In a post published July 25, Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, continued to lay out the component parts of his vision for the “Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence.” In this installment (click here for the post), Dr. Akin pointed to what I believe is the irreducible basis of any of our cooperative work: Confessionalism.
In 2003, Southern Seminary president Albert Mohler spoke to the Sovereign Grace Leadership Conference about his experiences as the first president of the school under renewed conservative leadership. You can download this two-part presentation by clicking here. It is nearly two hours in total, and well worth every minute, especially if you have any doubt as to the necessity of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Hearing Dr. Mohler talk about the sit-ins, the threats, and the faculty-led lesbian commitment ceremony that occured in the early days of his presidency will surely go a long way toward removing that doubt.
Perhaps the most gripping part of Dr. Mohler’s presentation is his recounting of the first convocation of his presidency. Having been hung in effigy from a tree outside the auditorium, this thirty-five-year-old conservative nevertheless stepped bravely into the pulpit and talked about the importance of confessionalism. He was almost immediately confronted, and this began the chain of events that would lead, eventually, to the replacement of nearly the entire faculty. And it really was all about confessionalism.
As Dr. Akin says in the post linked above, Baptists have always been a confessional people. The Conservative Resurgence happened because this sense of confessionalism had largely left our seminaries, which were, as Paul Pressler documented in his memoir A Hill on Which to Die, destroying the faith of their students with liberal theology (p. 346). Our institutions had detached themselves from any sense of accountability, not only to the churches which funded them, but to the confession to which they purported to subscribe.
The Conservative Resurgence restored this confessional identity, and yes, confessional accountability. Though falsely maligned by some as “creedalism,” this accountability to our churches and to our statement of faith is absolutely essential to our continued cooperation as a convention.
I agree heartily with Dr. Akin when he says, “When other denominations are in retreat, apparently seeing how little they can confess, Southern Baptists are headed in a different direction all together.”
I applaud Dr. Akin’s courage in standing strongly for a confessional identity, for as he so well says, “There is no biblical gospel without theological content. There is no Great Commission to pursue without doctrinal conviction.”
The essence of the Gospel is God’s work in bringing persons into a relationship with Himself through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Our understanding of the Gospel comes through the revelation God has given us through His Word. The consistency of our message comes from our accountability to one another in the church under the lordship of Jesus Christ, from whom we have received our message and our commission.
Great post. The most important thing to happen in the Southern Baptist church has been the Conservative Resurgance. I am constantly amazed that there are still people who bemoan it as though it was a bad thing. Poor professors lost their positions because they supported homosexuality and denied the authenticity of the Bible. I feel so sorry for them. And now we expect Baptist organizations funded with Baptist money to be in agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message. That’s so authoritarian. (tounge placed firmly in cheek)
I praise God for me like Dr. Mohler who stand up for the truth.
And I am constantly amazed that there are still people who believe the lies about the majority of professors that lost their positions because they disagreed with the wrong people. I feel sorry for them. And now we expect Baptist organizations to be in agreement with small group that used shady means to gain control of the convention’s power and money just so they can stay in exsistence. (not so tounge in cheek).
I pray for men like Dr. Mohler who hide from the truth everyday. Don’t bother banning me. I’m done reading this trash.
I had the professors in college and seminary who RC above denies existed. They were very real to me. they took salaries from Baptist organizations funded by the offerings of Baptist people and tried to undermine the faith of Baptist young people (they called it enlightenment, I call it undermining).
I was there. I listened to them. I was shouted out by them and ridiculed by them because I believe that the Bible’s teachings are true theologically and historically.
I am passionate about the CR because I saw the spiritual and moral decay of people I started college with. I saw them in turn from young men and women who wanted to glorify God to men and women of skepticism and cynicism. I saw it first hand.
Yes, RC, there were men and women who were falsely accused. There were Bible-believers whose faith was called into question because they supported the status-quo (moderate/liberal in those days) instead of the CR. I opposed that even back then.
But I heard it, saw it, felt it, and came to know the effects of liberalism in our educational institutions.
I am no big fan of Dr. Patterson today, but I am thankful and always will be for what he did then.
Brother Wes,
I hope these comments are not construed as negative since I have a great deal of respect for the current SBC seminary leadership and I do not want to be heard as demeaning those men in any way,…but I would want to raise the floor a bit on the rhetoric of a GCR by confessional means as posited by Dr. Akin. It would seem that we (and I am guilty as any) are always eager to step into the cart without it being harnessed to the horse (generally only tied to the back), only to see ourselves moving away from the power that brought us life. Let me try to explain, because as I read Dr. Akin article,… I can agree with most everything that he has said, …..yet it still hit me that he doesn’t carry it far enough.
In his summary, he says “There is no biblical gospel without theological content. There is no Great Commission to pursue without doctrinal conviction.” Even though I realize what he has said earlier in the article, I would be more inclined to say it in reverse of what he has said…. (which is ) …”there is no theological content without the biblical gospel”, and not the other way around. I am not trying to be a contrarian just because I can…yet it seems that the only confession I have is based upon the power of the gospel, not on the content of my theology. My theology could be very, very accurate, or it could be very, very inaccurate and I could be deeply convicted with either, but the gospel will not change or lose power or effectiveness.
I know I have said this in the past, but convictions and confessions fall woefully short of the gospel and right doctrine….and we should remain vigilant to “not” have confessions be our motto. A Great Commission Resurgence should not be based on being “confessional” but should be clearly intent on God’s sending and the preaching of the gospel…..
1 Corinthians 1:18-21 for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us–those being saved–it is the power of God, (19) for it hath been written, `I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought;’ (20) where is the wise? where the scribe? where a disputer of this age? did not God make foolish the wisdom of this world? (21) for, seeing in the wisdom of God the world through the wisdom knew not God, it did please God through the foolishness of the preaching to save those believing.
Certainly Dr. Akin believes this….there is no doubt,…but sometimes the Baptist (again, including myself) have been so much a confessional people that they easily talk right past the work of Christ on behalf of His body, His Church. I believe a GCR is accomplished in the work of Christ alone, not by the confession of men….yet when Christ works men confess. No one is ever saved by my confession!,…yet I should be obedient to the mandate of preaching and teaching the gospel with clarity.
Good article!
Blessings,
Chris
Wes
I just wanted to add further that if we lack a solid theology our ministry is not going to have a sure footing. I have actually been in a church were a pastor said that our righteousness was in Christ alone (which is certainly true) but we don’t have to worry about how we live. In Ephesians, we are told to walk worthy of the calling with which we have been called. Yes, we are saved solely though grace and faith in Jesus Christ. Certainly we cannot earn salvation. However, if I claim to be a Christian but my life demonstrates otherwise, one of two things is going on. I am either a Christitan who is setting himself up to be judged or I am not a Christian at all. I am not demonstrating God’s longsuffering over my sin but rather I may be proving that I am not a child of God after all.
