Doctrine

[rsr]

This started out in the Baptist history forum and has wandered off point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tanker on October 20, 2003 08:10 PM:

May God grant us grace that we may be a faithful and true part of that holy heritage.

Mark, what would be your estimate of the percentage of present day Baptist who are true believers in the sense of being correct on doctrinal matters?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Mark Osgatharp on October 20, 2003 08:57 PM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tanker:
Mark, what would be your estimate of the percentage of present day Baptist who are true believers in the sense of being correct on doctrinal matters?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't even begin to make such an "estimate."

To start with, just because someone is wrong on some doctrinal matters doesn't mean they aren't a "true believer." There are some doctrinal errors, however, which would disqualify a man from being considered a true believer.

I have no idea how many, percentage wise, would fall into these different categories, other than to say that the "doctrinally sound in most matters" would be a small category compared to the rest.

One thing I would say for sure is that any "Baptist" who falls into the modernistic camp (believing in evolution, higher criticism of the Scriptures, etc. etc.) I would identify as a Baptist Infidel and not a true Christian in any sense of the term.

Mark Osgatharp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jim1999 on October 20, 2003 09:18 PM:

I know quite a few fellow ministers who follow evolution and higher criticism and are dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour.

Evolution need not be Godless. Even the big bang, so called, started somewhere, and they say it started with God.

Cheers,

Jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Mark Osgatharp (Member # 4259) on October 20, 2003 09:35 PM:

Jim,

The issue is not a matter of whether or not evolutionists and higher critics believe there is a God. Perhaps they do. But then again, the devils also believe that, and tremble (and most evolutionsts and higher critics I've met don't even tremble).

The issue is that they reject the Scriptures which are the means whereby God reveals the gospel of Christ to man.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

And,

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."

Mark Osgatharp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tanker on October 22, 2003 01:08 AM:

One thing I would say for sure is that any "Baptist" who falls into the modernistic camp (believing in evolution, higher criticism of the Scriptures, etc. etc.) I would identify as a Baptist Infidel and not a true Christian in any sense of the term.

But there is no requirement in the bible to believe any particular theory of life that is anti-evolution. So if you would reject evolutionists, you are not doing it on a biblical basis, but rather using your own standards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Mark Osgatharp on October 22, 2003 06:54 AM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tanker:
One thing I would say for sure is that any "Baptist" who falls into the modernistic camp - believing in evolution, higher criticism of the Scriptures, etc. etc. I would identify as a Baptist Infidel and not a true Christian in any sense of the term.

But there is no requirement in the bible to believe any particular theory of life that is anti-evolution. So if you would reject evolutionists, you are not doing it on a biblical basis, but rather using your own standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tanker,

Sure there is. The Bible requires us to believe that God created the world in six days approximately 6000 years ago. The only reason you don't believe it is because you don't believe in the Bible.

Mark Osgatharp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[UTEOTW]

Strange...

Romans 10:9,13

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I do not see anything in there about having to share the opinion of Mark Osgatharp on origins to be saved.

Yes, it is true that I am one of those wicked heretics that has looked at the evidence for evolution and been convinced that it is well grounded. But hey, I might be wrong. If so, I still have realized my need to be saved from my sinful condition, I have believed in the resurrection of Christ as stated above, and I have asked for forgiveness and to be saved. I'll be seeing my fellow Christians in heaven. I do not need someone adding to the Gospel and adding additional requirements because he disagrees with me and chooses to stir up strife over it. My judge is not of this earth but is in heaven.

So, what other doctrinal issues will negate my salvation? I'd like to know what you think falls into the "etc. etc." group.

The Bible requires us to believe that God created the world in six days approximately 6000 years ago. The only reason you don't believe it is because you don't believe in the Bible.

I regret that taking the relevent Scriptures to describe God as the Creator and to establish His relationship with the creation and especially with mankind rather than as a step by step description of what happened means that someone does not believe the Bible to you. It is a subject worthy of discussion but not worthy of the trouble stirred by those who slander and constantly question the salvation of those with whom they disagree.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

So, then, what you are saying is that as long as one believes what is stated in Romans 10:9&13, then religious or non-religious background has no relevance in salvation?

 

[Jimmy C]

Actually Olive what I think is being said is that you must be circumcised and follow the law in addition to what Paul says in romans to be saved.

Is that what you are saying?

If not what else needs to be added to Faith in Christ to be saved? If I have faith in Christ and believe in a literal 6 day creation, and believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and I keep my wife silent in the Church - then I will be saved.

If I dont believe all of the above then I worship a false Christ and I am doomed for eternal damnation?

 

[Daniel David]

UTEOTW and JimmyC, perhaps you could tell me, but are those the only two passages on salvation in the Bible. Thanks.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

OTEOTW and now Jimmy C,

What I am asking is if you only need to believe what those verses say? I said nothing about the law, nothing about Jonah and the whale, nothing about creation, nothing about silence in the church. In other words, nothing else is needed except those verses from Romans, and now you have also added Faith into my question, which faith is not mentioned in Romans 10:9&13. Religious background doesn't matter, nor does a non-religious background. Doctrines don't matter, nor does believing in the Bible matter, correct?

