|
Post by Soulfyre on Oct 26, 2004 11:10:31 GMT -5
More and more evangelicals are learning about the Orthodox Church, often considered the ancient church whose unbroken existence goes back to Antioch, and even Jerusalem. There is great richness here! I am currently seeking a moderator from an Orthodox communion who will be willing to share his insights with us. I also hope many Orthodox Christians will find a home in The Christian Convocation, posting threads and contributing to our life. God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 20, 2004 16:18:52 GMT -5
I think you all will be challenged by From First Baptist to the First Century, by Clark Carlton. It is about his move from the Southern Baptist Church to the Orthodox Church. His reasoning is spot on. It is not irrefutable among those who reject tradition out of hand as a context within which we receive truth. But do not pass this eloquent letter off lightly. Let me know what you think, because Carlton raised issues with which we should rightfully grapple. God bless and keep you all, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 22, 2004 20:04:56 GMT -5
No, they hadn't. This is a baseless assertion and I expect to see evidence of it, not assertions that it is so. The fact of the matter is that most doctrine came about when dissention arose. Then an orthodox position arose from the ashes of the disagreements. I contest that these orthodox positions were grounded in several of the great theologians of the early centuries searching scripture and practicing Sola Scripture before it was considered a doctrine. The "five solas" are one more step in the history of Christ's church where there was disagreement and an orthodox view came forward. The protestant traditions may disagree on aspects of them which has created the denominations we see today, but the Reformed, Lutherans, etc still look back on these as something that binds us together and is an expression of our catholicity.
He is confessing one aspect of the orthodox faith (with a little 'o'). This particluar doctrine is a disagreement that happened early and in my opinion was clearly settled by the application of Sola Scriptura (again, before it was ever defined as such)
This ex-Southern Baptist has looked at the roots of the Christian faith and believes it to be best expressed in the culmination of many, many centuries of growth of Christian doctrine by the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Did he ever happen to notice that historic Protestants (be they Presby, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran or Baptist) are also uncomfortable with such an approach? This is a modern problem in the evangelical church that comes from the late 1800's. It is not representative of historic Protestant evangelistic method.
Many historic protestants may not even understand what he's talking about because they've never seen an altar call. Only churches affected by the inventions of the late 1800's maintain this unbiblical practice. Also, the vast majority of the people in these sorts of churches feel the same way. The go up front because they're ready in their Christian walk for a sacrament where they publically acknowledge their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, not because they think they're being saved at that moment. Again, he shows no effort to research this practice.
What an awful expression of the Baptist understanding of the sacrament. I can only hope that any readers of this article do some research into the issue of Baptism and see what an extraordinarily high regard Baptists historically have for this sacrament. Agree or disagree with the Baptist position, it takes Baptism very seriously.
why would that be?
Oh! That's why he felt pressure! Sounds like he wasn't cut out to be a preacher if he never knew what to preach on. The Bible is rather thick and has so many things to preach on I can only wonder why he struggled so hard.
I guess nobody ever explained the Protestant tradition of expository preaching to this poor soul. The Bible should have been his guide. Pick a book and preach through it man! If some things work better in a topical arrangement then so be it, but do it in an expository manner and this isn't a problem!
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 22, 2004 20:05:08 GMT -5
What did he think that book called the Bible was there for? It is God's word to him. He just didn't want to listen. He wanted God to come down from the sky and tell him what to say rather than read the Word, read what other great Christians had to say about that scripture, pray on it that God would work through him to say what the people needed to hear out of this piece of scripture, etc. Again, the man was either imadequately trained to preach or just wasn't cut out for it. I have little sympathy he missed such basics. I'm only a lay person and I have a shelf full of books with sermons by everyone from the early church up to the present. I also have all of the great confessions of the past before me, expecially my own churches. In our church we regularly pray that the pastors preach the Word and the Word alone. If it contains admonitions for the congregation then that's what it contains and the pastors are duty bound by God's Word to present them to us whether they give us warm and fuzzies or not. Others I've been to have done the same because that's commonplace in Baptist circles. It was hearing from a man who was obviously not cut out to be a preacher because he was more concerned with his popularity than preaching God's Word. He also didn't seem to be aware his guide was God's Word itself. He still doesn't. He wants someone else to tell him what he's supposed to say plain and simple. I have nothing against liturgies myself. I believe that if used properly they are very effective in giving proper balance and variety to the sermons during the year. But they are also developed by people who make decisions about what to put in the liturgy and what not to put in. Obviously this man would be unfit for