So, what is the difference between confessionalism and creedalism? I’d like to see a Southern Baptist concisely articulate the difference.
I at least have some respect for the Baptist who doesn’t squirm when accused of being creedal and who honestly admits to their affinity to the historic creeds.
Brother B.Diddy,
Allow me to take a shot, a very meager one, but one I have been able to distinguish.
A creed is a statement people recite from rote memorization in order to attain/affirm one’s salvation. If someone asks them if they are saved they will recite their creed.
A confession is a statement people point to in order to express the beliefs common to all within that particular denomination. When one does something outside of that confession, it is suspect on what one says one believes. When one affirms the BF&M it merely says the document clearly articulates what one believes about the various articles.
A confession is not the same as a creed. However, I will concede that confessions are based on creeds.
Blessings,
Tim
I’ll add a little more to Tim’s already good definition…..
Creeds, from the earliest of church history, were in their inception short and concise, yet grew larger as the church advanced in years. Confessions, born later in the historical religious landscape, became the longwinded beliefs and defenses for the church, further delineating into certain denominational categories. Both are the same motivationally,…. but confessions (and now statements) have become popular because of denominational alliances.
-Chris
So, I agree with B. Diddy,….all Baptists indulge in creeds and confessions (statements) of some sort, ….whatever the new fashion label may be. If they say they don’t,… it is probably to try and not be like someone else.
Blessings,
Chris
Aaron,
I appreciate my brothers’ answers above, but I want to attempt my own answer that I think will probably be more along the line of response you are looking for in your question.
One of the challenges to communication in this postmodern world is the loss of the idea that words have meanings. Today, it is taught that words are simply containers into which the one using them pours the meaning they desire. Certainly that has been the case with words like “creedalism.” Or “fundamentalist.”
I reject these labels, not because of what they actually mean, but because of what moderates and liberals within the SBC meant by them when they employed them as weapons during the Conservative Resurgence. Certainly I have no problem with creeds as Chris has defined them, but when someone implies that the BF&M is being used as a “creed” in order to control others, I must object.
The beautiful thing about confessionalism is that it is, by definition, voluntary. No one should be forced to confess anything that their conscience will not allow them to confess. At the same time, when a group voluntarily owns a confession, they have a right to expect that those they employ to teach will not contradict their shared confession. If they do, they should expect that the ones paying the bill will voluntarily stop paying them to propagate their contrary views.
All this voluntary affiliating sounds very Baptist to me. Don’t you agree?
Thanks, as always, for your comments.
Wes
You wrote:
“The beautiful thing about confessionalism is that it is, by definition, voluntary. No one should be forced to confess anything that their conscience will not allow them to confess. At the same time, when a group voluntarily owns a confession, they have a right to expect that those they employ to teach will not contradict their shared confession. If they do, they should expect that the ones paying the bill will voluntarily stop paying them to propagate their contrary views.”
Exactly. Now why is that so hard for people to understand.
You shared your opinions, I’ll share mine.
A few quick comments:
Tim wrote: “A creed is a statement people recite from rote memorization in order to attain/affirm one’s salvation. If someone asks them if they are saved they will recite their creed.”
Tim, I am gathering that you haven’t spent much time outside of Southern Baptist churches. For lack of finding a decent Baptist church during my college years, I spent a good bit of time visiting mainline congregations and fellowshipping with mainliners from denominations that place a heavy emphasis on the historic creeds. I’ve never met a mainline Protestant who recites a creed on Sunday morning “in order to attain/affirm one’s salvation.” If you asked those mainliners why they are saved, you would be unlikely to hear a creed recited. However, if I asked you why you are saved, I suspect your response would at least share a few things in common with the Nicene Creed! ;-)
Wes, when you lament they way that terms such as “creedalism” and “fundamentalist” have been used to “malign” fellow believers, I hope you realize that it cuts both ways. Others have employed terms such as “liberal” to “malign” fellow believers. Interestingly, you reject the terms that have been used to “malign” those on your side of the political-theological aisle but you don’t afford the same courtesy to those who don’t share your views when you readily throw around the L-word. Frankly, I believe all three terms serve a useful purpose in open and honest academic discussions. Those terms are overused in an intellectually dishonest fashion. However, sometimes the shoe does fit…
Now to confessionalism vs. creedalism.
First, I’m not anti-Confessionalism.
I agree that for the most part Baptists have always been a confessional people. I agree that “There is no biblical gospel without theological content. There is no Great Commission to pursue without doctrinal conviction.” Who really would disagree with that statement. Baptists by definition are not a theologically-empty people. You may disagree with the theology of Other Baptists but that doesn’t mean they lack doctrinal convictions when pursuing endeavors such as fulfilling the Great Commission, etc. Baptists of all stripes, Southern Baptists and non-Southern Baptists have indeed been a confessional people both before and after the Conservative Resurgence.
MY Definition: Creeds are inappropriate prescriptions for what you MUST believe while confessions are voluntary descriptions of what a person does believe.
I’m not comfortable with long confessional statements. I don’t think they are helpful. While technically confessions, such long statements *often* FUNCTION as creeds and *often* are used to ensure doctrinal conformity. When the BFM2000 is the standard by which Southern Baptists are judged, it’s hard to argue that that lengthy document is JUST a confession.
Aaron,
I appreciate your interaction here. I can only speak for myself, but I really try not to “throw around” any word, including “the L-word.” When I use that word, I have in mind actual manifestations of theological liberalism like the ones Dave Miller mentioned in his comment. I don’t use it to malign, but to be accurate.
That some have used “liberal” as a label in order to discredit those with whom they disagree is undeniable. That those who left the convention in the last two decades continue to use phrases like “fundamentalist” and “power and control” in order to malign conservatives and the ideals of the Conservative Resurgence is equally undeniable.
Again, thanks for joining this conversation.
B. Diddy
You wrote:
“When the BFM2000 is the standard by which Southern Baptists are judged, it’s hard to argue that that lengthy document is JUST a confession.”
I am somehat confused why, especaily for those employed by and paid with money given to God’s glory in local churches, why expecting them to conform to sound biblical doctrine is such a horrible thing. Further, I am confused why someone who is convicted that the BFM2000 is wrong would stay when their convictions are at variance with that statement. I mean, that is why the CBF exists—so that Baptists who have unbiblical beliefs could associate together. Do people stay in the SBC even though the disagree with the doctrine because they hope that the denomination will shift or reverse it’s drift to the right?
