Recently, Barry King, pastor of Grace Baptist Church (http://tiny.cc/te1v3), Wood Green, London came into contact with some friends in Germany who are at the heart of a struggle for Biblical reformation in their land. The testimony of Anita Kupfermann is sending shock waves through the churches of Germany.  Her complete testimony was published in German in Bibel und Gemeinde in the October 2011 issue (pp. 9-14). This English translation is published here in hopes of encouraging prayer for Anita and others like her who are standing for Biblical orthodoxy in Germany.

Would you join him in prayer for God to continue to move among German Baptists?

– the Editors of SBC Today

My Life Changed! How God Gave Me Faith:
A Testimony

by Anita Kupfermann



Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to read my story!

My name is Anita Kupfermann and I would like to tell you about my time studying theology.  It is my hope that this little account of my experiences will serve as a warning and an encouragement to you. I would like to warn you of how the so-called “Higher Critical” (Historical Criticism) method left my relationship with God, and therefore my entire life, severely damaged. Yet I equally hope to encourage you! I can testify with great joy and thankfulness that the Lord Jesus Christ, during my time at university, healed my unbelief and called me to follow Him.

I hope and pray that God will be glorified through these pages and that you, the reader, will be encouraged to fully trust the Word of God.

My Time At Theological College & the Higher Critical Method (HCM)

Through my parents I was confronted with the Christian faith at an early age. I regularly went to Sunday School and was baptized at the age of 14.

A full ten years later, whilst working at a nursery, I was gripped by the desire to do something else with my time, something equally meaningful.  I wanted to submit myself to the Word of God and reflect on my walk with God. Although I had been baptized, I realized that I did not know the Bible. I couldn’t say I had a living relationship with God.  I longed to know God better, to better understand what being a Christian meant. So, I decided to attend a theological college for ten months. My hope was that these ten months would supply what was missing in my faith.

Right from the beginning of my time at theological college I was confronted with Biblical criticism in the form of the “Higher Critical” method, (HCM). The HCM is the current philosophy of understanding and explaining Bible passages at German universities, as well as at many free-church theological colleges. According to this philosophy the Bible is not understood to be the inspired Word of God but a contradictory, mistake-prone, human work. Just like any other piece of literature it must be critically questioned and examined. This method of approaching the biblical texts normally leads to rejecting the historicity of the Bible – in other words, the historical accuracy and reliability of the Bible is questioned. Simply put, the Bible’s stories are just myths that never happened.

An example of this technique may help explain what it looks like in practice.

We were taught that Mark’s Gospel has its origin dated back to roughly 70 A.D. According to the HCM, it is categorically denied that it was possible for Jesus Christ to have seen the future. However Mark’s Gospel reports that Christ predicts the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. This prophecy was perfectly fulfilled: in 70 A.D. the Romans razed the temple to the ground. The majority of critical researchers believe that the prophecy in Mark is a fake prophecy, (vaticinium ex eventu). Only after the event, they assume, was Jesus’ prophecy added to the text. The Gospel of Mark cannot have predicted the future destruction of the temple, therefore it must have been written afterwards.

With this fixed, faithless presupposition, the Holy Bible is critically evaluated until all her reports are questionable. A few more short examples give a fuller picture of the results of this modern critical scientific approach to the Bible:

Adam and Eve never existed. Rather, they are merely literary symbols for all of humanity. Hence, there never was a real fall into sin.

Noah and the ark is a legend, not a real event.

The first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses. Instead they were compiled by at least three different writers over a long period of time. Moreover they are, at least in part, contradictory.

The Ten Commandments did not come from God but slowly evolved from various stories. This happened a long time after Moses had died.

The conquests such as those that are recorded in Joshua never happened.

Jesus’ words and deeds in the Gospels were often invented later by well meaning Christians. Therefore, much of the Gospels is simply fictitious. For example; Jesus never talked about His death, much less His resurrection. Furthermore His identity as the promised Christ and as the Son of God was also invented at a much later date. He never wanted to start a church or reach out to the Gentiles.

Paul is not the author of the New Testament letters to the Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Timothy, or Titus. Neither did Peter write the letters ascribed to him.

These are just some of countless examples. The theories of the HCM were not taught at this theological college, or in my later studies, to merely acknowledge them. Instead they were taught and proclaimed with conviction. Under the influence of such teaching, the reliability of the Bible was increasingly questioned. I became more and more convinced that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God but a jumbled collection of human, (i.e. imperfect) thoughts about God and life.

An unavoidable question-mark was now next to every person and event in the Bible. Moreover, as well as my new discoveries about the unreliability of the Bible, my ethical convictions were also brought into question. At the college we discussed themes such as homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. Were these perhaps permissible after all? In short, I felt my doubts about Christianity and the Bible grow and grow. If everything is not as it was written then, how could I be sure of anything I believed?

My skepticism blossomed as we took up the theme of world religions in our classes. Faced with a deep crisis of faith, I seriously considered giving up Christianity. My lecturers were so certain that it could only be good for me to give up the fundamentals of my former faith. Only such a “deconstruction” would give me a new mature and responsible faith. Such was their conviction for my life, and I desperately hoped that they were right.

My Time at the Theological Seminary

After these ten months I returned to my old job for a year. During this time I toyed with the idea of furthering my education. As the questions raised by the HCM still occupied my thoughts, I was keen to further study theology. In addition I rather liked the thought of becoming a pastor. So it was that 2007 saw me begin to study theology at the Theological Seminary of the German Baptist Union. I received no call to this by God, even if I tried to talk myself into believing this was the case. I talked with many people about my plans, but not with God Himself.

In the meantime I no longer sought to question the HCM as I was well familiar with its teachings from my previous time at college. However, the criticism of the Bible was to increase dramatically over the next few years.

I can still remember, for example, a lecturer leaving a lecture hall, stopping at the doorway to say, “Tomorrow we’ll kill Moses!” He meant that the following day we would be taught that historically, Moses never existed as the Bible taught. Furthermore I learnt that many of the Old Testament accounts were nothing more than myths and legends; far removed from history and reality. The Jewish worship of Yahweh, – the temple system, services, festivals, and commandments, – was mostly copied from the religions of Israel’s neighbours at that time. Over hundreds of years the biblical texts were added to, changed and consciously manipulated by numerous unknown authors. This is why the Bible is (apparently!) so full of contradictions. If given room to do so, the HCM swiftly gains power, tearing through every point of doctrine like a hurricane, until assurance of faith lies shattered.

I heard many students say that these “academic” discoveries were a great help for them; at the time I agreed, or at least talked myself into agreeing. In reality I was beginning to reap the bitter harvest of my new, “mature” faith. At the end of the second semester I came to the firm conclusion that the Bible was totally unbelievable and thus I laid it aside at the bottom of my bookshelves. I had no more desire to read it, let alone to try and live according to it. I did not pray any more, nor did I ask God for help or wisdom. I was just too confident of my new critical attitude.

Despite having no inner relationship with God, I continued with the outward appearance of wanting to be a pastor. I preached and seemed religious – at least whilst in church! It was a different story when I was with my fellow students. There I did not hold myself back, increasingly getting drunk at parties and losing my distaste for lying and cheating. I especially enjoyed gossiping and slandering the other students. In this case I had a specific target, a group of young men who annoyed me beyond all else. They wholeheartedly believed in the Scriptures as the Word of God. There was a small group of students in my semester who defended the trustworthiness of the Scriptures – even in our classes.  This greatly irritated me and other students and thus we delighted to spread rumors about them.