such decision making. So rather than work with the individuals in question and bring them out of the many false teachings and the anarchy of charismatic methods he just joined with them and got confused? Also, Pentacostals do not represent a Protestant tradition. It's a very different animal and must be treated as such. And then turns around and embraces Eastern Orthodoxy. Ok, that makes sense... Indeed they did. But so have the Eastern Orthodox. Anyone care to look with me at the laws that Eastern Orthodox churches are trying to bring around in Russia, Belorussia, etc? They make the SBC fundamentalists look tame in comparison! Again, he shows no conception of historic Baptist understanding in this regard. "Sovereignty of the individual believer"? Please look at the church covenant at my Baptist church and how I am expected, as a member of the church, to subject myself to the teaching, preaching and discipline of the church and then get his understanding of things? www.glencullen.net He doesn't seem to have ever understood properly the Reformation's doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer. Once again, he twists a doctrine into something it isn't. This is tiring. Categorically false. I will leave this as an assertion for now because proper teaching on the Reformation concept of the Priesthood of the Believer is so readily available that I can only shake my head at such pathetic comments. Time to go home from work, but I'll leave some comments below that I had made on some astonishing statements this individual made earlier on. Categorically false. Virtually all of the great Protestant teachers from the Reformation on were well read in the writings of the early church as well as the writings of the schoolmen in Aquina's tradition. What they rejected was the unbiblical teachings that had evolved in the church. The medieval church was full of doctrinal inventions of recent (at that time) origen. The Catholic church cannot demonstrate many of it's required dogmas come from antiquity. The Eastern Orthodox are all over the map and bicker with one another until the cows come home. Many of those the Catholics have made saints expressly rejected what's currently required dogma for a Catholic, such as papal infallability (Augustine being one of the most prominant). My bookshelf contains the entire Ante-Nicene, Nicene and post-Nicene collection which was created by Protestants no less. When I read Catholic materials I actually see them sometimes refer to this set in quotes in the bibliography. Many Protestants are extremely confessional. Tradition is NOT something they run from, but rather embrace. I point to confessional Lutherans like the Missouri Synod and many reformed churches that stand on the WCF or similar confessions AS WELL AS THE CONFESSIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. Classical Protestant confessions have spent a great deal of time making sure that they are KEEPING IN STEP WITH BIBLICAL TRADITION. While many Baptists in the twentieth century tried to claim that Baptists don't look to confessions, they're categorically wrong. All major Baptist groups have always had confessions and they mostly all stem from earlier ones which also came from earlier ones. My church is founded on the 1689 London Baptist Confession which is taken from the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration. The SBC's "Baptist Faith and Message" is a direct descendant of this confession (1689 LBC -> Philadelphia -> New Hampshire -> 1925 BF&M) and that denomination currently requires missionaries to agree to these principles in writing. All of these Protestant groups (including the Anglicans) maintained what they sincerely believed to be Biblical as well as consistent with the earliest traditions of the church. An early church that *WAS NOT OF ONE MIND DOCTRINALLY IN MANY, MANY AREAS*. Almost every view under the sun is contained in their writings. There is a myth surrounding the term "the early church fathers" as if they were this monolithic group that agreed upon everything. There is also a myth that belonging to the Catholic church today means you're dealing with one belief system. The Catholic church today, and I would venture to say the Eastern Orthodox as well, contains a tremendous number of dissenting opinions on a bewildering number of topics. If you look at the Catholic church today, they have as many subgroups as you have in Protestant denominations and they disagree just as vehemently. The article mentions Calvinism and Arminianism as diametrically opposed, but fails to mention that Augustinians in the Catholic tradition and semi-palagians in the Catholic tradition are equally diametrically opposed. Eastern Orthodoxy has quite simply ignored the issue UNDERSORING THE FACT THAT THEY HAD NOT DEALT DECISIVELY WITH ALL MAJOR ISSUES BEFORE 1000 AD! I understand he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, but they are not immune to these same issues. They just don't get much press over here due to their being a very small minority that doesn't look to engage other groups like Catholics and Protestants do. In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by paxJohn on Dec 22, 2004 23:52:04 GMT -5
I would prefer to bite off smaller chunks than Ron. Let's start with a topic of interest and try to distinguish between assertions and arguments.
To begin with, I'm not here to defend Orthodoxy. I'm here to discuss matters of concern to Christians as a Christian.
Regarding the matter of authority, I must start out by saying I am unfamiliar with Southern Baptist theology on baptism. How does the theology of the priesthood of all believers connect to this matter of how the church authorizes the transmission of the faith? Orthodoxy also has this theology albeit it does not translate to meaning that each individual has been authorized to do perform priestly offices such as marrying, pronouncing Christ's forgiveness of sins on behalf of the Church (in Orthodoxy, the priest never says "I forgive you" but "Christ forgives you", etc.