Joe,
I stay because it’s very hard to leave. I a historically a Baptist. I hold to what Baptists were for over 100 years before the denomination was perverted by those who decided we would be better of with them controling the money and power. (notice I did not use the word fundamentalist here”) I am still here because with all the disagreement in the convention over certain biblical issues, at least we still hold to church autonomy. (Also notice I did not call your beliefs unbiblical just because I disagree with them) Myself and thousands of other people were here, are here, and remain here. We have never moved. We still believe that you can cooperate with others even if you disagree with them about some issues, but still share a common desire to reach the world for Christ.
Your comment about CBF is just mean spirited. It’s hard to talk to people who believe they are never wrong. (Again, didn’t say fundamentalist) That is my biggest issue. I heard a pastor say once that ” No one is dumb enough to be %100 wrong”. I always look for truth, even in those with whom I disagree. I can’t stand for someone to say I’m wrong JUST because I disagree with them. That is ridiculous! I read the same Bible you do and I can support my interpretations just as elloquently as you.
Tim: I would like to see some support for your statement about the creeds. I honestly have never heard anything like it.
I for one would like to see the apostles creed said even occasionally in our church, but I fear the rabid anti-catholics among us would have an embolism.
Robert
You wrote:
“We still believe that you can cooperate with others even if you disagree with them about some issues, but still share a common desire to reach the world for Christ.”
I would agree that there are some disagreements that certainly can be put aside for the bigger picture of spreading the gospel. I’m a Calvanist but I would (and have) put that aside to join with folks who were not Calvanists in ministry. To me, that’s a pretty immaterial difference. However, I would not join with or support anyone who named the name of Christ but said homosexuality was not a sin or that women can pastor a church. That is a darkness/light issue and both postions are completely unbiblical based on a plain reading of Romans 1 and 1 Timothy chapters 2 and 3. Further, I would not want any money given to my church or any SBC organization to support in any way someone with those beliefs.
Further, you wrote:
“It’s hard to talk to people who believe they are never wrong.” I know for a fact that I am not always right. Furthermore, I’m not saying people who hold different beliefs are not Christians.
Brother Bill,
I think you are right…the Apostles Creed is a wonderful concise statement of what the church believes. We have recited that many times and our Baptist folk did not die and were not stricken with plagues.
The Apostles Creed came together because of some where not ready to adhere to Gnosticism and many wanted a statement that proclaimed the truth of the gospel message. I would think that was on Adrian Rogers mind as he rightly said in his letter to the SBC while recommending the changes to the BFM2000…. “The Bible is the source of our authority, not merely a support for our historic doctrines.”
Page Patterson appointed and assigned this SBC “council” (committee) to study and draft up the BFM2000, in similar manner as councils were formed from earliest church history. The councils, creeds, confessions and statements have always flowed in this manner, with certain motivating factors (updating – if you will). The fifteen members (two women) came up with the changes and a minute subset of the SBC affiliates affirmed the changes and thus it is published.
The CBF formed its council back in 1991 to move forward its four fundamental freedoms: Soul, Bible, Church and Religious. So without a formal Faith and Message statement, the CBF has a confession.
I would like to travel back to Dr. Akins comments for a moment though concerning the GCR and Baptist as confessional. It is my belief that a GCR is not fundamentally moved by any confessional’s. It is moved by obedience to God’s word. Confessional’s, Creeds, and the like are substantially the same as “sacrifice”. Sacrifice is easy to find, kill, split and define for pedagogical alignment. Obedience is moved upon by a different motive. Obedience depends upon Christ as the mover and sustainer of faith and is why a GCR would consequently appear. Confessions are susceptible to more of a fanfare of selfish desire that we want someone to hear, so that they know what we believe. That was the problem with Saul.
Obedience to God’s word is different than a creedal or confessional sacrifice.
1Samuel 15:22-25 Samuel said, “Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. (23) “For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king.” (24) Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and listened to their voice. (25) “Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me, that I may worship the LORD.”
The GCR must return to worship. Our God is a jealous God.
Exodus 34:14-15 –for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God– (15) otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice,
Blessings,
Chris
Amen to Dr. Akin! I also applaud his courage and conviction. There are too many people out there who cower down to the fads of the day. We need men and women who will stand strong on the faith.
Also, I say amen to Joe Blackmon. Say what you’re saying loud and clear, Brother. Everyone needs to hear what you’re saying in this comment thread. And, if the CBF crowd doesnt want to repent of thier erroneous beliefs, then I wish that they’d all pull out and join the American Baptists. They seem to be courting each other right now anyways. I wish that they’d just go ahead and make it official. Declare the date. Give her the ring. Get married. The SBC would be better off without yall.
Robert, I’m sorry if you think that this sounds harsh or mean, but it’s the way it should be. If CBF types dont want to hold to certain, basic, clear doctrines, then they should get out. There’s no room in the SBC for those who want to believe in women pastorettes and darwinian evolution, and who deny the inerrancy of the Bible.
Now, I’d be the first to throw my arms around any CBF’er who said that they had repented of unsound doctrine and would like to really be a part of the SBC. I would be the first to shout, “Halelujah, Brother! Sister! Pull up a chair and let me get you some sweet tea. Welcome home.”
Also, Robert, are you saying that 100 years ago, Baptists were liberal? or, that they welcomed liberal teachers and preachers into schools and pulpits? I mean, that would be 1908. Maybe Bart Barber and some other historians could tell us what SB Pastors and Profs were like during that time.
David
volfan
Thank you for the encouragement brother. Although you might want to take back that Amen because even though I live in Mt. Juliet, TN I’m from Alabama. You know what the old hymn says
Dark is the stain that we cannot hide
What can avail to wash it away
Look there is flowing a
CRIMSON TIDE
in Christ
Brother Volfan,
That’s all good (I was wondering when you would enter the string), but it doesn’t go far enough. Are you saying that confessionalism is where courage comes from?
Blessings,
Chris
Joe,
Just when I was really beginning to cotton up to you, you go and throw a monkey wrench in it by admitting to being from Alabama. And, trying to make the Crimson Tide sound spiritual….Brother! I’ve heard, I dont know if it’s true, or not, but I’ve heard that the Devil wears red and rides an elephant. :)
Chris,
I’m saying that it takes courage for a man or a woman to stand on what’s right and true.
David
volfan
I know you didn’t.
I have to agree with what you said on your blog. Regarding doctrine, I’m not talking about someone having to be a 5 point Calvanist or expecting them to be use a particular Bible version. I don’t see where the doctrinal clarity we are talking about here is some a difficult concept for some people.