In doing this I was not in the least bothered by my conscience. I had long lost any fear of God or an eternal punishment. The words of warning in the Scriptures weren’t important to me. The god I had discovered through my studies did not get angry, respected people’s doubts and forgave everyone everything. What did I have to be afraid of? Why not have fun and live life to the max? This was my new philosophy for life, and this was how I lived. However, once the initial euphoria had left, life became worse and worse for me, until I felt there was nothing for me to stand on. An inner emptiness made it increasingly clear that I had no true life or peace. In books critical of the Bible and in conversations I tried to find what I was missing, but to no avail.

Finally I asked an evangelist I met at a church event to pray for me. I longed for a real relationship to God but felt unable to ask Him. It was as if I had lost any ability to pray.

The Change!

A few weeks later the preacher’s prayer was answered. On the 6th December, 2008 the Lord opened my eyes to see my guilt and godless life.

The catalyst for this was a polemical speech given by a lecturer at a film evening at the seminary. Above all, he mocked those who put their trust in the reliability of every word in the Bible. One of those being mocked sat right in front of me and didn’t react. I talked to him afterwards and he assured me that he was not ashamed of his faith. His inner peace and assurance made me stop and think. I asked myself how the rest of the Bible-believers, or “Fundys” (short for fundamentalists) as we called them, reacted to all this.

To my great amazement they did not consider boycotting the classes. Instead they continued to meet together every day to pray for the mockers, lecturers, and the entire seminary. I saw that the Lord was their shield, that He had given them a firm faith. The Bible says that Christians do not live for themselves anymore, but for Him who died for them.  Thanks to these young men I was able to see that the grace of God was working in them. They did not feel forced to defend themselves. I did not think this was a normal reaction to such a situation and I was greatly impressed. They simply passed the humiliation that they suffered on to Christ, and so anger or a desire for revenge simply had no hold on them.

After all these events, I drove home to spend Christmas with my family. There I recognized even more that I had despised God through my embrace of higher criticism. I had denied God’s word, rejected God’s grace, and mocked God’s servants. Worse than all, I had called myself a Christian and cared nothing for the atonement Christ bought at the cost of His life. This I realized to be an unbearably dreadful mistake. Over Christmas and with many tears I repented of many things, seeking God in prayer, and rejoiced to know His full and free forgiveness. With a glad heart I bought a new Bible and began to read it eagerly and joyfully; today I enjoy this book as much as I did then!

I called on the Lord Jesus Christ, humbling myself before him. I entrusted my life to Him and told Him that from now on I would believe His Word, no matter what questions I might have. To this day I do not have an answer to everything, but I am fully convinced that the Bible is completely inspired by God; inerrant and infallible in all that it teaches. I thank God from the bottom of my heart for the sovereign grace that He poured over me in letting me see my sinfulness and the Savior who has given me such forgiveness.

Dear Reader, I am so happy that you have read my testimony to the end. God has richly blessed my life and by His grace I believe that His Word is truth. (John 17: 17) It is very precious to be able to believe with childlike faith; I do not bother myself with any doubts or so-called academic discoveries that call into question the trustworthiness of the Bible. Instead I find in Christ, the true subject of Scripture, all the riches of wisdom and insight. Let us trust our Lord and Savior, for then He will bless us. My prayer is that you, too, will be saved from unbelief and that your faith in God and His Word will grow from strength to strength.

In Christ,
Anita Kupfermann

The Bible:

“This book speaks of the thoughts of God, mankind’s condition, the way of salvation, the unfortunate fate of all unrepentant sinners, and the joyous future of all believers. Its teaching is holy, its commandments binding, its decrees unchanging. Read it to become wise, believe it to be saved, obey it to become holy. It contains light to guide you, food to strengthen you, comfort to gladden you. It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the seaman’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s royal book. Here Eden is restored, Heaven is opened and the doors to Hell revealed. Christ is its great theme, our wellbeing its product, and the glory of God its one great aim. It should fill our minds, rule our hearts and determine the steps of our feet.

Read it carefully, thoughtfully, regularly, and prayerfully. It is goldmine of riches, a paradise of glory, and a river of joy. It is given to you in life, it will be opened at the day of final judgment and will remain in our hearts for all eternity. It brings the greatest responsibility with it, will reward all our efforts to live by it, and will damn all that ignore her.”

by Steve Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, McFarland Chair of Theology, and Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

A debate has been swirling in Apologetics circles (particularly the Evangelical Philosophical Society) between two well-known and effective Christian apologists, Norman Geisler and Michael Licona. We at SBC Today have been aware of the debate for some time, but withheld comments on it in hope that a resolution amenable to all parties would take place. After the EPS meeting in San Francisco earlier this month, it has become apparent that no such reconciliation is likely. Therefore, we want to describe our understanding of what has happened (in Part 1), particularly for those of you who were not previously aware of this controversy. In a future post (Part 2), we would like to attempt to provide some perspective on the debate.

The subject of this controversy is Mike Licona, a Christian apologist who (until recently) served as Apologetics Coordinator for the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, and as a research professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary in North Carolina. He has spoken and debated on behalf of positions held by evangelical Christians in numerous venues – regional Baptist meetings, evangelism conferences, scholarly meetings, and college campuses. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, which requires an affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture as a prerequisite for membership. So, to summarize, Licona is a conservative evangelical and inerrantist who has served the SBC effectively in addressing Apologetics issues in conferences, churches, and college campuses.

The focus of the controversy is several pages in Licona’s new book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2010). The overwhelming majority of this book is very positive, presenting a careful and well-researched scholarly defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. However, it is just a few pages (pp. 185-186, 548-553) out of this 718 page book around which the controversy has swirled. On these pages Licona addresses “that strange little text” (p. 548) in Matt. 27:52-53, which describes six events after the crucifixion – darkness, an earthquake, the tearing of the temple veil, rocks splitting, the opening of tombs, and some saints coming to life from the tombs. Licona mentions this scriptural account while addressing John Dominic Crossan’s hypothesis that these events were associated with the “harrowing of hell” (1 Pet. 3:19-20, 4:6). Licona suggests that apocalyptic events such as these were claimed in Greco-Roman literature at the death of kings (Romulus, Julius Caeser, Cladius, etc.) and similar significant events. Indeed, Licona notes, the Roman historian Lucian openly admitted that he embellished his stores “for the sake of ‘dullards’” (p. 549).

Licona also notes the similarity of these words and events with the apocalyptic language utilized in Old Testament texts (Judg. 5:4; 1 Kings 19:11-12; Ps. 77:18; Isa. 2:19, 5:25, 24:18; Jer. 4:23-24, 15:9; Ezek. 37:12-13; Dan. 12:2; Joel 2:2, 10, 28-32; Amos 8:8-9; Nah. 1:5-6; Zeph. 1:15-18; and Zech. 14:4). Since Matthew would have been familiar with this Old Testament apocalyptic language and the practice of “phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature relating to major events,” Licona proposes that it is “most plausible” that Matt. 27:53-54 be understood as “special effects” drawn from “eschatological Jewish texts” (p. 552). Licona also “forthrightly” acknowledges that not only these events but also including the post-resurrection appearances of angels (Matt. 28:2-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-7, and John 20:11-13) were possibly “mixed with legend” (p. 185). Licona holds this interpretation despite acknowledging that (a) the darkness was reported in all three Synoptic gospels, as well as by the secular historian Thallus, and (b) that earthquakes were common in that region, which would have accounted for the earthquake, the tearing of the temple veil, the rocks splitting, and the tombs opening.

