that only men are led by teh Holy Spirit. To be led by the Spirit and to be called by the Spirit to do somethign contrary to God's Word are two totally different issues. Be careful not to confuse the issues and to state something that is not true about your opponents. And to accuse Katie of brainwashing seems out of line as well. Everyone who doesn't agree with you has not been brainwashed.

    I do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads women to be pastors because it would contradict his word. While it is easy to say that 1 Tim is culturally conditioned, it does not seem to add up to the text. The reasons Paul gives for his prohibition have nothing to do with the first century culture. He gives reasons that predate the first century by ... well if you believe Joshua, millions of years I suppose. By my reckoning, the reasons predate the first century by probably 4-10 thousand years. Whichever estimate you take, it cannot reasonably be considered in the "historical context." If Paul had wanted to prohibit it based on first century reasons, there were adequate ways to communicate that. Paul did not use those ways.

    [ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
    #28 Pastor Larry, Sep 15, 2001
  9. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Larry, polygamy and slavery also predate Paul's comments by thousands of years (and are endorsed by the Bible). Yet I don't see anyone endorsing them now.

    Joshua
     
    #29 Rev. Joshua, Sep 15, 2001
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
    But Larry, polygamy and slavery also predate Paul's comments by thousands of years (and are endorsed by the Bible). Yet I don't see anyone endorsing them now.

    Joshua    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Paul does not command or condemn either slavery or polygamy. Furthermore, I do not know that "endorsed" would be an appropriate word for either. Slavery as we typically think of it now was not the slavery of the Bible and Paul specifically tells masters to treat their slaves properly (Col 4:1). Slavery in biblical times (for believers) was to be more of what we think of as an employer/employee relationship. Unbelievers often practiced differently (as unbelieving employers do today) and Paul warns against that. Polygamy was not endorsed though it was allowed. By first century times, it was outlawed by Roman culture (as it is today) and thus Paul (or any other NT author) does not speak of it.

    Paul does specifically prohibit women exercising authority over men in the church and he gives reasons that date to the creation of the world, not to conditions in the contemporary church. The problems in the contemporary church must be constructed by the modern scholar to asser that Paul was addressing something there. Though I will have to look back at my notes on that, I do not know that we have any concrete evidence of problems that would have caused Paul to say that. In other words, we don't know for sure that women were being deceived by false teachers. We do know that man was created first and that woman was deceived by Satan (at least if you accept Gen 1-11 as it appears that Paul did). Surely had there been more compelling reasons in the first century church Paul would have appealed to them as he did on other occasions. It seems you must argue from silence for the existence of something of which there is no real evidence.

    [ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
    #30 Pastor Larry, Sep 15, 2001
  11. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    I was being sarcastic--or didn't you get that?

    Paul also says that women are to keep silent in the churches. Does that apply to Sunday School teachers? I know many women who teach adult Sunday School classes made up of both women and men--and yet these women would not be allowed to preach or pastor.

    BTW, Do you make the women in your church keep silent? Oh, silly question; of course you do, being the first century biblical literalist that you are!
     
    #31 Michael Wrenn, Sep 15, 2001
  12. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

    Slavery as we typically think of it now was not the slavery of the Bible and Paul specifically tells masters to treat their slaves properly (Col 4:1). Slavery in biblical times (for believers) was to be more of what we think of as an employer/employee relationship.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

    Not exactly a working environment OSHA would approve of.

    Joshua
     
    #32 Rev. Joshua, Sep 15, 2001
  13. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


    Care to point some out? I've found that people who make such claims find contradictions only because they are over-enamored with their own presuppositions of what Scripture does not mean, as you have concerning pastoral qualifications.    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    James 1:13 - God does not tempt people
    Genesis 22:1 and Deuteronomy 8:2 - God tempts/tests people


    Exodus 20:5 - Children will pay the price for their parents sins
    Ezekiel 18:14-20 - no they won't

    Exodus 31:16-17 - the Sabbath laws are to be forever
    Mark 2: 27-28 - Jesus explains that the Sabbath laws should be interpreted in context, and that they were made for people, not vis-versa
    Romans 14:5 - Paul says it's up to us

    I Samuel 16:19-23 - Saul knew who David was when he slew Goliath
    I Samuel 17:5-58 - David who?

    II Samuel 24:1 - The LORD inspired the census
    I Chronicles 21:1 - Actually, that was Satan
    2 Samuel 24:10 - and it was a sin

    I Kings 22:22-23 - the LORD puts a lying spirit in the mouths of some prophets
    Proverbs 12:22 - the LORD considers lying an abomination

    These are just off the top of my head.