Brother David,
Fair enough,…. so I guess it does take some sort of courage to confess alliance with the Crimson of Alabama… because it is clear that they think their confession is “right” and “true” . (I may be poking the Birmingham beehive)
:)
Blessings,
Chris
Joe,
Where in world did I say anything about homosexuality and women in the pastorate. Is that a tag you immediately place on everyone that disagrees with you. Being Biblical, and your personal Bible interpretation can be 2 different things. And yes I believe homosexuality is a sin.
Volfan007 & Dave Miller,
I think the liberal professor question is a lot like the legend of bigfoot. Thousands of students went to these seminaries, myself included. But only a few of the students saw these “liberals” Do we have a picture? How about a footprint? What does a liberal foot look like anyway?
I have a question that is bound to spark a debate. I know what Joe and Volfan’s interpretation of the Timothy passage is. My question is what do you do with passages in the Old Testament where God clearly placed women in a position of power and leadership? Let’s use Deborah for example. She was placed as a judge over the entire nation of Israel. What do you do with this? Does God ever contradict himself in srcipture? I am not saying that I believe that women should be pastors. I am just curious how you handle the whole of scripture as compared to what you interpret as a rock solid directive in Timothy. Does that mean God was wrong in the time of the Judges? Or did He just change His mind? Now remember scripture is without error.
Robert,
Have you, by any chance, ever read Ralph Elliott’s analysis of liberalism in SBC seminaries?
no
Robert,
Too bad you haven’t. It’s better than footprints or pictures. Better even than videotape…
:)
Brother Robert,
Unless you subscribe to the ultra covenantalist viewpoint,….you would probably agree that the church is an advance on Israel not a replacement of. So today, God uses women in great and glorious ways in His church based upon what He has given to us in the order of His church. So the new covenant allows us to obey Christ and how He has organized His church without any ambiguity.
I’m not sure how you would want Deborah to correlate to how Christ has ordered His body, post Pentecost.
Good question though,
Blessings,
Chris
David: Just for clarification. When you accuse people of accepting darwinian evolution, are you saying that they accept an atheistic view of the origins of mankind, or are you using shorthand to say that they are not literal 6-day creationists, as I suspect you are?
A follow on question for anyone: Is there room in the SBC for old-earth creationists, IDers, and theistic evolutionists, or should they all join the CBF?
Bill,
The answer to your question is NO.
Why is it that Southern Baptist leaders often fail to distinguish between neo-orthodox theology and liberal theology when discussing the seminaries, pre-Takeover?
When in battle during the Controversy, leaders such as Paige Patterson regularly accused every moderate professor under the sun of being a liberal, an accusation that was oddly hurled at conservatives like T.B. Maston.
Years later after the battles had been fought, Patterson comes out with his own account of the Controversy (Reformation as he calls it) and conceded that the so-called “liberals” consisted mostly of “neo-orthodox professors and leaders.”
Obviously, neo-orthodox theology was not acceptable to fundamentalists. But at least have the decency to acknowledge the influences of neo-orthodox thinkers on the so-called “liberals” and also have the decency to admit that neo-orthodoxy is very distinct from liberal Protestantism.
Robert,
Deborah was an OT Judge, not a Pastor in the NT times. Apples and oranges. A woman can be the Governor of the state of TN and still be true to Scripture. But, she cant be an Elder, Bishop, Pastor of a Church.
Robert, liberal profs existed in pre-CR days, during CR days, and they’re still out there. They dont get to teach in SB seminaries anymore, but they’re out there, and they did exist. Just a little homework will show you all kinds of things that were being taught in SB seminaries before 1990, and especially before 1979. Profs who believed in JEDP theory over Moses’ authorship, even though Jesus attributed authorship to Moses. Profs who would pray to Mother god, instead of Father God. Profs who believed that it was crass to believe in a literal, physical resurrection of the body. Profs that believed that the Bible was influenced by myths and legends. Profs who denied the miracles of the Bible. Profs who believed that the Bible contained errors. And, Robert, they’re still out there. Some of them are teaching at Universities that used to be Baptist schools, and some of them are teaching in colleges and universities that are still Baptist schools.
Bill, I personally believe that when the Bible says that God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th, that a day means just what it does today. It means a 24 hour period of time. Around here, when we say what day are you gonna start harvesting the corn on a certain day, we know that they mean a 24 hour period of time that has daylight and darkness. I see no reason to believe otherwise about a day that’s mentioned in Genesis. God could create everything in 2 seconds if He wanted to….amen? And, if you believe in a day being a long period of time, how was man “created” in your opinion? The details please. Was He created from the dust and named Adam? Or, do you believe in the tadpole to a fish to a lizard to a monkey to a caveman to a modern man of today type of thing? Or, do you believe that all the rest of the days mean long periods of time, but the day that man was created it was a real day? Please explain.
BTW, Big Daddy and Bill, I can fellowship with someone who believes in days being long periods of time, and that’s how God created the world. But, I dont believe that, and I really think that it’s a compromise with secular scientists of today’s views on evolution. But, Darwinian evolution, Bill, would be the tadpole to man thing….without the help of God, or that God just kind of got the ball rolling sort of thinking; instead of believing that God created man in His image. I really dont think that God is a mindless tadpole. Do you, Bill? And, I would hesitate to call God a monkey; would you?
David
Chris,
I would agree that the church is an advancement not a replacement. But I think that statement may also cheapen what a Judge of Israel in the Old Testament was responsible for. We are talking about leading God’s chosen people. Not in just the political sense but in the spiritual sense as well. To say that Christ ordered His church in a way inconsistent with the way God chose leaders in the Old testament is a stretch I am not willing to take. The new covenant, in my mind, does not lessen God’s sovereignty.
Just so you know I am making this argument without referencing I Tim because I believe it is most often taken out of context for those who wish to use it to serve their purpose.
Volfan,
The Governor of Tennessee was not charged by God as the spiritual leader of His chosen people. As I mentioned in the previous post, the position of Judge was not merely a political position. And it wasn’t just a position of spiritual leadership. It was THE position of spiritual leadership. It is very easy for some to take from scripture what they need and leave the rest. If you are going to look at what God has to say on an issue you have to take the Bible as a whole. That is assuming that you believe that the whole Bible is the word of God without error.
Robert,
Are there any Scriptures anywhere that says that a woman cannot be a Judge over Israel? No. Are there clear Scriptures about a woman not being a Pastor of a Church? Yes.
No contradictions. No change in God. No inconsistency with God, nor with His Word
David
Robert,
You wrote:
1-”I have a question that is bound to spark a debate.”
2-”I am not saying that I believe that women should be pastors.”
3-”To say that Christ ordered His church in a way inconsistent with the way God chose leaders in the Old testament is a stretch I am not willing to take.”
4-”If you are going to look at what God has to say on an issue you have to take the Bible as a whole.”