Enter Norman Geisler. Norman Geisler is one of the best known conservative Christian apologists over the last few decades, the former President of Southern Evangelical Seminary and of the Evangelical Theological Society. He was a framer and original signer of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and wrote the commentary for the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Geisler expressed concern that Licona’s interpretation of Matt. 27:52-53 did not pass muster with inerrancy as defined in the Chicago Statement. After a personal note received no response from Licona for a month, Geisler published his first open letter to Licona. After Licona continued not to respond, Geisler published a second open letter (August 21, 2011). Licona did respond with his own open letter (August 31), which included Licona’s reaffirmation of inerrancy, an acknowledgment that in any such book “there will always be portions in which one could have articulated a matter more appropriately,” and a statement that the furor had led him to “reexamine” his position, resulting in at least this concession: “…at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book.” Geisler responded with a third open letter (September 8), in which he did not find Licona’s concessions sufficient. At the ETS meeting in San Francisco, Licona presented a paper that defended the ahistorical reading of Matthew 27, but also characterized himself as “undecided” in interpreting that text. Geisler responded to Licona’s paper as well.

By this time, a number of others were weighing in on the debate. Al Mohler published a post largely critical of Licona, to which Licona responded. Baptist Press had two articles, one citing the concerns with Licona’s views, and another offering a response from Licona. Geisler then posted his response to the Baptist Press articles. Among others, Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, James White, and Nick Norelli (here and here) essentially agreed with Geisler and Mohler that Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27 (and inerrancy) was problematic. Christianity Today also published an article on the controversy, (basically pro-Licona) to which Geisler also responded.

On the other side, a number of Christian apologists and New Testament scholars rose to Licona’s defense (while not necessarily agreeing with his interpretation of Matthew 27), asserting that Licona’s view was not inconsistent with inerrancy. Some such defenders included (among many others) Licona’s son-in-law Nick Peters (here and here), Steve Hays (here and here), Jason Engwer, Max Andrews, Jacob Allee (here and here),  Randy Everist, Brian LePort, Marc Cortez, Michael Bird, Randal Rauser, J. P. Holding, and Dave Jones. In addition, after Licona’s first response to Geisler, a number of well-known evangelical scholars affirmed that despite most of them disagreeing with Licona’s specific interpretation of Matthew 27, “we are in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy.” This group included David Beck, Craig Blomberg, James Chancellor, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Craig Keener, Douglas Moo, J. P. Moreland, Daniel B. Wallace, and Edwin Yamauchi. Paul Copan, President of EPS, while also disagreeing with Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27, has also affirmed that Licona’s view is consistent with inerrancy.

Meanwhile, secular humanists and skeptics have gleefully enjoyed the intramural evangelical fight, though clearly siding with the Licona perspective (here, here, and here). This has led some evangelicals such as Stephen Bedard to plea for peace from both sides.

So, what do you think about all this? I’ll be providing my perspective in Part 2.

The word sufficient means; “enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.”  This definition applied to Scripture is the belief that the Scriptures are sufficient to meet ones needs concerning any principles advanced from its authority.  An example is found in the issue the Pharisees asked Jesus about in the above reference.  Jesus proceeded to point out to the Pharisees His disciples may be violating the Pharisaical rules, but Pharisees were using the rule of Corban to violate “honor father and mother”.  It was as if God could not look after his own temple so the Pharisees were allowing pledges of family fortunes to be pledged to the temple. Those making such pledges were allowing their father and mother to live in poverty explaining their funds to look after their parents were dedicated to God.  Thus, we see that man’s wisdom was placed on a rule that violated the very law they were supposed to be following.  This brings me to a debate that appears to use the same logic of “wisdom” to violate a principle of Scripture–moderation of beverage alcohol.

In all of Scripture one can find only a few places that the Bible speaks positively about using beverage alcohol.  However, one would be very hard pressed to advocate the alcoholic beverage of the scripture is the same alcoholic beverages today.  As a matter of study, I would encourage one to research the alcoholic beverages the Scriptures encourages us “not to look upon” and one will find they are the beverages being encouraged to be used  in moderation today.

I remember being on a mission trip to Romania where we partnered with an evangelical group of German students.  Our team stayed in a different location from the German group.  I remember the German group would openly go to the bar and drink beer during their times of relaxation.  When we did our various outreach projects the German group did not experience the same level of reception to the Gospel as we did.  To their amazement the reason their outreach efforts were not as well received had to do more with their witness concerning alcohol. The German group failed to understand that the people working in the bar were living in the same neighborhoods we were doing our outreach events.  Also, the German group would leave the bar and go to the outreach event and would begin to perspire and you could smell the remnants of alcohol on their person.  I will tell you this German Evangelical group believed the Scripture allowed for alcohol to be used in moderation.  If one believes scripture teaches something, then one should respond according to their understanding of Scripture’s teaching, regardless of the outcome of one’s culture.  However, regardless of the culture, the German group came to realize that beverage alcohol was a stumbling block to those that do not know Christ.

Let us now focus on the two positions of beverage alcohol for the Christian. The Christian will be confronted that either the Scripture teaches moderation in the use of alcohol or it teaches abstinence.  For me personally I affirm the Scriptures teach abstinence and that one should abstain from any social use of beverage alcohol.  For one that believes abstinence is the position of Scripture he/she will avoid the appearance of imbibing in beverage alcohol at social events.  One who believes in abstinence is not going to avoid restaurants that serve alcohol neither will they avoid social events because alcohol is being served.  One will not avoid these areas of life because that could lead to legalism  The one that affirms abstinence is taught by Scripture is not legalistic.  The charge of legalism against one that believes Scripture teaches abstinence is just as absurd as saying churches who require Baptism by immersion to become members are legalistic.

Another argument inside of the abstinence position is the ‘wisdom of abstinence’.  All abstainers do not believe Scripture advocates abstinence.  There appears to be two positions wrapped up in this one position.  First, There are some who believe Scripture advocates moderation but teach abstaining from beverage alcohol based on the scripture’s teaching of causing a brother to stumble.  Thus, one that takes this position would do so based on a conviction of scriptural authority. This position is not part of the wisdom argument, but is an argument based on Scripture.  Second, there are others who believe the scriptures teach moderation but abstain because they believe it is wise to do so due to the documented problems that come from alcohol addiction.  Of course no one is going to argue it is wise to allow oneself to become addicted so this position appears to be very strong in a debate.  These two positions have recently been posited as one argument in favor of a scriptural teaching of moderation of beverage alcohol.  Placing the scriptural teaching of causing someone to stumble in a “wisdom argument” allows one using a moderationist position to gain a hearing with those that hold to abstaining.  One who holds a wisdom moderationist view of Scripture, but abstains, will say to those that hold to a scriptural view of abstaining things like; “we end up at the same position we only get there from different places.”  The wisdom position sounds as if it is wise and one must confess that it appears to be a valid position unless one advocates scriptural authority for one’s life.

Scriptural authority says that scripture is the rule of one’s life.  Principles found in Scripture may not be something one feels is best because of circumstances, but one submits to that principle because one believes Scripture is above individual wisdom.  When one changes one’s position of a scriptural principle based on a circumstantial event, the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy is diluted.  For example, I have friends who take the moderationist position concerning beverage alcohol.  They do not drink around me because they know I take an abstinence position.  One went as far as to ask me if I would be offended for them to order some wine in a restaurant and I responded I would.  Let’s say that I told that person it would not offend me and they ordered a glass.  I would then have chosen the practice of cultural unity over my belief that partaking in beverage alcohol is taught by scripture to be sin.  Was I offended that I was asked that question?  No!  That person and I are still great friends.  I admire that person because she believed at the time that moderation was taught by scripture (she has changed her position to one of abstaining since that incident) and she practiced her scriptural understanding.  If one advocates inerrancy of Scripture and believes that the Scripture teaches moderation then for Scriptural authority to prevail one should freely drink beverage alcohol in a moderate sense.  If one states that Scripture teaches a moderation use of beverage alcohol but for wisdom purposes does not partake of beverage alcohol, then one has trumped Scriptural authority with personal wisdom.  Allow me to remind the readers that abstaining due to a belief it causes a weaker brother to stumble is a scriptural view not a wisdom view.

