SBC President Once Endorsed Women's Ordination

[rdenton]

[Hal Eaton]

I have followed this discussion almost to the point of exhaustion, but have kept quiet because of the same apprehension that troubles my every contribution to "the cause." (The principles I espouse are all but ignored, even lost, in argumentation concerning the words I have used.)

But rdenton sez: "I have no problem with redaction criticism per se. Luke selected materials not used by Mark or Matthew. But that is not what Hinson is saying. He is saying that the evangelists invented material that was not historically accurate, which is why there is only a "kernel" of factual truth."

I don't know what a "kernel" is, but over the years I have occasionally asked any of you to exegete for me Matt. 27:52-53 . . . NO ONE has ever obliged . . .

Additionally, I have asked for the same clarification for Acts 1:9, presumably one of the most important historical facts recorded in the Bible. NO ONE has ever obliged . . .

For those of you who espouse Bilbical inerrancy, the answers should be simple, direct, unarguable, and satisfying--to me, and to all those Baptists who historically accept (and affirm!) inerrancy.

It is one matter to claim belief in a doctrine; it is another to apply that same doctrine to a practical test.

One further problem: The doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ as necessary for "salvation" and its reward of eternal life in heaven with God. The application of this particular Christian doctrine is awesome: God the Creator has given the precious gift of life to billions of folk who never hear of Christ's great gift of eternal life (or are too young to respond to it); they are condemned, by God, and by scripture, to eternal punishment in the depths of Hell, etc. etc. etc.

That doctrine preaches well in Punkin Valley Baptist Church, where the saved are in the choir, and the late-arriving bearded fellow in the back pew (who came in out of curiousity) represents the lost (or, perhaps, the elect!).

I have often suggested (with resulting disparagements regarding some of the words I use) that every doctrine is ultimately a doctrine about God. So it is with the exclusive nature of Christ's salvation. If you believe that, then you are required to believe concomitant ideas that you'd rather not even hear about. Then reason (!), instead of scripture, rears its ugly head, and gives us "explanations" as to why scripture is not so ill-mannered, or applicable, in all such matters.

Indeed, there may be a kernel of truth in the scriptural accounts, but some of the historical facts are open to question.

What say you?

[T. D. Webb]

[rdenton]

[Hal Eaton]

[William Thornton]

[rdenton]

[Hal Eaton]

Oldad wrote: That doctrine preaches well in Punkin Valley Baptist Church, where the saved are in the choir, and the late-arriving bearded fellow in the back pew (who came in out of curiousity) represents the lost (or, perhaps, the elect!).

Then William Thornton responded: Good questions, Hal. Why don't you run them by the poor, backwards, and ignorant souls in the Punkin Valley church that seems to occupy your thinking so often.

Oldad ripostes: William missed the point, again -- I was writing about the preacher, not the congregation. Have you ever been to Punkin Valley, William?

TIC RED ALERT:

What? You were pastor there? Then I guess you were perhaps right in thinking the folks there were poor, backwards, and ignorant (your analysis). Were they still in the same fix after you left?

Oldad, pushin' buttons, agin.

[William Thornton]

[Ed Pettibone]

[William Thornton]

[Hal Eaton]

Okay, William, let me be repetitious, but point-blank, for you f------------t folk:

Do you believe that your (and MY) loving God created all those billions of "other" folks in our world into regions where they have never heard of Jesus, and condemns them to your Hell? Does that also apply to younger folks in our regions who have not yet attained a level of knowledge or commitment that guarantees them our salvation, so they too suffer the tortures of eternal hell? If I am a nay-sayer to this particular doctrine of God, am I to be condemned for my "unbelief?" Please don't say, "You don't believe the Bible."

Further, do you accept the ascension of Jesus to heaven, and in whatever form he was in at the time, physical, spiritual, whatever? Since he ascended, is heaven really "up"? Please don't say, "You don't believe the Bible."

These are among the questions I have asked WITHOUT any form of notable response, from those who decry my questions, and therefore my "unbelief."

Do you'uns all believe in the resurrection of those saints at resurrection time? Do you further believe that on some future day our graves will be opened and we will arise to new life? Please don't say, "You don't believe the Bible."

The Punkin Valley preachers (and some here) piously proclaim beliefs in the secure knowledge that, the more incredible their claims, the more wondrous is their faith. Many continue to worship at the feet of the adherents of extreme fundamentalism--and endeavor to share it with all others who can be converted to Bibliolatry.