Boy, I’m glad I’m not a billy goat trying to cross this here bridge. By the way, 2 and 3 obviously contridict each other. Which is it?
volfan
I have a good friend that works for a certain Southern Baptist publisher in Nashville who will remain nameless who believes that God created in ages rather than days. I have a good laugh about it with him and ask him to pass me to biscuits. We get along fine. He gets on me about the Crimson Tide bit too. Haa
Joe,
So you have hit the nail on the head. I admit to being a little confused on the issue. Personally I am not sure how I feel about the local church that has a woman as their pastor. I am just pointing out that it is not all that cut and dry as some would want to make it. There are some that believe, myself included, that the I Timothy passage is not a “clear” directive as volfan would make it. Some people desire to continue studying scripture. Some take what someone else says about it as unnegotiable fact. I am the previous.
Volfan007 wrote this:
“Are there any Scriptures anywhere that says that a woman cannot be a Judge over Israel? No. Are there clear Scriptures about a woman not being a Pastor of a Church? Yes.”
You mistakenly ended your post with the wrong answer to the question. The correct response is “according to my interpretation, yes. Are there any scriptures that say, “A woman Shall not be a pastor of a church?” The correct anser is no.
Brother Robert,
Thank you for the kind response. I do not believe that God in Christ is inconsistent by having Judges and having Pastors.
2 Corinthians 5:18-19 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, (19) namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
He is sovereign and does appoint the ways His church advances and should be ordered.
Daniel Vestal for instance is a friend of mine from my teenage years, and I still call him friend, even when he stated to me (and he admitted this, I don’t think he would deny it) he had to change his hermeneutic in order to change his view on women being Pastors. I agree with him, in that he had to change his hermeneutic for that to occur. But, I find no reason to change a hermeneutic in order to have scripture allow women as Pastors. It seems a bit inconsistent. Now, I still love Daniel and I know he loves the Lord. IMHO he, although honest with why he believes the way he does, is not correctly nor consistently dividing those portions of scripture. His view does no harm to women unless he teaches them to oversee and lead Christ’s church. If he teaches a woman these things, he is not teaching a consistent biblical mandate, although some women may be outstanding speakers, preachers, leaders, etc. There is no scripture mandate that women lead and Pastor Christ’s church, yet there is a mandate for the male. That is simply the way it is…but those mandates do not impugn the sovereignty of God in any way, they reveal His careful and caring design for His body.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I am hard pressed to see what the scripture you reference has to do with what my point was. I guess we will agree to disagree.
David: Secular scientists, as opposed to what? Christian scientists? Surely you are aware that many Christian scientists do not believe the earth is less than 10000 years old.
I don’t know how God created man. I don’t believe the earth is less than 10000 years old because the science doesn’t support it and the bible doesn’t demand it. I don’t think that makes me any less baptist than a young earther. I don’t think that God is a tadpole or monkey. The question is insulting.
Brother Robert,
My purpose in providing the verse was to illustrate that the organizing of the people of God is not dependent upon ethnic groups and their leaders any longer, but Christ has chosen and revealed that qualified men will lead His church until His return.
There is simply no other way to interpret the scriptures unless you change your hermeneutic. In other words, we are not really agreeing to disagree, but I think we are agreeing that we read and apply principles of interpretation differently and because of that we arrive at a different understanding.
If you can show me in the text where God requires a woman to lead His church, I will listen. It is either in the text or it is not in the text. It is that simple.
Blessings,
Chris
To all you who believe in “Theistic Evolution” or something thereabouts…
I “went down front” when I was 13 and “asked Jesus into my heart”. Then I went to school and was told that the earth was “billions of years old” and life “evolved” over billions of years.
I went to my teachers at church and asked how could this be, because clearly this teaching is at odds with what the bible says and I could see this as a 13 year old (no matter how you like to spin it). For instance, It is clear that days are actually days, not long periods of time. And the order of darwinian evolution is at odds with the order that God created living things on the earth. Any belief that puts darwinian evolution (species to species evolution) is contradicting what the bible clearly teaches. This blew my “faith”.
If you believe in some sort of evolution, then let me ask you one question: What did Jesus die for? There is no need for the atonement if evolution be true. Evolution is a process of death and if death occurred on the earth prior to the “evolution” of humankind, then it obviously wasn’t sin that caused death. Out of the love of Christ, I plead with you, please examine yourself.
http://www.answersingenesis.org is a great resource to explain these things in much greater detail that I can ever attempt to.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Brother ABClay:
Outstanding!!!
Grace,
Wes
ABC,
Thanks for stepping into this conversation and explaining this in a much more gracious way than I did.
Bill, I’m sorry if I offended you. Now, do you believe that mankind evolved from monkies?
Also, Bill, any scientist that goes against the clear teachings of Scripture is wrong. I dont care how many degrees they have, nor what thier IQ is, if they go against the teaching of Scripture, then they’re wrong. Thier ungodly, lost, unregenerate bias is showing thru. And, some of them have swallowed the bias of the ungodly, and have followed like sheep to believe the lies of Darwinian Evolutionists.
David
Brothers,
I hate to belabor a point but we use words like “sufficient”, “authoritative”, and “inerrant” when speaking of the Special Revelation of God. We must ask ourselves what this means to our practice.
One person asks, How did God create man?
Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
The question remains: Do we believe what we profess regarding the bible? When we doubt this simple verse, we also call into question the authority of other passages and people of the bible who make reference to creation and the fall.
I ask you, was Jesus a liar?
Matt 19:4-5 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
I beg of you, if you claim Christ, please examine yourselves concerning these things.
Grace and Peace….
ABClay
That evolution takes place is undeniable – look at viruses and bacteria – they continually evolve to make them resistant to the drugs we throw at them. It is pretty evident that humans have also evolved – those in southern climes have more melanin in thier skin and are able to handle the extreme sunlight better than those in the northern climes. Of course this is all interspecies evolution.
The Bible states that God spoke the world into creation. I believe that with every fiber of my being. Does the Word say when, in either passage of genesis – nope. If one wants to believe that God used six literal days, or six eras as the word day can be translated, does it take away that God sent his son to die for my sins – not at all.
I personally believe that God is a God of order – the fact that he created the world is a miracle, the fact that he created man and animals and plants is another miracle. It is also a fact that God is not bound by space or time – if he took billions of years to create the earth and stars or six literal days 6,000 years ago matters not a whit to me. The evidence indicates to me that he took billions of years – but I also believe in a literal Adam and Eve, as I belive in a literal Garden of Eden and a literal Jesus who was sent to save us.
Just like the book of Revelation which we have fun with trying to figure out, God communicated to ancient man in a way that ancient man could understand.