One’s perspective concerning wisdom versus Scriptural authority seems to rest more with individual wisdom than it does with Scripture.   If one believes Scripture allows for moderation and uses beverage alcohol in moderation then he/she holds more to the sufficiency of Scripture than the one that advocates a moderation view but does not imbibe because of wisdom.

Listen to the podcast by using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the image in this post or the link in the sidebar. We’d love to hear your ideas on how we can improve the podcast, and we’d also appreciate a review or a rating on our iTunes page. Thanks for listening.

Links to some of the items discussed:

• A Reply to Tom Nettles’ Review of William A. Dembski’s The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World
• Les Puryear’s original “storehouse tithing” post

Have you ever considered what your world view is, and where did you get it?

When we became Christians something wonderful happened. Our world view changed.

2 Corinthians 5:16 From now on, then, we do not know anyone in a purely human way. Even if we have known Christ in a purely human way, yet now we no longer know Him like that. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come. 18 Now everything is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:

Your world view has changed. Your view of Christ has changed. Your understandings of everything have changed to some degree.

World view is a fancy name that speaks about something we take for granted. We take for granted how we see the world. Like most folks over 50 I wear glasses. It changes the way I see the world, other cars, people, some of my friends are much older now that I wear good glasses. Hopefully the lenses in the frames help me have a more accurate world view. I have grown so used to my glasses sometimes I haven’t realized I have been wearing them; I once searched for my glasses for 3 hours, until I asked my wife where they were. She told me they were on my face! There are four basic lenses that give us a world view of the things around us. Sometimes we are not aware that we are looking at our world through a combination of these four lenses. There are various ways that something can be known. How much weight we place to the many ways of knowing effects our world view.

All Christians recognize the authority of the Scriptures. Someone once described an ordination service in a cult group. The ordinand held his bible in one hand and the writings of their cult leader in the other. Really, the ordinand was affirming the authority of his cult leader above the authority of the Bible. We may wrongly affirm Reason, experience or the traditions of our community above the authority of the Bible.

A. Reason. The Enlightenment made reason primary. Its creed was “if it can’t be verified, it can’t be believed.” Thus, science became the determiner of truth. Sadly, much was critiqued on the basis of reason and found to be wanting. “Miracles were impossible so miracles could not happen”. Sometimes as we try to prove by reasoning or the scientific method, we ourselves succumb to the same error, putting all our eggs in one basket. This form of reasoning succumbs to the premise of rationalists that the only true form of knowledge is that which can be gained using the scientific method. It allows the methodology and world view of scientism to become the dominant worldview. The Hebrew word for “Truth” is “emet”. This word has been translated into Greek as “alètheia”, and into Latin as “verilas”. But its meaning is quite different from that which the Greek and Latin words have in philosophical usage. For the Greeks, truth is essentially the transparency of a thing to the mind; “alètheia” means “unveiling.” Thus the criterion of truth is evidence. But the root of the word “emet” refers to the solidity of something from which one receives support; the pillar on which a building rests; the support that a child receives when resting in his mother’s arms; In the moral sense, the word refers to the faithful servant, on whom reliance can be placed.

The nuance to the idea of truth that “emet” brings is not the evidence of something known, but the veracity of the testimony that supports knowledge. Scientific method cannot attain the essential realities of personhood. These are only known by testimony. Realities such as; love; the love of others for us; the reality of historical events; are only known by testimony. Reason and scientific method allow us access to the material world, however when we come to the level of persons, the properties of persons can only be known if they reveal themselves. And for this reason we utilize the “evidence” of testimony. Revelation is God unveiling to us His nature and being, which we could not know in any other way. Baptists accept that there are more forms of knowing than just scientific method, and accept that if God is to be known, He must make Himself known. He has done this by His Word, the Bible.

B. Experience and Intuition.. In reaction the new creed of postmodernism is “if it has happened to me, it is real.” The desire for experience in all fields can become overwhelming in itself and can lead to the “If it works, it must be right.” pragmatism that characterizes many aspects of church life.

By its very nature, truth by experience is relative to the individual. This worldview concedes too much ground to pluralism and the post-modern mindset which says, “What’s true for you may not be true for me, and what’s true for me is all that matters.” But in normal day to day life we do acknowledge that there some limits to this form of knowledge. Everything is not true in medicine and life. Aren’t you glad your doctor does believe that there is a real difference between cyanide and Panadene. Reason tells us that poison and medicine are not both good for headaches. The same is true in our Christian beliefs. We do not hold that both atheism and Christianity are both true. It is logical to say that opposites cannot both be true at the same time. With such a diversity of religious experience being offered today, where does one look to find truth? Recently some have taught a prosperity gospel. They claim that God wants all Christians to be rich, and that wealth and power are proofs of God’s blessing. Others have pressed that all Christians should speak in tongues. Still others have thought that by the strange mysticism of Feng Shui, they can bring good luck to places or organizations. As Baptists we reject this as being something more akin to animism. If we heard of Baptist organizations supporting such ridiculous ideas we would be upset. Where do we go to find out where truth is? Baptists have historically examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. In reading the Bible, we discover that neither the prosperity gospel nor the overemphasis upon tongues is biblical. We discover the Feng Shui has roots in the demonic. And so as Baptists we assert the authority of the Bible over the authority of experience or intuition to direct our lives.

C. Community. We can believe stuff because our community believes stuff. Often the way we vote politically is more fashioned by the way our parents voted than by our conscious choice. It would be hard to estimate to what extent our conscious choice is fashioned by our family’s beliefs anyway. Prior to the Reformation in Europe Church attending folk believed that church officials, Popes, and priests had the power to pardon sins. Why? Because the church community had traditionally believed that for some time (this belief still continues today as the pope recently promised pardon for sins for those who visit the Vatican as tourists or pilgrims). But does God truly cancel sins that way? As Baptists we go back to the Bible and we discover that “the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”( 1 John 1:7). We would prefer to take God’s Word for it, than the word of any Pope. How can we know truth from error in religious community? I recently chatted with a young elder of a bike riding denomination who admitted that he might have believed differently had he been raised somewhere else in the United States. Traditional views are community views that have become entrenched. One of those non-biblical views that has been accepted in tradition as being important in some churches is that of infant baptism. Baptists assert that if a teaching isn’t in the Bible it is dangerous to build our beliefs upon it.

D. Revelation. Billy Graham is famous for saying “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

In a world that relies heavily upon rationalism or experience or community beliefs we need some clear guidance that transcends our human biases and frailties. If the transcendent God is to be known (transcendent meaning that He is above our human efforts to understand Him as He is of different nature to ours Job 11:7 Can you by searching find out God? can you find out the Almighty? Ecclesiastes 3: 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.) He can only be known if He reveals Himself. As an act of grace, God specially revealed Himself to humans through the living Word (Jesus) and written Word (Bible). This revelation is authoritative as it comes from God Himself. I like how A W Tozer expressed the priority of revelation: “A Christian knows a thing to be true, not because he has tested and verified it in experience, but because God has said it.” In other words, although personal experience and tradition and the church and our own rationality are wonderful things, the final judge for our beliefs is God’s Word. It is the standard and guide to our Christian experience, our church traditions and our understandings of the world and all that is in it.

Psalms 119:130, “The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.”

Psalms 43:3, “Oh, send out Your light and Your truth! Let them lead me; Let them bring me to Your holy hill And to Your tabernacle.”

Proverbs 6:23. “For the commandment is a lamp, And the law a light; Reproofs of instruction are the way of life”

Psalms 19:The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

Baptists believe that all other authorities must bow to the supreme revelation God has given us of Himself in His Word. We must bring our minds (rationality) and hearts (experience and emotions) captive to God’s Word. 2 Corinthians 10:4 We demolish arguments and every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

Paul spoke in the context of a confused world Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.32 “So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

We need to study God’s Word to keep our stability on a confusing and strange world of shifting ideas.

