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.

  1. Rev. Joshua

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

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    If I'm not mistaken, only the Hebrew slaves were released after seven years. If they came from the goyim, it was perpetual.

    Regarding your exegesis (which strikes me as an attempt to limit God's holy word to a cultural context ;) ), you are missing my point. You argue that every word of the Bible is the Word of God, and God says without qualification that a person who beats their slave should not be punished because that person belongs to them.

    However that was actually enforced in ancient Israel, God does very clearly say it is OK and that it is possible for one person to own another. I have not taken the verse out of context, because the context is a list of items pertaining to slave ownership. I listed one of the items.

    As to your views on whether or not I have a God who lies, you miss my point. I am perfectly comfortable with a Bible with contradictions because I believe it can be authoritative and inspired without being written verbatim by God.

    Joshua
     
  2. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll make a bargain with you: I'll keep those "pejorative" statements to myself if you'll keep yours to yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What did I say that was perjorative? I have tried to avoid that.


    Answering those "contradictions" does not require anything other than the normal meaning of language. What one do you want answered? I don't have time for all of them. You can research the answers yourself but I will answer as I have time. The normal hermeneutic does not box anyone in. It is the non-normal hermeneutic that removes the possibility of rational communication. It is the single meaning hermeneutic that gives Scripture meaning at all.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Regarding your exegesis (which strikes me as an attempt to limit God's holy word to a cultural context ;) ),<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    As you yourself have done. No one argues that certain things are not cultural. Of course they are. The problem is that not all of it is cultural. The Law of Moses (which is the passage you quote) was given to the nation of Israel. The NT says that we are not under the Law.
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You argue that every word of the Bible is the Word of God,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes, it is.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and God says without qualification that a person who beats their slave should not be punished because that person belongs to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It is not a statement without qualification. It is casuistic and you simply do not have enough information to say what you have said. You do not know the application of that law or other cases that may have brought different punishments. You simply do not know and neither do I.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However that was actually enforced in ancient Israel, God does very clearly say it is OK and that it is possible for one person to own another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If that is your problem, I will not argue. I simply do not see what that has to do with the situation today.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am perfectly comfortable with a Bible with contradictions because I believe it can be authoritative and inspired without being written verbatim by God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am perfectly comfortable and quite confident that it was not written verbatim (as in dictation by God). We have discussed that before and I will join you against those who believe in a dictation theory. However, I am not comfortable with a God who contradicts himself in revelation. That is why I cannot accept your premise. However, I am sure we will continue to disagree on that.
     
  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 Pastor Larry:
    [QB]
    It is not a statement without qualification. It is casuistic and you simply do not have enough information to say what you have said. You do not know the application of that law or other cases that may have brought different punishments. You simply do not know and neither do I.
    [QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Larry,

    I don't get your point. The Bible gives a lay and that's God's law, isn't that the way it works? If God wanted to qualify that law, wouldn't God have put such qualifications in the Bible?

    Joshua
     
  5. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point is that it is casuistic law, it applies to a narrowly defined case. We do not know how anything outside that narrowly defined case would be treated, or what the implications of that narrowly defined case might be.

    Qualifications may or may not have been put in the Bible. It seems reasonable that such qualifications were not stated since after the institution of the Law, God told Moses to appoint seventy elders to help judge cases of the Law. If a case was too complicated or difficult for them, the case would be sent to Moses. If all the qualifications were stated in the Law, there would be no confusion for the elders and no reason to send a case to Moses. The fact that it is freely admitted that the elders did not have anough info for every case implies that there are unstated qualifications that Moses would have the answer to.

    God does a give a law but not all laws are equally applicable to all people.

    1. The Mosaic Law was applicable to the people to whom it was given -- the nation of Israel. Since we are not the nation of Israel, we are not under their laws anymore than we are under the laws of Germany, France, Japan, etc.

    2. There are laws that apply to specific groups of people. Laws for the priests were not applicable to others. Laws applicable to certain groups did not apply to others.

    3. Laws did not contain all the necessary variations or possibilities within that law. You have stated that God said certain things are okay when in fact God did said no such thing. God simply said in a certain case, here is the response to it. He did not condone the situation any more than he condoned any law breaking.
     
  6. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:


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

    These are just off the top of my head.

    Joshua
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    These “contradictions” are nothing that some simple exegesis cannot reconcile. (A look at a good conservative commentary would do wonders as well).