I think the book of Genesis would look much different if God were communicating with a modern day scientist who has more of an understanding of DNA/geology/astrophysics or perhaps he would still say to us I created this mess and I sent my Son to fix it – you will never understand how I did it because I am God – now go preach and make disciples!
but if you are taking a poll, put me down for the day age theory and just go ahead and make it one more reason you cant work with me :)
Brother AB,
Thanks for belaboring….
Blessings,
Chris
Should the YEC viewpoint be added to the BFM?
By the way, does the word day in Gen. 2:4 mean a 24 hour period?
Jim: I can work with you but it looks like we may both have to join the CBF.
The bible says the heavens declare the handiwork of God, and some of that handiwork (stars) is an almost unimaginable distance away from us. So I think the speed of light gives us some idea that the earth is older than 6000 years.
I know, Ken Ham says the speed of light has slowed down. I’d like to see the science behind that.
I know that I won’t change the mind of a fundamentalist – that’s a somewhat impossible task.
But the atonement and evolution really have little to do with one another.
I’m a liberal arts person. Not a science guy. But, I don’t read Genesis as a scientific text. The “clear teachings of the Bible” and scientific theories need not be contradictory. This conversation is honestly ridiculous much like any argument that describes the Earth as 6,000 years YOUNG.
Someone go out and read Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (mentioned recently by Bart Barber in the SBC Today podcast). It’s because of evangelicals intellectually-backwards positions on issues of creation/science which led Noll to lament that “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind…”
Bill,
Do you believe that mankind evolved from monkies?
Also, while I would not make the young Earth and old Earth views a matter of fellowship, I do believe in a young Earth. And, I do believe that it’s important to believe in a literal, six day creation. That’s what the Bible teaches. Genesis says that the time of light and darkness, day and night, made up a day…..that’s 24 hours. So, I do beleive that to not hold to a young Earth and a literal 24 hour day is cowing down to modern day science.
David
Bill,
Only if you take Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 to be true.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.
Sure God could have made the entire creation in the twinkling of an eye, but there was a purpose in His taking six days and resting on the seventh…
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Bill,
Have you ever considered that the light from the stars was created simultaneously with the creation of the stars? IOW, the light existed coming from the stars to the Earth from the moment of creation; that it didnt take 6,000 years for the first light rays to reach us….that they were already created to reach us?
So, no, we dont have to hunker down in the presence of some godless scientist with an agenda who speaks of his theories as fact. We can hold to the Bible with our heads up.
David
Bdiddy,
In all respect, are we to expect any less from a world that hates God than to poke fun of those who believe what the bible says about creation?
2 Peter 3:3-7
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
There is no science that contradicts the bible. We must be earnest to view the observable universe through the lenses of a biblical worldview.
I cannot make anyone believe what the bible says…I didn’t believe it myself until God took out my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh. These things are definitely spiritually discerned.
My love and pleas remain to all who want to paint the young earth believers with an “ignorance” brush.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Bdiddy,
Does not Paul argue that the “wages of sin is death” and that death entered the world with sin in the book of Romans?
I feel very comfortable submitting to what the bible teaches regarding creation, sin, the fall, and redemption.
God bless…
ABClay
Brother Jim,
I encourage you to search the problems that the discovery and advancements in DNA technology presents for the evolutionists.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Notice the turn the conversation has taken. I think Genesis is true, but not literal. That means I have cowed to scientists. Not just scientists, mind you, but Godless scientists. Anyone who doesn’t accept the YEC position may be cowed, a compromiser, doesn’t believe the clear teaching of scripture, thinks God is a tadpole or monkey, thinks Jesus lied, etc.
Brother Bill,
What does that mean? You think that Genesis is true but not literal?
Forgive my “intellectually-backward” ignorance but I don’t understand.
I encourage all of you to visit http://www.answersingenesis.org. Click on the “Get Answers” button.
ABClay
ABClay
The first thing that occurred to me in reading this post was to ask about the difference in a confession and a creed, but found that P.Diddy asked the same thing in comment #6. Several of you answered, or at least attempted to answer that, and I appreciate it. However, I believe that the answers–and maybe the question too–should be reframed, however slightly. The real question concerns not the difference in a confession and a creed, but the difference in a confession which demands accountability and a creed! I would suggest that a confession is a concensus of opinion document, which to me means a collection of points/teachings/doctrines with which all can live, even if accepting some more whole-heartedly or enthusiastically than others. A creed is a series of points/teachings/doctrines with which full agreement is mandated. I would further suggest that when a “confession” becomes “an instrument of docrtinal accountability,” the definitions of each becomes a distinction without a difference. Like Diddy, I respect those “who doesn’t squirm when accused of being creedal and who honestly admits to their affinity to the historic creeds.”
Were there liberal professions in seminaries pre-CR? Well, first, it depends on your measuring stick. Even among those here who are unquestionable conservatives, there seems to be different measuring tools: Chris Johnson and Joe Blackmon seem to be pretty close together, but my buddy volfan007 goes beyond either of them. But for sake of argument, let’s say there were (some) liberal professors. I heard various professors at SEBTS during my days there (1984-87) make statements more “liberal” than were my beliefs. I also had classes in which there were some very, VERY conservative students, and I can say without fear of contradiction that I NEVER heard a professor “shout down” anyone in class. I remember one class in which an assignment involved the authorship of various Pauline epistles. One of the self-proclaimed conservatives asked, “What if I take the position that the named author was the author?” The professor’s reply was, “As you as you give cognizant reasons and back up your opinion with research, you’ll get a good grade. If you just say, ‘Paul was the author because I say he was the author,’ you’ll get a poor grade.” I don’t know what that student made on the paper, but on mine, I took the position that Paul actually authored whichever book it was, I gave research and references to back up my position, and I got an “A” with the comment that it was well-argued. Anyone who did hear a professor shout down a student–I’d like to know (1) how they define “shouting down,” and (2) what the entire circumstances were. You don’t have to agree with someone in order to learn from them; personally, I have learned much more from those with whom I disagree, because it challenges me to search and discover for myself.
Finally I ask: would Jesus want us to sound arrogant? That is exactly how the comment (#14) about the CBF being for Baptists with unBiblical beliefs sounds. And BTW: maybe those of us who don’y subscribe to the 2000 BF&M stick around in the SBC because we actually believe the stuff about a confession of faith being both voluntary (in its true sense) and a consencus of opinion.
John Fariss
John,
I appreciate you for getting this discussion back to the original topic. The creation debate is an important one, but somewhat off-topic for this post.
As far as confessionalism/creedalism goes, I suppose if we take your definitions, then you are correct about how it applies. But here’s the important thing: If the BF&M is used as a creed, it is not so used in our churches, but in our cooperative institutions.