 

[Walls]

Not sure that I understand all that is said. But I will summarize what I think about what I could understand. Being saved is calling on the name of the Lord Jesus "correct". If we are to do that, then that means we believe His word, because faith cometh by hearing "correct". If then we believe His word and He says He is the creator, then we have no right to even consider evolution! If we ponder evolution then that means we question salvation as well.

Just my two cents worth!

 

[Jimmy C]

Olive,

Paul railed througout his epistles about those who would add anything to to our salvation coming about solely as a result of the death of Christ.

Paul basically said that if you add anything, and I would include requiring a person believe in a literal 6 day creation, to Faith in Christ, you are negating the work that Christ did on the cross. If you are able to add anything, that gives you a reason to boast.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Don't think anybody is seriously advocating adding anything to our salvation.

What each is emphasizing is that salvation is a WHOLE LOT MORE than simply "calling on the Lord".

Believing/putting faith (same greek word in verb and noun form) is the capstone of salvation, but certainly not ALL of it. For "demons believe" and tremble . . but they're not saved.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

The reason I said it is not possible for an evolutionist to be saved is because if a man is an evolutionist it proves that he does not believe in the Bible. And faith in the Bible is a pre-requisite to faith in Jesus Christ.

To "believe in Jesus" means to believe that He is the Christ, which means that He was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures. Well, if you don't believe the Old Testament Scriptures are an authoritative basis for faith, how could you possibly "believe" in the Christ promised by them?

Some of you are speaking as if by "faith in Christ" was meant "faith in my Christ as I want to describe Him, irregardless of what the Bible says." Again I say, it is not possible to have faith in Christ unless you believe in the Christ revealed in the Bible. And if you don't believe in the Bible to start with, faith in the Christ of the Bible becomes a moot point.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Daniel David]

Also, if a person really believes in evolution, how do you explain the fall of man? Evolution teaches that death and struggle eventually produce the next greater species.

The Scriptures though say that by one man sin entered the world, and then death by sin...

The theological truth is that Christ will not only reverse what Adam did, he will go beyond mere erasing Adam's sin. Christ adds blessing upon blessing.

To believe in evolution is to deny your need for a savior. This is truth even if you don't understand it. So I agree with Mark, to deny the biblical record is to deceive yourself in your faith.

 

[Jim1999]

The issue is that they reject the Scriptures which are the means whereby God reveals the gospel of Christ to man.
==============================================

This just isn't true of all. They believe the scriptures, but have a critical approach to determine what is and what is not scripture and the understanding presented by those scriptures. They interpret just as you.

A.H. Strong supported Theistic Evolution, but I would expect no one here would deny Strong on the other basic doctrines of orthodoxy. He is quoted by Baptists down through the ages and indeed, his Systematic Theology has been used as a text in many sound, fundamental Baptist schools. It was my first text in Systematic Theology and was the selection of a sound, fundamental Baptist minister from Virginia. I wouldn't for a moment doubt the salvation of A.H. Strong. I would rather doubt the salvation of a few fundamentalist preachers from what I have read and seen over the years.

I think you overstep the bounds of scripture in proposes steps other than what is clearly presented. "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." The individual's declaration is as simple as that.

Our understanding of election, predestination, repentance and other salvatory doctrines are learned disciplines which we propose explains that which is the divine direction.

Be it clear that I am not supporting evolution nor any position of higher criticism, for that would not meet my beliefs. What I am saying, is that it is wrong to categorically deny salvation to someone because they approach the scriptures differently to us.

If these people also proposed the doctrines of the historical Jesus and denied the resurrection, we would be in a totally different ballpark, and I would be first to call strike three and ballgame over.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jimmy C]

________________________________________________
quote:
The reason I said it is not possible for an evolutionist to be saved is because if a man is an evolutionist it proves that he does not believe in the Bible. And faith in the Bible is a pre-requisite to faith in Jesus Christ.
_________________________________________________

Mark,

That statement is the statement of a modern day Judiazer. What you or I believe about evolution is based on our interpretation of Genesis, you interpret a literal six 24 hour day, I interpret a day age theory. We both believe that God literally created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. I believe the bible. But my faith or lack of faith in the bible has no bearing what so ever on my salvation. If it did, we would not be evangelizing people groups that have no bible in their tounges.

The ONLY pre-requisite for belief in Christ is the Holy Spirit working in the heart of a non believer.

 

[UTEOTW]

Jim, if I understand you correctly you are in line with what I was trying to get across. There is a basic level of understanding and acceptance that is needed for salvation. I, too, would have to doubt whether one could be saved who doubted some of the fundementals of faith. If you deny the virgin birth, if you deny the deity of Christ, if you deny the death and resurrection, and so on, I do not see how you could possibly have enough faith to be saved. But to say you are unable to have salvation because you get some bit of doctrine wrong, that seems like a dangerous thing to say. We are all sinners and we all get some things wrong. To take the example at hand, you think God would deny me salvation because of my opinion that the creation narrative tells fundemental truths of God's relationship as Creator and with His creation rather than a step by step process? The way may be narrow, but I sure hope that does not men you have to get every bit of interpretation of scripture correct. Or we all be in for a surprise.