One example of this is the book, “The Shack” which downplays the authority of scripture (pg 65-6) in favor of a theology that is derived from one’s supposed human (119) experience with God. This book and some of the endorsements I have read of it have followed suit in taking the pragmatic “ends justify the means.” In other words, information learned from a man-centered experience trumps scriptural truth if the result makes everyone happy. One may object to this harsh treatment of “The Shack” by stating it is a work of Christian fiction. I would partially agree with the classification in that it is a work of fiction, yet when it comes to the Christian part, it lacks any Christian orthodoxy on the basics of the faith. Therefore, “The Shack” should not be touted as a “Christian” work of fiction in any bookstore, especially a bookstore that seeks to offer “Biblical Solutions for Life” and that has derived its name from a verse of scripture that speaks of the exclusivity of salvation in Christ (John 14:6). “The Shack” creates a Jesus that is foreign to the Jesus found in the Bible.

So, where do we get a correct understanding of Jesus? Can we separate Jesus from the scriptures in such a fashion that the concept of Christ, apart from the scriptures, serves as a tool of interpretation? For John, the answer to that is apparently, no. He begins his letter with, “What was,” (NASU) which is a relative neuter pronoun to describe who was the focus of his proclamation (Jesus). John then goes on to describe the Jesus he had touched, saw, heard, and felt. The main reason for relaying his own experience is to show that Jesus was a real man and not some pseudo human void of a man’s flesh. Jesus was God incarnate as a real person. John was proclaiming the real Jesus. Yet, it is still interesting to note, why did John use the neuter gender, “What was” to describe Jesus along with what he experienced with his own senses? Danny Akin, in the New American Commentary, 1 2 3 John says, “It is because he wishes to draw attention equally to the ‘Word proclaimed’ and the ‘Word as person.’ The message and the person ultimately cannot be separated. Each explains the other.” (pg 51)

Today, we cannot experience Jesus in the same fashion as John did. Jesus has ascended to heaven and will not return to earth until the Father sends him again. Therefore how do we understand who Jesus is and what he has done? The answer is through the written Word of God. To set up a criterion of Jesus that is experience driven will ultimately lead to a Jesus who opposes the very Word that testifies of him.

At it’s 2000 annual meeting, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a revised Baptist Faith and Message, and among other revisions, removed the statement, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” which was in 1963 edition of the Baptist Faith and Message article on the scriptures. Although originally used to support the biblical witness of creation, this statement was eventually used to support and accept doctrinal stands that were not within the realm of confessed Southern Baptist beliefs. Because of this statement, Jesus became a standard separate from scripture by which the Bible was interpreted according to one’s private interpretation.

In correcting the misuse of the “criterion” statement, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message committee, lead by Adrian Rogers, replaced the “criterion” statement with, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” This new statement confesses two things. First, scripture is the apostolic witness to Jesus. Indeed, we cannot know Jesus apart from the scriptures. To say that Jesus is “the criterion by which we interpret the scriptures” or that one should read scripture through the “lens of Christ” is to incorrectly make the “red letters” some kind of interpretive framework that overrides what other parts of scripture attest. This is contrary to Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 that asserts, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (italics mine). Yes, scripture does interpret scripture and aids in a fuller understanding of God’s Word, but some scriptures are not to be treated on a different tier of subordination as some form of biblical triage. All scripture testifies of Jesus.

Second, the scriptural witness focuses on Jesus. Whether we turn to Genesis, Ezekiel, Acts or Obadiah, the ultimate focus of scripture is Jesus. This means that when God’s Word is proclaimed, Jesus is honored and glorified. To derive a Jesus that is foreign to the revealed Word is to not honor Jesus.

Therefore, if scripture testifies of Jesus and He Himself is the focus of scripture, we need to proclaim and teach the Holy Writ. If we desire to know anything about Jesus we must first look to the scriptures and let all other derivations be judged by God’s Word. If a faulty and heretical view is given of Jesus in book form, it should not be placed in the Christian genre, but placed in the fictional shelf of a bookstore or library. Most importantly, it should not be embraced as a source of Christian spiritual healing. If one has a faulty and false Christ, then one will have a faulty and false spiritual healing. We should also be careful not to read scripture through a Christ that is separated from the very thing that testifies and focuses on Him. Once we state that everything we read in the bible flows from our understanding of Christ, then we create a Jesus separate from the scriptures that will be prone to error and fail to bring the glory and honor so rightly deserved by Him who died as the propitiation for the sins of the world. (1 John 2:2)

Frankly, last week Friday and most of Saturday, I was not keeping up with the blogs, yet through the preaching of God’s Word at the conference, God was dealing with me in how I represent His Word on the blogs. For what am I willing to suffer in the proclamation and upholding of His Word? This question was driven to me as Dr. Mohler preached from Colossians 1:19-28. Dr. Mohler’s point was that that we are “called,” men of God, not men working in a profession. This calling requires us to uphold the Word of God and suffer if we are called to do so in the proclamation of the truth. Essentially Paul was willing to suffer for the sake of the church to fulfill the Word of God.

It is my opinion that over the past couple of weeks, my name has been suffering for something that does not equate for what Paul is calling us to suffer. Though I believe I have done nothing ethically wrong in my blogging activities last week, I did in fact abandon my primary purpose of proclaiming the wondrous biblical truths of God and in articulating the overall situation Southern Baptists are facing. There is a systematic diverting of attention from doctrinal fidelity by the Southern Baptist (SB) ecumenist. This is being done by aligning oneself to the lowest common denominator for cooperation, a false redefinition of terms, and a pragmatic approach to missions cooperation.

I joined with the other men at SBC Today to bring awareness to the almost forgotten and severely neglected theology of Baptist ecclesiology. If anything, I wanted to be a part of the grass roots movement to help Southern Baptists journey back to their biblical heritage concerning matters of the church.

With this endeavor in SBC Today, I have frequently used a term called “ecumenical” or “ecumenist.” While some have dismissed using these terms as being unhelpful, by using them in the context of Southern Baptists, I have understood it and applied it in three ways:

1. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical are those who seek to cooperate using the lowest common denominator. Not only in Southern Baptist life is this a movement, but it is also in the wider evangelical community. The recent evangelical manifesto proved this as the document itself abandoned inerrancy as a distinctive for evangelicals. In the SBC calls for cooperating on the essentials of the Gospel is the mantra. After the 2007 SBC Convention in San Antonio the Garner motion was an effort of the ecumenists to keep SBC entities from making decisions beyond the doctrinal limitations of the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M). The ecumenists saw the BF&M as a “maximal document,” limiting the trustees to doctrines only addressed in the BF&M. In other words, the trustees could not fully fulfill their mandate as agents of accountability of the SBC. Fast forward to today. No longer are calls given by the Southern Baptist ecumenist to keep the BF&M as the limit of doctrines that are necessary for cooperation. Now the caveats have increased and the ecumenist desires to cooperate solely on the “essentials” of the gospel as long as those essentials remain in a state of flux so that no one is eliminated from their tent of cooperation. The belief in a regenerate baptized (immersed) church membership no longer matters. The ecumenist wants to work with the paedobaptist or sprinkler whether they were baptized as an infant or not. These issues are not of great concern to the SB ecumenist and do not impede cooperation for them.

2. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical wrongly redefine terms in order to evoke action towards their cause. Terms have been used to invoke fear among various groups of Southern Baptists. “Fundamentalist,” “spooky fundamentalist,” “Landmark,” “neo-landmark,” and “avant-garde self-styled defenders of Baptist Identity,” have been used against confessional Southern Baptists. Recently the issue of closed verses open communion took front stage. Those who believe that a church should allow, at a minimum, only those who are saved and baptized by immersion to participate in the Lord’s Supper were called “neo-Landmark.” Yet, by this post here, it was shown that those Southern Baptists who practiced this are abiding within the parameters of the Baptist Faith and Message. Those who accuse confessional Southern Baptists as neo-Landmark are themselves outside of what Southern Baptists officially believe. The aforementioned terms have been wrongly used to describe those who are Baptist Identity.

3. Those in Southern Baptist life who are ecumenical focus more on pragmatism and cultural preference (or feelings) rather than Biblical principles in forging their worldview. For instance, one may not want a woman to pastor their church because their discomfort “is personal and cultural – and not Biblical.” But when an autonomous state convention of cooperating churches, because of biblical beliefs, decides to disfellow themselves from a church that has a woman for their pastor, the convention is scourged on blog posts saying that it is unfair for a state convention to hold, in particular, those biblical beliefs not only in doctrine, but also in practice. Autonomy is only held in cases where it benefits the ecumenist. The state convention of cooperating churches, for the ecumenist, is not autonomous in this decision, yet through out Baptist history, there is example after example of associations and conventions who have operated as an autonomous body of churches that did not allow themselves to compromise their doctrines by one church’s decision to act independently of the confessional belief of the body. To claim that cooperating churches in a state convention cannot act autonomously against one aberrant church is weak if not illogical to say the least.

The ecumenical reformer understands certain truths from God’s Word to be stumbling blocks to cooperating with others. Where the doctrine does not pragmatically fit, it must be removed. We see this time and time again in the seeker sensitive or emergent church movement that is creeping into our convention. Don’t misunderstand, doctrine is not unimportant to the ecumenical reformer if it aids their cause, but when it is perceived to being a stumbling block, it must either be removed or avoided because it takes away from the pragmatic benefit of cooperation.

There is no doubt that a movement is afoot to make doctrine of secondary importance behind the shortsighted pragmatical benefits one perceives. When inerrancy (truth without any mixture of error), believers baptism by immersion, and the Lord’s Supper are considered tertiary doctrines that should not impede cooperation in a convention, association, or network of churches, then those who are not ashamed of the doctrines that make us Baptist must speak up and “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

Southern Baptist and Inerrancy: Four Options

Option 1: Southern Baptists who believe the KJV is the scripture that is inerrant.

These Southern Baptists are proud of their belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture. They are so proud of this belief that their churches have it written in their constitutions that the KJV is the authorized translation. These churches are not very cooperative and see their commitment to the Cooperative Program as their missions mantra. These churches are not very cooperative within their associations. They may only give token support to their association because the Director of Missions came to their church and used a different translation; therefore, they believe he must be a liberal. These churches hold tenaciously to their desire that people come to Jesus, but that desire is not as strong as the desire to make certain it is the “right” people.

Option 2: Southern Baptists who retain KJV preeminence but believe the inerrancy of the scriptures refers to the original text.

I believe many would be surprised to find out that many who use the KJV do not believe in it as the only correct translation. These churches will present it as a preferred translation, but do not see it as something that should lead to controversy. These Southern Baptists still believe in the inerrancy of scripture and are mission minded. They will give to the Cooperative Program in large percentages, and they will also send mission teams. They determine where their mission monies go based on the belief of the mission organization concerning the Scriptures. They will always read the doctrinal statement of the mission organization concerning the Scriptures.

Option 3: Southern Baptists who affirm inerrancy in the original text and allow for errors by the copyists.

The majority of Southern Baptists would not do anything to negate the above positions as those who hold them do so based on a commitment to inerrancy. However, most Southern Baptists affirm that errors  by the copyists exist, but no errors exist in the original manuscripts. These churches are very evangelistic in their outreach, and they give to the Cooperative Program. These Southern Baptists believe missions and evangelism are more than mere strategies. Missions and evangelism are the commission given to churches; so, in their desire to take the Gospel to the world, these Southern Baptist are all about “the call.”  They see more than one vehicle through which their mission dollars can be used. They fund short term mission trips while also encouraging para-church involvement in order to take the Gospel to the world. These churches will determine their mission involvement based on full doctrinal statement of the organization that receives their money. For these Southern Baptists, missions is based on a complete doctrinal understanding, not just getting people to touch people. These Southern Baptists believe that it is no good to touch someone with a doctrine that is deficient. If one has a deficient doctrine concerning Scripture, then the end result will be a social ministry that does nothing but hug trees and makes everyone feel better about hugging the trees.

Option 4: Southern Baptists who will not affirm inerrancy and rather use the term inspiration, but believe that the text is full of errors based on modern research

These Southern Baptists are those who are entrenched in our seminaries and agencies. These men and women do not affirm inerrancy because they view it as a Fundamentalist phrase which is negative. There have always been some Baptist churches which affirm that the scriptures have error, but most of these are Southern Baptist churches engaged in the social gospel and believe in an ecumenical aspect of cooperation. This aspect says that doctrine does not matter and churches must bind together around the philosophy that God loves everyone and each individual as a priest can determine what the scriptures say. These individual Southern Baptists would bristle at someone who says; “thus says the Lord”. Their personal preferences are to hear “a talk” instead of a “sermon.” Many of these are more interested in their standing in the academy than they are concerning their relationship with their constituents. They see themselves as needing to educate those that do not know the more modern research. What makes these Southern Baptists especially hard to oppose is their standing within the convention. Many look to them as experts on subjects whose word is final. When another Southern Baptist opposes them, there is often a call to examine each man’s credentials, and the one with the greater academic credentials is the one whose belief is promoted.

CONCLUSION

The above taxonomy is used only to show a comparison.  I am in no way relating someone who does not believe in closed communion to someone who does not believe Scripture.  I am merely trying to show how the Conservative Resurgence would have stalled, and even died, had we employed the logic presented concerning closed versus open communion.

Dr. Finn strives to establish language that is palatable for all in the debate. There is one problem. When you take his logic and apply it to the inerrancy debate of the Conservative Resurgence, one finds the logic fails. Why? He seemingly negates the historical position of Southern Baptists as something that changed with the culture. While it is true that cultural influence changed this historical position there is a question that should be asked: “What are the surrounding factors that changed the Southern Baptist understanding of scripture?” The SBC fathers debated this article and came to the conclusion that according to their interpretation of Scripture, closed communion is what the scriptures teach.

Dr. Finn expresses a disregard for a term he used as recently as 2006—evangelical ecumenism. His reason for refusing to use this term again seems to have something to do with the response of those being referred to as evangelical ecumenicals. He says he quit using the term because these terms are also unhelpful, at least in popular discussions. Because those that display tendencies toward evangelical ecumenicism do not like the term and decry its use, Dr. Finn has decided to drop its use. That is his personal perspective and I honor his desire to drop it’s use.  However, his descriptive perspective calls on everyone to stop using the term.  There was a term in the 80′s that people said was unhelpful in popular discussion, and that term was Moderate. I wonder what Dr. Criswell said when the moderates/liberals complained about his use of that term? He did have something to say about it:  “A skunk by any other name is still a skunk.” The Conservative Resurgence would have died the death of a thousand deaths had those who came before us stopped clearly articulating that with which we were dealing.  Moderate/liberal theology was exactly what it was.  In the same way one of the issues that is eroding the historical, scriptural position of closed communion is evangelical ecumenicism.  We need not drop that term.