No human has the authority to tell our churches what they must believe and teach. The BF&M is voluntarily subscribed to by many of our churches, it was voluntarily adopted by our convention, and it is a consensus statement of our beliefs. So it is altogether fitting that it be used as an instrument of doctrinal accountability to ensure that our institutions do not stray from, or even subvert, what is taught and believed in the churches by which they are supported.
If that’s creedalism, it’s a severely limited creedalism, and I’m grateful for it.
Is the 2000 BF&M required by any of the state conventions for churches affiliated with them? I know there was a motion to that effect in here in Maryland some 6 or 8 years ago, but it was defeated. Does it exist elsewhere? If so, that at the least extends creedal characteristics, to my thinking.
John
John,
If I’m not mistaken, a church must adopt the BF&M 2000 as its statement of faith in order to affiliate with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.
I don’t agree that this is necessarily creedal, however. The SBTC is an autonomous body of Baptists, and churches are free to join or to not join. As you know, there is another convention in Texas, and those churches which don’t feel led to adopt this statement are more than welcome there.
Interesting. As a former police officer/detective, a possible analogy occurs to me: I am holding a loaded pistol in my hand. I squeeze the trigger. the weapon fires, a bullet hits someone, tissue and organs are penetrated and traumatized, arteries and veins are severed, and the person so hit bleeds to death. Now: did they die because I shot them, or did they die of natural causes–what’s more natural than bleeding after being shot? Did I shot them, or did the gun shoot them? Believe it or not, I have heard people justify their innocence for exactly those reasons. No doubt this is extreme, but it seems to me that to argue that a confession is voluntary, but if you don’t voluntarily adopt it, you cannot be a part of such-and-such an organization, is very much like saying I didn’t shoot the victim, the gun did.
John
ABC: I haven’t called anyone intellectually backward. True, but not literal. Is the book of Revelation true? Yes. Is it literal? I would say much of it is not. Allegory, metaphor, parable, hyperbole. All these literary devices exist in Scripture. They convey truth, but are not literal.
Brother Bill,
Thanks for the explanation. I don’t deny the existence of literary devices in scripture. My question to you is this: When Paul, Peter, Jesus, Luke, and the other authors or objects of the scriptures “duped” when they referenced the first three chapters of Genesis as being literal?
Creation (per Genesis)= “Good”, no sin, no death
Fall (per Genesis) = Sin, Death, Condemnation
Redemption = propitiation for sin, no longer under condemnation, victory over death
My hope is based on the above.
I have a bowl of water with a rock in it on my desk…. If I watch it long enough, a coke can will emerge from the mixture.
My apologies for “hijacking” this thread for a while.
Grace and Peace…
I assume Jesus and the apostles are aware of literary devices just as we are, and so they speak of the events of Genesis as they are presented in Genesis, just as I do.
It isn’t really fruitful to try to change each other’s mind about the mechanisms by which God created everything. My main point is whether we relegate the opposition to some sort of lower class of Christian because they interpret things differently than we do. I think it’s pretty clear that the YECers on this thread have staked out the “we believe the bible” territory for themselves. Leaving non-YECers with something less than that.
Bill,
Okay. I still love you and will pray that you will come to embrace the truths in Genesis as the foundation of the Christian faith.
ABClay
Bro. Clay,
I though Christ and Him crucified was the foundation of the Christian faith. And I love you too, and even respect you–I just disagree with some of the things you say.
John Fariss
abclay
Are you aware that the New American Commentary edited by Ray Clendenen, printed by Broadman and Holman does not advocate an YEC which differs from Ken Hamm.
Bro. John,
Thanks for the kind words.
Jesus Christ and Him crucified is what we preach to bring the lost to come to repentance. But, I ask, what is the repentance from and for what did Christ die if there was death on the earth prior to the “evolving” of humankind? Death is a function of sin according to Romans 5.
ABClay
Brother Rick,
Are you aware that there are people on this blog who do not advocate the YEC view? These pull as much (or more) weight as B & H publishers does in my world.
I cannot control what “christian” publishers publish. There are many “christian” publishers who publish rubbish all day long in the name of “christianity”. Surely you are aware of this.
ABClay
Bro. AB,
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the contradiction between sin/death & faith in Jesus Christ, and whether or not Genesis 1-11 must be taken in a wooden, literal fashion, orif there is room for some elements of it to be understood allegorically, methaphorically, as parable, etc. One thing I remember a seminary professor saying was that we ARE taking the Bible literally if we take it as it was intended.
And I still say the basis for faith is Christ and Him crucified, with no cavaets, no qualifications, and no additions.
John
AB
No reason to be upset…just pointing out the inconsistencies for those who “hold to the Biblical View” as if they are the only true believers.
And oh yeah, I tend to trust Dr. Patterson on interpretivative matters since he is one of the editors for the series.
Bro. John,
It is because you don’t see the contradiction that I will be praying all the more fervently.
The demons believe that Christ was crucified and rose again too, what makes their belief different from yours?
Heck for that matter, there were many people who were crucified, what makes Christ different?
ABClay
Rick,
I am not upset. Perhaps you should email Dr. Patterson and ask him about his view of creation?
Grace to you brother…
ABClay
AB
no need to..its written in the commentary. I suggest that you read it. It will help you.
John
you are right.
Rick,
To the best of my knowledge, the Genesis portion of that commentary was written by Kenneth Matthews.
Are you suggesting that Patterson doesn’t hold to a literal 6-day creation?
I have my own commentary set that I prefer, thanks though. Why the tone of contention? “I suggest you read it.”
ABClay
Brother AB,
You said, “The demons believe that Christ was crucified and rose again too, what makes their belief different from yours?”
I will resist the urge to be offended by that question; both by natural gifts and 22 years in the pastorate (mostly serving dysfunctional churches), I have a pretty thick skin.
What makes me different from any demons who “believe” is that I have a saving RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ, as my Lord and my savior. What they “believe” is merely an acceptance of the reality of Jesus Christ’s identity; what I “believe” is an active and (hopefully) maturing faith. As the great old hymn “He Lives” puts it, “You ask me how I know He lives: He lives within my heart.” What makes me different are the fruits which I produce. Paul, I believe, spoke about that quite eloquently in Galatians 5 (as well as in several other passages). And as far as what makes Christ different from others who were crucified. . . need I really answer that? OK: (1) who He was (and is), the Son of God and God the Son, who is the Lamb of God came to take away our sin, and (2) that He was raised from the dead by the power of God, and (3) that He now sits at the right hand of God (starting to sound like the Apostle’s Creed, isn’t it?), all this and maybe a few other points if I took time to go into them in detail is what makes Jesus different from thousands, maybe tens of thousands of others who were crucified. Rather significant difference, don’t you think?
Rick,
Thanks!