    Joshua
     
    #33 Rev. Joshua, Sep 15, 2001
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
    Larry,

    I was being sarcastic--or didn't you get that?    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Nope ... didn't get that.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul also says that women are to keep silent in the churches. Does that apply to Sunday School teachers? I know many women who teach adult Sunday School classes made up of both women and men--and yet these women would not be allowed to preach or pastor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The context of 1 Cor 14 is the confusion caused by tongues. There may be valid applications elsewhere but the context is not a wide open context. As for women SS teachers, according to what Paul teaches, the stipulation is that they are not to have authority over men, which is what teaching is. Therefore, they can teach when men are not in the class. They can and should teach other women, and they are perfectly qualified and able to teach children.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, Do you make the women in your church keep silent? Oh, silly question; of course you do, being the first century biblical literalist that you are!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes ... if they are causing confusion by speaking in tongues.

    Your sarcasm is less than becoming and is certainly not contributing to the discussion. Let's have honest interaction or keep it ourselves.
     
    #34 Pastor Larry, Sep 16, 2001
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:


    Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

    Not exactly a working environment OSHA would approve of.

    Joshua    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Where is a work environment that OSHA would approve of??? [​IMG]

    Obviously a slave was a person in teh image of God and therefore would be protected by general laws. There were specific laws for slaves that did treat them differently. As for the type of punishment here, who knows exactly what it entailed. In every time, there have been consequences for not properly performing the tasks required (except in this day and age where an over empowered work force absolves themselves of responsibility while removing power from the employer to protect his own interests). In short, we do not know exactly what this entails. Col 4:1 still applies ... that masters are to treat their slaves properly because they too have a Master -- the Lord Jesus Christ.

    BTW, your "contradictions" are old tired arguements that have been answered ad nauseum. They are only problems for those predisposed against Scripture as revelation, which you have staked your claim to already.

    [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
    #35 Pastor Larry, Sep 16, 2001
  16. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    Sometimes sarcasm is the appropriate response to narrow-minded, literalistic legalism which assumes theirs is the one and only correct way to see things. Jesus used it often enough.

    I would like to have honest interaction; I'm not convinced from your earlier posts that you want it. However, whether I see a presentation or view as honest and respectful of others or arrogant, narrow, and disrespectful, I have to call it the way it is, or appears to be; honesty requires that. If I am mistaken, and the way I perceive it is not the way it is or was intended, I'll apologize.
     
    #36 Michael Wrenn, Sep 16, 2001
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
    Larry,

    Sometimes sarcasm is the appropriate response to narrow-minded, literalistic legalism which assumes theirs is the one and only correct way to see things. Jesus used it often enough.

    I would like to have honest interaction; I'm not convinced from your earlier posts that you want it. However, whether I see a presentation or view as honest and respectful of others or arrogant, narrow, and disrespectful, I have to call it the way it is, or appears to be; honesty requires that. If I am mistaken, and the way I perceive it is not the way it is or was intended, I'll apologize.    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    I am not sure why I am the one being narrow-minded here. At least I have argued from Scripture for my view. You have yet to substantively address a passage. You have merely dogmatically stated your opinion. Narrow-mindedness seems to me to be unwilling to entertain and interact with others viewpoints. I have done that. You have not agreed but at least I have addressed your arguments. You could be called narrow minded because you will not address anything outside your own mind.

    You have not interacted with much Scripture. You have repeatedly ignored it, not in all cases but in many. Case in point is the above posts, where 1 Tim 2 has been discussed, without your contribution. You throw out a phrase from 1 Cor 14 with no attempt to discuss its context or application and imply that it supports you when indeed such has not been established from the text. It seems, at least from you have posted in various threads, that you do not want to take the time to deal with the texts in question, preferring rather to talk about personalities while throwing out barbs.

    Then you call on the term "literalistic legalism" as if it will help your cause. However, that is term desperately in need of definition. If you want to talk hermeneutics and why the normal meaning is the one which we should or should not employ, then lets have that discussion. Let's not throw around perjorative terms.

    If you are not convinced that I want honest interaction then you are not reading my posts here or other places. I have made a studied effort not to throw perjorative terms and be sarcastic, even where there is ample opportunity. I have made a studied effort to cite Scripture in support of what I say or in the absence of clear Scripture to make clear that it is my opinion or conclusion. If you want honest discussion, feel free to contribute to the discussions already going on. Cite Scripture, not your opinion unless you clarify it. Be prepared to have your opinions and understandings challenged. And keep your sarcasm and perjorative statements to yourself. They are neither constructive nor necessary.