The Olive Branch,

I believe that there is an implied level of understanding in the verses from Romans. There is a good bit of knowledge and faith needed to get to confessing Jesus as Lord, believing in the Resurrection, understanding the need to call upon Jesus for a salvation you are unable to procure for yourself, only through the saving grace, and understanding that we all all sinners, that the wages of sin are death,and that we are all in need of the redemptive blood of Christ. But the point is, there is nothing to be added to these requirements along the lines of what some here are trying to do. And I personally find it distasteful there there seems to be a sudden epidemic of publicly doubting the salvation of people with whom you disagree with on matters of doctine rather than sticking to debating the facts. Maybe this has always gone on and I have just missed those threads, but I read fairly widely even if I rarely post. But I find it divisive to so quickly turn to slander. (not directed at you, I think I understand what you are doing)

 

[Matt Black]

Sadly, I fear you are right. If you go to I think page 6 or thereabouts of the "Inerrancy" thread on the Theology board, you will se what I mean....apparently I for one am damned because I have difficulty with a literalist interpretation of Gen 1&2

Yours in Christ

Matt (who is too dumb to work out how to do a link to another page on the BB)

 

[UTEOTW]

Matt

The easiest way I have found to link to another page is the following.

Open the page you want to link to. Go up to the address bar and copy the whole URL for the page you want to link to. Then paste that into your post. I am very surprised that it works since it says HTML is not enabled out to the left, but I guess that only applies using HTML tags. I generally use that method for posting links to any webpage since it is hard to screw up and if you do manage to screw it up, it usually leaves enough information there to let at least some people figure it out and still get to the page.

For page 6 of the inerrancy thread...

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001862;p=6

And that is one of the threads to which I was referring. The way that debate generally goes you real quickly move away from general discussion and into slander and repetition.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

UTEOTW,

What I am looking at is that salvation is given thru belief, led by the Holy Spirit, only by the grace of God. If we take nothing more into this, people may or may not be saved. They know, maybe, that they are. God certainly knows. Nothing more needs to be added. But if they do not repent first, will they be saved?

 

[UTEOTW]

Oh I agree with you there. That is what I meant by saying there is a good deal implied by the verses from Romans. And part of it is realizing your sin and repenting of it. To me, that is implied when calling and confessing as stated. The confessing and repenting of sin is a necessary part. But the main point is that there are not other requirements to be added. It is not confess and keep the law and you shall be saved. It is not confess and believe in a literal 6 day creation. We should not be trying to put these additional requirements. Now within doctrine itself, we may get some of it wrong and we may get some of it right. We should always try and let God speak to us such that we get the doctrine right. But I do not think that getting these kind of things wrong damns us. Not so with the key, fundemental aspects of salvation.

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks for the bluffer's tip to linking

From that page, my own particular 'confession of faith':-

"Seeing as I have:-

1. Believed that I am sinful and fall short of God's perfect standard;

2. Believed that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Three Persons in One Nature;

3. Believed that God the Son, Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully Man, sinless and perfect;

4. Believed He took the penalty of my sinfulness when He died on the cross, was buried, rose again on the third day and ascended into glory;

5. Repented of my sinfulness, put my whole trust in Him, committed my life to Him and acknowledged Him as LORD and Saviour

and continue to do all of the above to the best of my limited finite human ability but with the infinite help of the Holy Spirit who indwells me...

on what basis am I damned?"

Before the last sentence I should interject ( to put the 'confession' in context)"but struggle with a literal interpretation of Gen 1&2 and other 'difficult' passages of Scipture"

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Travelsong]

What is most pathetic about the issue surrounding the creation account is that we aren't even discussing doctrine. One group of people is saying to another: "You either believe the Bible means a literal six days or else you are unsaved, because it clearly means a literal six days, and God is not a liar, and there is no other way to see it yada yada yada."

Here is a challenge I've issued before: Will someone please give me a DOCTRINAL reason for which I should be compelled to interpret the Genesis creation account as a literal six days?

On the issue of strife, contention and divisiveness, does anyone here truly believe it is the nonliteralists who are raining discord upon the body? I have seen the devil's work through actions of YEC's first hand. The last church I belonged to was torn in half over this same topic.My pastor who is a man of God, committed to the Gospel, led our church for over ten years when the assistant pastor found out he believed the earth was incredibly old. My pastor doesn't even believe in evolution, yet somehow he was suddenly a heretic and needed to be removed before corrupting the rest of the congregation (the age of the earth wasn't even something he taught about). You Yec's go ahead and make those on the other side of this debate look like the ones filled with malice and spite, the fact is, I belonged to a church ripped in half, with relationships of 20 and 30 years ruined, and people unwilling to speak to eachother which tells a completely different story.