To be fair, Dr. Finn clearly articulated his personal position on closed church membership and closed communion. I take him at his word. He said his convictions were hammered out in seminary and are his personal beliefs. He presents a strong argument for closed communion in his 2006 paper. With that said, he seems to desire his latest article on closed communion to be only a descriptive paper, one that doesn’t draw conclusions or give directives. My concern lies in his silence concerning his findings as to why we as Southern Baptists have moved away from closed communion. According to his findings we have moved to this position because a majority of the churches practice it in order to enjoy the table of fellowship with non-immersed Christians. If we as Baptists believe the Bible commands us to baptize by immersion and that command comes from Jesus, and as Dr. Finn has pointed out, every denomination believes baptism (in some form) is a prerequisite to the Lord’s table, then enjoying the meal with non-baptized Christians is nothing more than denying what we believe Scripture to teach.

Not only does my concern lie in his findings but also in his seeming acceptance of positions that are outside of historical Southern Baptist beliefs, and what many Southern Baptists believe to be biblical standards. I want to be fair and state that Dr. Finn’s paper serves a descriptive function regarding where we find ourselves today. However, his latest article at Between the Times, also a descriptive paper, reveals he has no qualms at all calling for various changes that need to take place concerning something that has nothing to do with Scripture—getting younger pastors involved in the SBC. I am not against younger pastors being involved in the convention and I applaud Dr. Finn in his effort. I just do not understand how such conviction can come through that paper but on a paper that deals with how Southern Baptists have historically interpreted scripture, he doesn’t desire for it to be prescriptive. He clearly states; “Some Baptists just do not think about this issue at all, which becomes an open communion in practice if not conviction.” This statement is the very reason we need clear voices in our leaders to articulate the historical Southern Baptist view of what the Scripture says about closed communion.

I am not alarmed that we have one of our finest scholars advocating a civil discourse when expressing our differences. We should remain civil in all of our discourses and disagree agreeably. I am concerned that we have one of our finest scholars presenting a paper without advocating Southern Baptist historical position as a scriptural position which we have held tenaciously. He claims to do this based on scholarship. I would like to gently remind everyone that during the CR professors were using this same argument in order to present any position they wanted. Dr. Finn has personally stated he believes in closed communion and closed church membership. I ask him to take this personal conviction that was forged in our mother seminary and help students and others over whom he has influence to come to the same conviction. It seems that if our Southern Baptist forefathers advocated a biblical position and now the position is changing because others are offended due to a ‘cultural relevance’ interpretation of Scripture, we have succumbed to the relevancy of society and we are no longer confronting culture. We are casualties of the culture. If the Scripture was true as we developed our Baptist Faith and Message statements in 1925, 1963, & 2000, then what has changed? Do we interpret Scripture based on Culture or Christ? The Conservative Resurgence leaders were hit by all of the mud in the world because the Southern Baptist in the pew did not want professors merely placing the difference out there, they wanted professors to place the differences out there, then show why that dog will not hunt. I know Dr. Finn is an inerrantist and his personal beliefs are what historical Southern Baptist have always believed concerning doctrine derived from scripture. I have no problem with his Reformed soteriology and encourage him to present that view to all. However, I call on Dr. Finn and all professors to take their personal convictions concerning matters of Scripture and place it in front of the students and others. It is ok to be descriptive, but in that description there needs to be a point in which we say: “Here is where I stand and other historical Southern Baptists have stood.”

A minister without boldness is like a smooth file, a knife without an edge, a sentinel that is afraid to let off his gun. Men will be bold in sin, and ministers must be bold to reprove.

How are ministers to reprove sin?  Well it is based on Scripture.  If a minister were to reprove sin based on society and the norms implemented by society, then ministers would today be approving of homosexual marriages.  Oh, wait, we have ministers that are doing that already.  Ok, then we would have ministers approving of husbands and wives ending their marriages because they just are not compatible.  Oh, wait, we have that also.  Ok, then we would have ministers that are approving of killing babies in the womb because it is the mother’s choice whether to be an incubator for nine months.  Well, we have that going on also.  These three issues are results of society driven decisions that preachers make for no other reason but that it goes against conventional thinking.

How does a preacher interpret scripture in order to boldly reprove sin?  Does the preacher have the authority to reprove sin?  What does it mean to interpret Scripture?  Well, there are various positions on this.  I want to point out a position that seems to be under attack by various others in order to place themselves as being enlightened and informed.

There are some that would have one believe being dogmatic about a position is being arrogant.  Arrogance has nothing to do with stating clearly a biblical conviction, the church has affirmed through various councils and other doctrinal statements.  When one interprets Scripture and arrives at a conclusion, it does not mean that one may be cocksure of their position.  If I were to say that I believe something personally with no historical authentication, that is an arrogant place to arrive and one that says he/she is “cocksure” is being arrogant to say such a thing.  However, when one says they are convinced by Scripture a position is correct it is vitally important that one state their position, and how one arrived at that position, then anyone that disagrees will be wrong.

As I move further in this argument, let me assure you that a believer in Jesus Christ does not come to this position on their own.  The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 1:20 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.” The position that makes one state a Biblical conviction is a position arrived at, not by the person only, but by study and many hours of prayer and working out one’s own salvation with fear and trembling.

Thus, let us test this position out in an everyday environment.  Let us say that you, as a pastor, have a Bible study where you meet with various people to pray and give guidance.  In this Bible Study you have a scripture that is read and then discussed. As this discussion proceeds you allow for various interpretations of the selected text to be propagated, by others giving only their position based on their own decision.  This propagation leaves one believing that any position that has been advanced is the correct position.  However, there is a serious theological dichotomy when one believes that each pericope of Scripture has one interpreted truth that is correct.  As a faithful minister of the Gospel you find yourself in a dilemma.  If you remain silent you allow for each person that presented a different interpretation to leave with the understanding that their interpretation was the interpreted truth and will probably be advanced in future teaching.  Or, you state your position explaining how you arrived there and posit the interpreted truth among those in the Bible Study.  This stance will not win you any friends and it may cause a lively discussion to ensue.  This particular stance will cause discussion among the group and cause you, as the preacher, to engage that discussion.  However, this is the correct stance.  It is based on historical evidence and is also presented not as a private interpretation.

Some may not agree with me on this and that is alright.  I certainly leave that with you to determine your position.  However, before you begin to imply that I am being unreasonable and charge that I am pushing my interpretation on others, you need to remember a text that we are given as Pastors.  2 Timothy 3:15  Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Then Paul reminds Timothy again in 2 Timothy 4:2-5 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

These are the instructions that ministers have.  However, how are we to do these things without a reliable source?  We have a reliable source, but when we have one text with various meanings we do not have a source that is reliable.  I am not suggesting that various people do not come to the text with various understandings and cultural nuances.  I am suggesting that an over-zealous desire to guard against arrogance when interpreting Scripture will lead to a post-modern relativistic position that advocates all positions as valid.  Many of our doctrines have been hammered out on the anvil of truth through the various councils.  We do not have private interpretations of Scripture and we certainly do not advocate that we have the personal authority to say; “Thus saith the Lord”.  We do stand up and say; “Thus saith the Lord” because we have the authority of the church behind us in the interpretation of God’s Word.

Some may advocate the reliability of the text.  However, one needs to understand that we have the completed text before us and it has stood the test of time.  Let’s say that through archelogical findings some historian were to find one of the missing letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians.  The question would be; Is that letter Holy Spirit inspired Scripture?  I tell you, no it is not.  It would be treated as nothing more than the writings of the Apocrypha.  Why?  Because we have a closed cannon.  How can I say that with authority?  This issue was debated and The Church in 393 AD in the Synod of Hippo, produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament.  Jerome, when translating into Latin, rejected the extra 7 Old Testament books as Scripture, but translated it at the Pope’s insistence.  However, today both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon. My point?  We have a reliable sufficient text and that text tells us that there is no further extra-biblical revelation.  Also, it tells us that there is no private interpretation.