The concept of priesthood of Christian believers is not a new concept. Origin in his Homily on Leviticus discusses the matter of Christians standing before the Altar of Holocaust (where the priests stand in the Temple) and offering up an acceptable sacrifice (as opposed to hatred which would be to offer a "foreign fire"). Origin is not talking about us going to Jerusalem. He is speaking of the reality that for each of us as Christians, we have a priestly duty/calling/office to stand before the altar of God in our heart and offer prayer to God at all times. I'm not endorsing all of Origin's theology of course but he was influential in the development of the theology of priesthood in the early church.
Well, I've babbled on enough for my first post.
Pax, John
|
|
|
Post by paxJohn on Dec 22, 2004 23:58:48 GMT -5
Why does Pentecostalism represent something different than Protestantism? It appears to me that Protestantism has its roots in the Reformation churches that separated from Rome. Surely, we would include Methodists although they only later split off from Anglicans. Do not the Pentecostal churches derive from splitting off from the Reformation churches? Or is there another definition here for Protestantism that needs to be articulated?
Pax, John
|
|
|
Post by paxJohn on Dec 23, 2004 0:15:39 GMT -5
Clark Carleton writes: I became acutely aware that the congregation was not simply hearing the Word of God, it was hearing the Word of God according to me! Ron replies: It was hearing from a man who was obviously not cut out to be a preacher because he was more concerned with his popularity than preaching God's Word. He also didn't seem to be aware his guide was God's Word itself. He still doesn't. He wants someone else to tell him what he's supposed to say plain and simple. To which I reply: That's a harsh judgment that I don't know you are in a position to make. Moreover, your summary dismissal of his position has not persuaded me that his point is invalid. Unless you are reading directly from Scripture, you are at minimum paraphrasing. Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with substituting paraphrases of Scripture in place of Scripture. Using the words "preaching the word" doesn't resolve the hermenutical problem. I wouldn't want to hear a preacher that isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit but I also believe that a good sermon is usually one that has been well prepared. It puts me in the mind of the TV chef Emeril who said something like "Proper preparation prevents poor performance." His version was a bit more colorful. I had the honor of offering the homily at a service once a week for a number of months. I must say that it is much easier to critique a sermon than to give one and some of mine were so horrendous even the saints were nodding off in heaven. But you are right about preaching ... there is no dearth of God's working to speak about. The more you preach the more God fills you to do so. Your week becomes filled with the experience of preparation to preach and it is a blessed modality. If we continue to listen, we also learn humility. One way we might begin to break down this problem into smaller bites is to ask the question "What is the difference between preaching and teaching?" Or "What is the difference between Gospel and Kerygma?" Until we are meaning something like the same thing by the words we are using, we are talking past one another. Pax, John
|
|
|
Post by paxJohn on Dec 23, 2004 0:41:48 GMT -5
One last question for today: What is the difference between a creed and a confession? Now perhaps this merely a verbal issue in this example but I note that the Episcopal Church traditionally claims that it is not a confessional church but a credal church. Does this claim have any meaning? I mean *linguistically* ... not inviting reflections on their slide from biblical faith. I'm sure you all know that the Athanasian Creed is considered by all scholars today to be a misnomer. J.N.D. Kelly argues that it is neither creed nor by Athanasius. Now, I know you all know that Athanasius was not the author of the "Quicunque Vult" but most likely it came from the monastery of Arles in the Fifth Century or thereabouts. Here is a good online writeup that brings us up to speed: www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/k/KruegerOrigin/KruegerOrigin.pdfBut what I am interested in is trying to figure out what we mean by creed versus confession. I leave you with this quote by Thomas Aquinas: "Athanasius did not compose his manifesto of faith in the form of a doctrinal exposition ( per modum symboli), but of a doctrinal exposition ( per modum cuiusdam doctrinae)". Pax, John
|
|
|
Post by worthily on Dec 23, 2004 0:55:13 GMT -5
Both of you have my attention, please go on. i dont intend to interrupt this thread but rather to comment on the encouragement i am receiving from the interaction that is transpiring with regards to church history and doctrines derived.