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> James 1:13 - God does not tempt people
    Genesis 22:1 and Deuteronomy 8:2 - God tempts/tests people <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Your problem is not being able to differentiate between tempting and testing. God does not tempt anyone to sin by tempting them with evil, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust,” James 1:14. God tests believer’s faith all the time. It is not a temptation to do evil but rather a test that God wants the believer to pass. God tests for success; Satan tempts for failure.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Exodus 20:5 - Children will pay the price for their parents sins
    Ezekiel 18:14-20 - no they won't <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ex 20:5 says that God in His sovereignty visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons. This is assuredly true. In Ezek it is not speaking of generations but of individuals and says that “because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.” How is this so? By God’s unmerited grace. Every good work of man is a work of God through man; so in God’s unmerited grace he determines to elect and save some of men who are deserving of death. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:10

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is really a bad example of “contradiction”, and betrays a real lack of understanding of biblical theology. Exodus does not tell us that the Sabbath laws last forever; rather it says “‘Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.” Words have meaning. As Gill tells us “so long as the Mosaic dispensation lasted, and their civil polity and church state continued, even until the Messiah came, when all those Jewish shadows, rites, and ceremonies, fled away and disappeared, just in the same sense as circumcision was, Gen 17:13.” They key phrase is “throughout their generations”. Jesus’ statements are no contradiction, of course, and He fulfilled all Mosaic Law, being the Lord Sabaoth. The law came through Moses and grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Paul is not even speaking of the Sabbath, but as to any special days of holy observation. The Christian faith brought freedom from religious laws and brought liberty of conscience for the true believer.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I Samuel 16:19-23 - Saul knew who David was when he slew Goliath
    I Samuel 17:5-58 - David who? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    OK now they’re getting easier. Samuel 16:19-23 does not speak of David and Goliath, but of Saul’s seeking a musician to soothe his soul. Saul knew David as the soothing musician.

    I Samuel 17:5-58 indeed tells the story of David and Goliath. But did Saul forget who David was? If so, why? There can be several reasons, not the least being that David was so out of place on the battlefield that Saul did not recognize him. This is not an uncommon occurrence. How many times have I seen a teacher, or a doctor, or even a church member in a different environment and “out of uniform”, and not recognized them. Add to that the natural stress of being in a battle, and the lack of recognition is understandable.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    These last “contradictions” can be answered together, as they are essentially the same. The “contradiction” betrays a lack of understanding of God’s sovereignty and His providence.

    2 Sam 24:1 says “Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah.” 1 Chronicles 21:1 says 1 “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel.” Can both be true? Of course. God is First Cause of all things in His divine sovereignty. All things occur because God has ordained them so. As the London Baptist Confession of Faith states:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Chapter III: Of God's Decree

    I. God hath decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever come to pass;[1] yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;[3] in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.[4]

    1. Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18
    2. James 1:13; I John 1:5
    3. Acts 4:27-28; John 19:11
    4. Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3-5

    II. Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions,[5] yet hath He not decreed anything, because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[6]

    5. Acts 15:18
    6. Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, 18 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    God caused his perfect will to be done by moving David to conduct the census (2 Sam 24:1). He did this by using his agent Satan, who always instigates evil, but only under the permission of God (1 Chronicles 21:1). David sinned because he listened to Satan (2 Sam 24:10), but in no way implicating God for “God hath decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever come to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.”

    Similarly, God initiated the trials of Job through Satan (Job 1:7-12; 2:1-7). Yet Job understood quite well that this trial was from God. In 1:20 it says “Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said: "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; Blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong.” Job understood it was the perfect will of God at work. In 2:10 Job says "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” He did not sin because he did not accuse God of evil.

    Again, in 1 Kings 22:22-23 it shows God’s ultimate control of evil in order to serve the good purposes of God. the fact that God used an evil lying spirit to confuse evil men does not contradict the fact that God abhors lying, but rather shows how the Great First Cause uses secondary causes to accomplish His eternal purposes.

    Believing exegesis is the simple solution for alleged contradictions in the Scriptures. The word of God is inerrant and infallible; put your faith in Him, Reverend, rather than the wisdom of men.
     
  7. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

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

    I noticed you used YOUR wisdom and that of a man-made document, the London Baptist Confession, rather prominently in that attempt to disprove contradictions in scripture. And there's that old fundamentalist and Calvinist arrogance coming through again--that if someone disagrees, they simply do not understand God's sovereignty or the scriptures.

    And all the time I thought literalists always interpreted the scriptures literally and harangued against anyone who did not. But I see literalists are literalists when it suits their purposes and presuppositions and contortionists when it doesn't.
     
  8. 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:
    Chris,

    I noticed you used YOUR wisdom and that of a man-made document, the London Baptist Confession, rather prominently in that attempt to disprove contradictions in scripture. And there's that old fundamentalist and Calvinist arrogance coming through again--that if someone disagrees, they simply do not understand God's sovereignty or the scriptures.

    And all the time I thought literalists always interpreted the scriptures literally and harangued against anyone who did not. But I see literalists are literalists when it suits their purposes and presuppositions and contortionists when it doesn't.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    As usual Michael, you did not deal with one verse of Scripture nor any exegesis. Your presuppositions and prejudices rule your words.
     
  9. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

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

    And so do yours. You insist that Joshua and I must take scripture literally, just the way it is written, but you do not hold to that yourself. Rather, you twist and contort when it suits your purposes. You have therefore lost credibility.
     
  10. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,555
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am closing this topic, but also bumping it up for newcomers to find it; in another topic there was some discussion of the differences between the SBC and CBF.
     
Loading...