Fundamentalism, McBeth, and The Review & Expositor

I have personally heard McBeth say that the old fundamentalists are now called evangelicals. Any problem with that?

Perhaps you should give Dr. McBeth a phone call so that you could get his point of view instead of giving your personal interpretation of his point of view.

From what I know of him he is talking about men who cause trouble like the SBC has had in the past.

 

Where do you fit in?

 

So would you delete, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." as the leadership did recently and then insert "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."?

Would you also agree with, "Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes."?

Source: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp

Give me one example from scripture where church government was done democratically.

 

Yes, because in the context of the historic conflicts between the Christians and infidels within the SBC, the obscure phrase "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" can't mean anything other than,

"forget the Bible, my Geezuz told me that Abraham and Moses were full of baloney, told my wife to preach, told my aunt Minnie to speak in tongues, and told my son to marry another man."</font>[/QUOTE]You're either profoundly misinformed, deliberately dishonest, or a combination of both...

1. It's not an "obscure phrase"
2. Even though you may think it "can't mean anything other than" what you allege here, it certainly does -- and you haven't been paying attention to the debate (at least regarding Texas Baptists (BGCT) and the SBC if you make a statement like that.

 

I believe you are at odds with anyone who does not have your narrow approach to anything. You should stop playing history. You are dangerous. Have you ever attended a McBeth lecture? Have you ever attended any of the seminaries that you attack? After reading your attack on my mentor and friend, I have the overwhelming desire to start brining up Ben Bogard and has strong affiliation with the KKK. No, McBeth taught me better. So, I would encourage all the readers of this page, of whom I have am developing a deep respect, to ignore you unwarranted, biased, narrow, and ignorant rantings. To the rest of you, sorry you had to hear this.

 

It is worth noting that the "criterion" phrase was absent in the BFM before 1963, it had only made one appearance.

Mark is right on its abuse- I have seen it used to bash other things like church discipline ("Jesus would never kick anyone out of the church." [Even though Matthew 18!])

I'm glad it is gone. It was so ambiguous it became meaningless. It was also being used to make enemies out of Jesus and Paul, when clearly they must be speaking complimentarily in Scripture.

Seems to have been borne more of the times than of the Scriptures' revelation.

 

Certainly the Baptist Faith and Message (and the Bible) have been misused to justify all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make them wrong and does not automatically mean that we should run around changing good statements just because someone might misuse it.

Actually, you said,

”’The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ’ can't mean anything other than,

‘forget the Bible, my Geezuz told me that Abraham and Moses were full of baloney, told my wife to preach, told my aunt Minnie to speak in tongues, and told my son to marry another man.’”

I am pointing out that ‘it can’ (and usually does) mean something different than the false caricature (“the ‘criterion’ philosophy’) you presented.

I suppose it could be distorted to do that, but the essence of the statement is:

1. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one reaches the Father except through Him (John 14:6). Fundamentally, our faith is in Christ, not the Bible. Christ brings us into life and we learn and grow through our interaction and discipleship to Him. The Bible is God’s gift to us that helps and informs our relationship to Christ. We can have confidence that Jesus does not contradict the scripture and the scripture does not contradict Jesus.

2. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God to humankind (Hebrews 1:3, John 1:17-18) and therefore all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament epistles should be interpreted in light of Jesus as He is presented in the Gospels. The Gospels are the only portion of the Bible written specifically to unbelievers as well as believers, while the New Testament epistles are the fruit of the early church talking to itself (with the teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit) while they came to terms with the incarnation, their spiritual condition, present struggles, and hope for the future.

 

Yes, I am fully aware of that. However, it was a good statement that is sorely needed in today’s religious environment. Today, most of us are raised to think that the primary goal our Christian life is the personal development of a theological system and support of the programs of our church. While Jesus calls us to “Follow Me” in a life of faith, discipleship, service, and transformation. This kind of discipleship requires a personal interactive relationship with Christ who trains us in the study of the scriptures, in service to others, and in communion with Him.

But it is clear that the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention rejected the statement which indicates (at least to me) that Southern Baptists have decided that Christ and the Bible are in conflict and have chosen the Bible over Christ.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve heard inane things like that too, but that doesn’t mean that the doctrine should get tossed simply because people can abuse it.

I suppose some people thought it was meaningless… To me, it was one of the most succinct interpretive principles in Baptist life – fundamentally, it claimed that Southern Baptists believe that the life and person of Christ is the standard of all faith and practice. Southern Baptists decided in 2000 that the Bible trumps Christ in faith and practice.

If Jesus the Christ is the fullness of God incarnate (Colossians 1:15-20), then certainly He is Lord and interpreter of His written revelation.

Yes, I’ve heard people try to make Paul out to be some sort of misogynist homophobe, but those sort of people will use any means necessary to push their views.

And not only were Jesus and Paul speaking complimentarily in the New Testament, but Paul identified Himself as a disciple/bondservant of Jesus – so Paul himself certainly would have affirmed that Jesus is the criterion by which his words should be interpreted.

Doctrinal confessions are not created in a cultural vacuum. All doctrinal statements are borne from the needs of the age and the revelation of scripture.

 

Everything is under a theocracy. Read Phil. 2. Many refuse to acknowledge that in their practice of church government and interpretation.

The quotes I gave you have been issues and are still today. I personally see a lot of unbiblical nonsense and ignorance on both sides to bolster their political position. Both sides should be eradicated and get back to what scripture teaches. Look at how much Jesus engaged the politicians. He always pointed back to what God wanted. The moderates, fundamentalists, and liberals do not know what to do with someone who studies and make disciples. The majority of those three groups are doing little to make disciples. Those on the outside loking in see them as selfish pigs too concerned about their own self importance. Their ego is a mile high. Instead they need to get to work. I believe because of it the SBC and CBF is constantly going down.

I assume you consider the Bible moderately important because you have done exactly what you have accused the moderates of doing. You have given your own jargon without any valid passage as I had asked of you. My beef with fundamentalists over the years is exactly what you have shown--lack of Bible to determine doctrine and practice.

Again, give me just one example of a democratic process being used in church governement in scripture.

 

I have never heard you ever mention about any disciples you have made. While you are paying such attention to detail to what you think is happening in the SBC I have seen no atention to any kind of detail to making disciples. The majority of chruches in America are failing miserably at that. That kind of disobedience is far worse than some you listed. The things you wrote about have been around as long as people. So what else is new under the sun?

If one were to take a few hours each week and make one disciple a lot of these doctrinal issues would be cleared up. When I see arguments far from scripture I see people who spend their time arguing rather than sharing their faith. Non-believers have enough brains to see right through a lot of religious nonsense. However so often those who grew up in the church think it is normal to see such ignorance and are blinded by their own ignorance.

 

You are right. Those who say they are fundamentalists but don't practice it are still there. Many of them are in evangelism. One of my friends wondered if one of the professors we had was even a believer because of his laziness toward scripture and ego about himself. He is still teaching and writing too. Some of those are able to fool the public well by the words they say. Their practice is all revealing though.

All one has to do is to simply take a look at the disciples they have made. If no disciples, then they are disobedient. That narrows the number to a very low mark. Why listen to anyone who does no make disciples?

 

Rhetorician is a wise man.