Theological Doublespeak

[Mark Osgatharp]

One of the oldest tricks of Satan is to redefine commonly accept terminology so as to cloak his lies and deceive the simple.

For years the Baptist Infidels have scorned the Bible believing Baptists for holding to the inerrancy of the Scriptures. But now that the Southern Baptist Convention has made it clear they will not employ a man who denies inerrancy, 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.

Shades of Bill Clinton!

Mark Osgatharp

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

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!

 

[Artimaeus]

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

 

[Ed Edwards]

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!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
One of the oldest tricks of Satan is to redefine commonly accept terminology so as to cloak his lies and deceive the simple.

For years the Baptist Infidels have scorned the Bible believing Baptists for holding to the inerrancy of the Scriptures. But now that the Southern Baptist Convention has made it clear they will not employ a man who denies inerrancy, 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.

Shades of Bill Clinton!

Mark Osgatharp

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
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?

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!

 

[Artimaeus]

Theological Doublespeak

Some of my favorites are:

"Temporary" Eternal Salvation

Learned "Gift"

You have been "rented" for a price

nearly "whosoever"

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
But now that the Southern Baptist Convention has made it clear they will not employ a man who denies inerrancy, 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.

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?

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
Wouldn't it be nice if "Baptist infidel" was an oxymoron?

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

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Artimaeus:
Wouldn't it be nice if "Baptist infidel" was an oxymoron?

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.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by USN2Pulpit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
But now that the Southern Baptist Convention has made it clear they will not employ a man who denies inerrancy, 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.

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? </font>[/QUOTE]By "Baptist Infidels" I mean people who profess to be Baptists, preach in Baptist churches, teach in Baptist Sunday Schools, Colleges, and Universities, and yet are infidels in their religious philosophy and do not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Though the SBC has it's fair share of this sort, they do not officially condone it. To the contrary, in recent years they have made it clear, at least on the national level, that they will not tolerate these men in their institutions.

The point I am making is that now that a big money operation like the SBC has taken a definate inerracy position, those in Southern Baptist employment who formerly denied the idea of inerrancy will now use the term inerrancy, but redefine it to fit their real belief that the Bible is not true. This way they will be able to say "yes I believe in inerrancy" and thus gain employement in Southern Baptist institutions, while still, in reality, believing the Bible is errant.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
By "Baptist Infidels" I mean people who profess to be Baptists, preach in Baptist churches, teach in Baptist Sunday Schools, Colleges, and Universities, and yet are infidels in their religious philosophy and do not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

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.

The point I am making is that now that a big money operation like the SBC has taken a definate inerracy position, those in Southern Baptist employment who formerly denied the idea of inerrancy will now use the term inerrancy, but redefine it to fit their real belief that the Bible is not true.

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.

This way they will be able to say "yes I believe in inerrancy" and thus gain employement in Southern Baptist institutions, while still, in reality, believing the Bible is errant.

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.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
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 and the enlightened who know the Bible has errors but is not errant are all honest, down to earth, humble, loving, and kind.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
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?

…and the enlightened who know the Bible has errors but is not errant…

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

…are all honest, down to earth, humble, loving, and kind.

Nope.

 

[Don]

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.

Nah, not necessarily.

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

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Don:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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...

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Certainly you know of fundamentalists who are not satisfied unless they are fighting someone...

Since there is always someone who needs to be fought, why should this be seen as unvirtuous? How do you know that what you interpret as a love for controversy is not, in reality, a sincerely held desire to "earnestly contend for the faith" just as the Scriptures command?

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
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.

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.