What does that have to do with our debates in general, and our latest debates in particular?  In general, it seems that some want to elevate the debate to a point that says all interpretations of scriputure are valid.  This is not even worthy of debate, but let’s just handle one issue.  In a debate over doctrine, someone presents that the Trinity is not in the Bible and thus is a non-scriptural argument to describe God.  According to the logic of some, I am to advocate that it is a good point and because I am humble in my interpretation of Scripture I should say nothing in order to allow free flowing discussion.  I know that in the Council of Nicea there were some definitive arguments advocating the Trinity and for me to remain silent and point to various texts that reveal this Doctrine would be tantamount to ministerial malpractice.

In particular, to our latest debates, one would think that we are to accept an interpretation of Scripture to allow for “open” communion when we have for nearly 500 years as Baptist practiced “close” communion.  While I love my brothers that practice “open” but restricted communion, I disagree with them.  Am I to be humble about my interpretation and allow another interpretation to be advocated without any debate?  According to some, that is exactly what I am to do.  Just because one debates a certain issue does not mean that one is trying to “kick out” someone else.  In the weeks following the J316 Conference I have seen two scholars defend their words because others took them out of context to use as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD).  I say this because at no time did those responding to the articles that came out of the J316 Conference contact these two scholars privately to voice their concerns.  It seems that if one would like to speak about differences and disagreements it would behoove one to contact the person with whom one disagrees.  I can tell you from personal experience when one is contacted privately it makes for a better conversation than it is when one is hit with a WMD in a public arena.

As I close, let me say one thing.  The Bible does have only One Truth and it is not open for individual private interpretations.  As one crusty ole codger has well stated in a previous comment stream “<i>“You know the Bible has only one truth. It is our responsibility to seek that truth. All of church history tells us that truth is best arrived at corporately.”</i>  Thus, we may stand and boldly say; “Thus saith the Lord.”

After having been asked numerous times why our church felt led to affiliate with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC), I felt it necessary to put our thought process into print for the benefit of those who are seeking direction for their congregation. After having participated in many hours of research, discussion, and observation, I have concluded that the SBTC stands closer to my view of what it means to be a Baptist, both historically and doctrinally.

My observation is that there has been a widening in the gap of like-mindedness and doctrinal unity between the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT), the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), and LaJunta Baptist Church (LJBC). As two rivers flow what is seemingly a parallel path, time will eventually reveal if there is any degree of variance. The further they flow, the wider the distance between them becomes. The gap will eventually become so great that they both cannot be viewed from a common standpoint. It is my contention that this is what has happened with the BGCT and LJBC. When that is the case, it becomes necessary to choose one path or the other, for both cannot be followed.

In sum, our church felt that we needed to withdraw from the BGCT and to affiliate with the SBTC because it is the state convention that stands closest to the Biblical principles, missions support, and convictions that we embrace as a congregation. We are a Southern Baptist church because we believe in the work and message of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are convinced that the Scriptural interpretation and practice of the SBC is closest to our own. On the other hand, the continual drift of the BGCT away from the SBC has revealed a great chasm. Our study was one which began with what we understood Scripture to say, and then, which convention stood closest to Scriptural purity. Our study revealed that to be the SBC, and by extension, the SBTC. We found the BGCT to be sorely lacking in Biblical faithfulness as we understand it.

With that in mind, I offer the following reasons why I believe this to be so. The evidence that is offered is public and accessible for all. I have copies of all the original material on file. The congregation of LaJunta Baptist felt so deeply about the importance of these issues that we voted on August 12, 2007 to include this paper in our historical records and also to allow the distribution of this paper in its entirety to all interested parties. The comments are intended to reflect the personal convictions of the pastor and the people of LaJunta Baptist Church.

Please understand, though I fiercely oppose theological errors (those made by others and those errors of my own), I believe every individual to be of value to God, His Creation, and the work of His Kingdom. My ruminations are simply an attempt to contribute to the work of the Kingdom as we seek the edification of the saints, which occurs in fellowship, and often, in tension.

SCRIPTURE

Doctrine is part and parcel to what it means to be a Baptist. Baptists are people who believe what they do about God and the world because of what the Bible teaches about God and the world. The SBTC without reservation affirms the complete Word of God as being inerrant. However, after studying the BGCT’s stance on Scripture, I noticed a hesitancy to affirm “inerrancy.” In a document produced by the BGCT in 2002 for the purpose of comparing the SBTC to the BGCT, they stated, “most BGCT leaders and messengers in recent years have shunned that word as a politicized codeword more than a descriptive theological statement, while still affirming the complete authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.”

I do agree that the Bible is authoritative and trustworthy, but I must go further and say that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God. I believe many entities are trustworthy and authoritative. For example, I personally would say that the police force and the military are authoritative and trustworthy; however, I would not say that they do not make errors. I do not hesitate in stating the Bible is inerrant, neither does the SBTC. The Bible is certainly trustworthy and authoritative, but it is much more.

Most BGCT pastors and churches would affirm inerrancy, yet interestingly enough, denominational employees of the BGCT and the agencies and entities to which they send Cooperative Program money may not be required to follow suit. That means that state convention employees may have a different view than the majority of the pastors and churches to whom they offer service. To the contrary, the SBTC has made clear that all employees must affirm their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. The resulting difference is best illustrated in an article that appeared in February 6, 2006 Baptist Standard which was written by Dr. Roger Olson, a professor of theology at Truett Seminary (a BGCT supported seminary). The title of the article is “Why Inerrancy Doesn’t Matter.”

In this article, Dr. Olson states that Truett professors “vary in their views of biblical accuracy while holding firmly to biblical authority.” He further states that Truett does not need to dictate what professors believe because inerrancy is one of the “secondary matters of doctrine.” Dr. Olson offers his conclusion by asserting that the Bible is “(often) infallible,” and even goes on to state that, in regards to a particular text, “the best approach is to admit that Paul made a mistake.” Biblical inerrancy is not a matter of secondary doctrine to me. It is of primary importance. Without a sure word in our hand we have no sure word for the people. I desire to give my congregation more than a ‘best guess,’ but rather to give them a rock solid word from God. This demands a perfect revelation from God that is both sufficient and inerrant.

Dr. Olson’s conclusion is highly concerning to me because this particular professor is teaching the pastors of the future, and is being supported by monies given by the BGCT. For the time being, the majority of pastors support inerrancy, but given a generation of theological education under men such as Dr. Olson, how far away are we from drifting down the river of theological liberalism? In most cases, as goes our seminaries, so go our pastors. As go our pastors, so go our churches. My concern is that if we remove the Bible from the pastors’ hands, we remove the message from our pulpits. I desire to be aligned with organizations that offer an unqualified voice to the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe this stance is more clearly articulated by the SBTC, not only in denominational documents, but more importantly, by denominational practice.

In sum, the BGCT has left herself without a solid foundation for theological exercise and doctrinal accountability because they have allowed a crack into the foundation upon which they have tried to build their structure. I reiterate, each and every individual is due respect, freedom of conscience, and opportunity to speak. However, where cracks creep into one’s foundation, we are demanded to warn others of the error. A failure to maintain a solidified doctrine of Scripture will inevitably leave one without a foundation capable of the task before it. I believe a failure to embrace a doctrine of inerrancy is to lay a foundation with cracks beneath the surface. These hidden cracks ultimately will be revealed.

Recent Southern Baptist Conventions have heard the repetition of the statement, “the battle for the Bible is over.” However, a keen ear and sharp eye will be quick to discover that the battle for the Bible begun in Eden when the word of God was first questioned, and certainly remains to this day as Satan continues his efforts to seduce Another’s Bride to commit harlotry by satisfying one’s own temporal hunger for self-appeasement. The battle for the Bible will not be over until the Word once again manifests Himself to the kingdoms of the world as the supreme King and Lord.