I have listed some of my personal problems with NT narratives. I haven't gotten to the OT yet.

Inerrancy lives, but it doesn't thrive. Please don't say . . .

T. D. Webb challenges me for not having provided my own exegesis of the questionable passages. Not being an inerrantist, I don't have to! I can simply dismiss them. If that stance requires you-all to condemn my thoughts and conclusions, so be it. You appear to be much more vulnerable, and therefore defensive to yourselves and offensive toward me, when other ideas are presented.

As with others, T. D. argues about my words, but ignores the rather simple principles which underlie my presentations. He "believes . . ." as the foundation for his theology. (Don't we all?) Contrary to evaluations of Oldad on this forum, I retain my integrity even as I pick and choose what I believe. (Don't we all?)

This morning my pastor bravely quoted Tony Campolo's famous line from a sermon to Southern Seminary students: "30,432 (?) children died of starvation in our world last night. You-all don't give a s--t."

[Howard]

Hello to Hal, William, Bruce and others reading [and writing] on this thread:

Let me see if I get it.

What happens to those who have not heard [or may not be capable of belief], right? Interestingly, I just finished reading a short pamphlet on Baptist beliefs printed about the mid 1800s. In it the writer argues that the grace of Christ is sufficient to secure for babies and mentally deficient individuals a place in the eternal abode of Christ. I am not saying he is right or wrong in his conclusion. My question [for which I do not have aan answer] is, if he is right, "Could the grace of Christ also make provisions for those who have never had an opportunity to believe?"

Now on the disapearance of Christ up into the clouds - Yep, I think that is what happened. Don't know where he went after he disappeared into the clouds. Don't know where heaven is located. Don't need to know. Will find out for myself in a few more years [turning 71 next month - if I make it that long]. Is heaven another dimension? Might C. S. Lewis' scenes of departure in the last book of the Narnian series be an apt picture? Do they have good libraries there? [I really expect to have access the the finest books of the universe when I get there]. Used to think I'd know all God knows when I got to heaven. Don't think so any longer [for a number of reasons] so I think I'll still be able to learn [and am currently planning to do just that after I arrive].

The saints that came out of the graves when Christ rose from the dead? Yep, I think they did. MY question has always been, "What happened to them after that?" It was probably very unnerving to the folk who knew them before their death. And, who were they?

Will we share in an actual, physical, resurrection? I think we shall. What shall our bodies be like? Good question. I think we will have bodies similar to Christ's resurrection body, which seemed rather substancial as it could walk right through the atomic structure of walls [or just appear].

Well, there's my cent and a half worth. Can't wait to see what kind of fun you all have with this!

[William Thornton]

Hal, I haven't condemned you for any unbelief but have observed that what you most often post here is what you do not believe along with a condescending shot at those who do - your fictional Punkin Valley.

I will go with the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, the ascension, the bodily resurrection... the f----------s...

If you address the Punkin Valley preachers rather condscendingly for their "piously claim[ed] beliefs" what are we to call your string of unbeliefs? Pious? Elitist? I've no doubt that you are a very decent guy, you just haven't given us much to go on here save for what foolishness the Punkin Valley crowd believes that you have long since left behind.

I'm not a big Campolo fan but he knows how to talk to seminary students.

[Neil Heath]

[rdenton]

[Neil Heath]

[Hal Eaton]

I'm thankful for some good replies in this thread.

We are all capable of making our heaven just what we want it to be. If one wants books, so be it. If another wants a family reunion, OK. If some want unlimited sexual enjoyment, a la 72 virgins (I've got to look that up), it's their expression of what is most important to them--for eternity. Jesus put the kibosh on such goals (no marriage, but no sex, either?), but promised we would be like angels. (Wings? Sexless beings? Messengers of God? The visitors to Sodom?)

Our very lack of knowledge about such matters allows us to think, envision, and preach most anything that suits us (and our congregations).

I well remember J. Falwell writing in one of his books that he believed in the physical resurrection of the dead, and that cremation was thought up by atheists and agnostics to show their disdain for Christianity. That's another subject, but obviously beyond the bounds of reason, and therefore unacceptable (at least to most of us).

Keep in mind that some purveyors of Christian events and doctrines may have been mistaken in their perception of factual occurences and in their recounting of said matters. Blind commitment to such is not necessarily a moral, or righteous, or admirable stance.

Gotta run; time is fleeting; effort is sometimes wasted . . .

[Grump]