John
John,
I am afraid that you have misunderstood the intent of my question. I was asking a question of you, knowing your answer, in an effort to demonstrate my point that it wasn’t simply affirming the Crucifixion of Christ that is the foundation of our faith.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. I was not implying that you had the same “belief” as those mentioned in James.
In the latter portion of your answer, I believe you demonstrated the importance of the belief in the Genesis account of creation. You said, “the Son of God and God the Son, who is the Lamb of God came to take away our sin”
It is the sin problem that we all have that Christ remedied for us on the Cross. This sin, per the Genesis account, is the reason that we are all spiritually dead and cut off from God. When you remove the literal interpretation of the introduction of death and sin into the world that we have in Genesis 3 by affirming evolution, which by its nature is a process of death that must have existed before Adam and Eve committed the first sin, we lose the need for a redeemer. The foundation of the need for a redeemer is set forth in the third chapter of the book of Genesis with the first sin, and consequently, the first death (animal that “covered” the sins of Adam and Eve by covering their nakedness).
I will not be able to comment any further on this thread (to the joy of some) as I am going out of town this evening.
God bless, and Grace and peace to you all…
ABClay
AB,
Sorry I misunderstood your question, although I am glad to hear you were not comparing me to demons. That is what I took it to mean.
Sin is real and is THE problem humankind faces–both in this life and when facing eternity–regardless of one’s perspective on the Book of Genesis. It means to miss the mark of fellowship with God, and as I’m sure you know, the word translated as “sin” in both Greek and Hebrew literally means to “miss the mark,” as with an archer shooting his arrow at a target. I guess what bothers me, or concerns me, most about your position is that it represents a “ladder” approach to Christianity, and if you miss any rung, you cannot get any further. You seem to have put your interpretation of the Book of Genesis at or near the bottom of your ladder. Would you really require someone to accept your interpretation of this OT book before (you think) they could become a Christian? Or look at it from another perspective, that of someone already a Christian: if they decide Genesis should be understood another way (as one contributor put it, “true, but not literal,” has their faith become a house of cards which will then come tumbling down? Note, I am not suggesting that they would loose their salvation, nor would I put those words in your mouth; but we all know people who have dropped out of church and even out of the faith altogether.
Enjoyed our exchange. Hope you have a good trip.
John
Chris said a long time ago, comment 43 I think
“If you can show me in the text where God requires a woman to lead His church, I will listen. It is either in the text or it is not in the text. It is that simple.”
I hate to bring this back up but I wanted to respond and I was out of the office today. Chris, I personally don’t believe that the I Timothy passage limits the pastorate to men, if you are aware of the context in which the verse is written. So, no I can not show you any directive that charges women to be pastors. But I can’t show you one that charges men either.
This link:
http://homepage.mac.com/lawsonstone1/Sites/blog/Hindenburg_Theology.html
is more of what John is talking about.
It simply isn’t true that we can’t believe in sin and redemption without being a YECer.
Bill,
Thanks for the reference to a very good article. While I found what I think are a couple of minor mistakes (at least if the History Channel is telling the truth and if I remember college chemistry from 35+ years ago correctly), I agree with his thesis and conclusions. It is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. Thanks!
John
Bill,
Thanks for the reference to a very good article. While I found what I think are a couple of minor mistakes (at least if the History Channel is telling the truth and if I remember college chemistry from 35+ years ago correctly), I agree with his thesis and conclusions. It is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. Thanks!
John
John,Bill,
How did sin enter the world? And is death a consequence of sin? What is your authority for your beliefs regarding these two questions?
thanks,
ABClay
1. Adam and Eve sinned.
2. Yes
3. The Bible
The YEC interpretation of Genesis is most definitely not my authority, although they are free to hold that interpretation as I did for many years. I accepted it, argued for it, debated people, etc. I subscribed to Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham was my hero.
I just don’t anymore. God’s word hasn’t changed and its truth hasn’t changed, but sometimes, in their quest to discover that truth, people change. I think I have a better handle on the truth of Genesis than I did before. You disagree, and that’s fine. We can’t both be right, even if we both are sincere. Our salvation doesn’t stand or fall on being right about Genesis. The question is whether YECers and Old Earthers and Theistic Evolutionists and Intelligent Design-ers can work together in the same denomination. Let’s think about this before we answer. Can we work together if X thinks Y is an ignorant rube, and if Y thinks X is a compromiser cowed by godless scientists?
The post is about confessionalism. All Baptists confess that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. Is that enough, or do we need to, as a convention, take a definitive stand on the mechanics of how that creation was accomplished, how long it took, and how long ago it was?
I don’t think so, but that’s just me.
Bill,
I have asked you a question at least three times, and you still have answered me. I’m beginning to wonder why. I will ask it again, since you have been influenced by someone to believe in the millions and millions and millions and millions of years theories, and notice that it is a theory. Because nobody was around millions and millions and millions and millions of years ago to record it. So, it’s the guess of some scientist/scientists about what happened before recorded history.
My question: Do you now believe that man evolved from apes?
David
David: If pressed, I would probably fall into the intelligent design camp. So no, I don’t believe that mankind evolved from apes (or anything else for that matter) in an unguided series of random beneficial mutations and natural selection.
When people fail to answer your questions, you might consider that it might not be because they cannot answer but because of the way you choose to engage them.
Bill,
Thank you for your response. I am just trying to understand how your beliefs are congruent with the bible with my questions.
If death enters the world through sin (as the Bible states and you affirmed in your previous post), then was there sin (and consequently death) in the world prior to Adam and Eve?
Thanks again,
ABClay
Oh and Bill,
While I don’t work with any compromisers who are cowed by Godless scientists on a daily basis, I do work with some ignorant rubes on occasion (and I am sure they think the same of me :-) )
ABClay
AB: At the risk of incurring the wrath of the moderators, I’ll keep it going.
Death before sin? If the earth really is alot older than Adam, then yes, I guess there must have been.
But what death? Physical, surely. Spiritual? No. You see, death in the Genesis account certainly does not mean only, or even primarily physical death. God promised that Adam and Eve would die the day (there’s that word again) they ate of the fruit. But we know that they didn’t. At least not physically. Did God contradict Himself? No. Then obviously what “died” that day was not their physical bodies but their spirits.
Bro. Bill,
From Genesis 3, while we agree that there is spiritual death involved in the fall, the mention of spiritual death is not there. On the contrary, God’s words speak of physical death (“For you are dust and to dust you will return, he must not reach out and take from the tree of life and live forever”).
I guess we will have to agree to disagree but just know that I will still be praying for your return to the literal understanding of the creation. :-)
Thanks for the conversation.
ABClay
Pingback: The Back Story to the Great Commission Resurgence « Provocations & Pantings