    [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

    [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
    #37 Pastor Larry, Sep 16, 2001
  18. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


    ...Obviously a slave was a person in teh image of God and therefore would be protected by general laws. There were specific laws for slaves that did treat them differently. As for the type of punishment here, who knows exactly what it entailed. In every time, there have been consequences for not properly performing the tasks required (except in this day and age where an over empowered work force absolves themselves of responsibility while removing power from the employer to protect his own interests). In short, we do not know exactly what this entails. Col 4:1 still applies ... that masters are to treat their slaves properly because they too have a Master -- the Lord Jesus Christ.

    BTW, your "contradictions" are old tired arguements that have been answered ad nauseum. They are only problems for those predisposed against Scripture as revelation, which you have staked your claim to already.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Larry,

    My point is that God says it's OK to beat a slave as long as they can walk again in a couple of days, since they are the property of their owner. This is a direct contradiction to your statement that the slavery of the Bible was different than how we understand it now. As I see it, this is exactly like the slavery we understand now. Where is the difference?

    As to my stand on revelation, I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God. I am, of course, familiar with the commentary on those passages. In my experience, the people who claim they are not contradictions are the ones who come to the text believing that it cannot contain contradictions and still be the Word of God. Their arguments go something like this: The only way these two texts could not be contradictory would be if the following bizarre or textually unsubstantiated interpretation were true - so it must be.
    I don't find such arguments convincing.

    I have no desire to enter into a lengthy exegetical debate. Someone asked for contradictions and I named the first few that came to mind.

    Back to my original point, though. Do you really believe that the slavery of the Bible was somehow different from the slavery we had in America? God clearly says in the Bible that slaves are the property of their owners and it's OK to beat them past where they can walk.

    Joshua
     
    #38 Rev. Joshua, Sep 16, 2001
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:


    Larry,

    My point is that God says it's OK to beat a slave as long as they can walk again in a couple of days, since they are the property of their owner.     <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is a selective quote at best. You cannot say that God said it was "okay" to do it. He said, here is what you do when this particular circumstance happens. You should have enough education to know that this is casuitic law, not apodictic. There is a big difference. We simply do not know what other cases may or may not have been addressed in other ways. Moses had a number of "judges" that ruled on individual cases. You speak below of making unsubstantiated claims about "contradictions" in your mind, yet you do it right here. Be consistent in your use of argumentative methods. If it is bad for one side, it is bad for the other.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is a direct contradiction to your statement that the slavery of the Bible was different than how we understand it now. As I see it, this is exactly like the slavery we understand now. Where is the difference?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The difference is big. We do not know what the 70 elders decided on individual cases. You ignore what you do not know.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to my stand on revelation, I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    As we have talked before, I do not think you can consistently claim this. If it is the revealed word of God, and if the "contradictions" you list stand, then you have a God who lies. It seems you are trying to play both sides of the fence. Yes, we approach Scripture with the idea that God is truth and that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2, among too many other passages to list here). That serves as an exegetical control. You have your own exegetical controls (cf. the debate on Gen 1-11 which according to you cannot be true because it contradicts what we "know" from other sources).

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you really believe that the slavery of the Bible was somehow different from the slavery we had in America? God clearly says in the Bible that slaves are the property of their owners and it's OK to beat them past where they can walk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    On the first statement, it clearly is. Slaves in the Bible could leave after seven years. On the second point, you have misrepresented what God said.

    [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
    #39 Pastor Larry, Sep 16, 2001
  20. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    I'll make a bargain with you: I'll keep those "pejorative" statements to myself if you'll keep yours to yourself.

    Now, considering what you said in reply to Joshua's listed contradictions: You said they are old, tired arguments that have been answered ad nauseum, but why don't you answer them yourself, personally? I could believe that there might be reasonable explanations for these inconsistencies and contradictions, but my hermeneutic allows for something other than a literalsitic reading of a passage. Your hermeneutic, however, apparently does not; so, how can you explain away what these verses say if you interpret them literally the way they are presented? The moment you try to do so, you immediately deny and contradict your own hermeneutic. Extreme literalism always boxes itself in thusly.
     
    #40 Michael Wrenn, Sep 16, 2001
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 3
Loading...