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 23, 2004 3:26:37 GMT -5
rgrove, I think you make some good observations! Of course, the difficulty one experiences in what might be considered by some to be a relatively radical change in belief systems is the inevitable "reformed alcoholic" syndrome. Clark Carlton may, to some extent, be making the mistake that many do when they return to what they believe is the "ancient church", preferring rather a romantic and apocopated view of church history--essentially joining the church of their own mind. Nevertheless, I do believe that the points he makes--imperfect (and polemical) though they may be, colored by his own bad experiences, on the one hand, and lack of experience, on the other--are nevertheless illustrative of problems with which we must be aware. We should, with some charity perhaps, view his observations as at least cautionary. Having been a member of more than one "Baptist" congregation, I am aware that there are, in fact, rather substantial differences in faith and practice between your "typical" Southern Baptist church and a congregation affiliated with the Baptist General Conference (in which there are several representative Reformed Baptist congregations, with preaching far more similar to that of Spurgeon rather than Criswell. And the General Association of Regular Baptists, and the Conservative Baptists, and the list goes on. I actually was raised in a Methodist church, however--you know, sort of the "non-union" Episcopalians. And I watched as the church of John and Charles Wesley drifted toward a liberal theology with a social gospel, to a trendy neo-orthodoxy that would have made Karl Barth blush, to a sort of vaguely existential, Christian in name only, practice. The preaching was dismal--and dead. I know of course that this was not true in all Methodist churches. Many in the south were more conservative, but few had a distinctly "orthodox" (small "o") Christian theology (with some bright exceptions, glowing in a sea of darkness). I am not unfamiliar with the Presbyterian Church of the U.S., which is currently fighting its own battle between a small group hearkening back to the Reformed theology that found its representation in the United States in such men as J. Gresham Machen. But by in large, the Westminster Confession, Shorter Catechism and Psaltries are treated as quaint historical documents--just like the Bible. And with the notable exceptions in the United States of the Wisconsin and Missouri Synods, the only brush many Lutheran churches have with Martin Luther is a vague recollection that he had something to do with "theses" and a "diet of Worms" (which to this day I am convinced many still believe is something that he ate in his monastic days. The majority of "mainline" Prostestant churches were so affected by the German higher-critical methodology of Biblical interpretation that their ministers, ultimately the gate-keepers to vocational church leadership, drifted rapidly away from "orthodox" Christian theology into a sort of tepid humanism based on speculations as to "what would Jesus do?", yet without any recognition of authority, Biblical or otherwise, to provide and answer to the question. Unfortunately, my more recent experience with the Southern Baptist denomination is that many of the leading Southern Baptist seminaries have already begun to follow in the precarious footsteps of the mainline Protestant denominations that preceded them. Needless to say, as is generally true in any polemic, however couched, Clark chooses the most extreme examples and experiences, and displays a poor understanding of Protestant and Baptist history, theology, and practice. Yet familiarity with these often causes us to excuse or simply overlook problems in our churches more evident to the unschooled, because we filter what we perceive through our own lenses, which sometimes deceptively redfine for us what we see and experience in more favorable terms than might be deserved. We are also affected by our own experience and knowledge of Western and Eastern catholicism. Although there is certainly far more cohesion and theological agreement within the Orthodox church that there is in the Roman Catholic church (which managed to spawn the likes of Teilhard de Chardin, with his vaguely evolutionary theology), you have no doubt observe the very real theonomic nature of Russian Orthodoxy, which is revealed in its turbulent history. And after all, as with all people, the church, practically speaking, is not merely the sum total of its theology and its liturgy, but to some extent inevitably defines itself by its practice within society. Certainly the political machinations of the Russian Orthodox church in Russia itself tends to make the accusations of political liberals in the United States about a vast Right-Wing, religous conspiracy to turn the country into a theocracy seem like spoiled children in a schoolyard calling one another names. But the drift of evangelical belief, for lack of a better word to describe the mishmash of Reformed, Arminian, and Pietistic theologies forged during the fundamentalist controversy and the Bible conference movements, towards a self-centered, highly subjectivist, experience-oriented religio-cultural movement is disconcerting. That this is, in fact, not what we know the church to be based on our exposure to expository preaching and good hermeneutical practice, is immaterial. It is, in fact, happening. The Jesus Movement spawned a sort of casual, relational "Christianity" in which right belief and right practice are neglected in favor of a sort of "chummy" presentation of an ego-stroking gospel in which worship is a sort of warm and fuzzy experience of repetitive choruses that sound the Christian cocktail music, and a positive-thinking "J.C. is my best buddy" presentation. The majesty of God is lost in a muddle of poorly devised "personal relationship" theology, and the great instructive hymns of the faith are replaced by a meaningless droning. Such is hardly representitive of the eternal, life-giving power of a providential God, who transforms our lives with the same power he demonstrated in raising His Son, our Savior and Lord, from the dead! I agree wholeheartedly that one cannot simply label all of Protestant theology by its worst examples, and henceforth reject even valid theology for a romantic view of the catholic faiths. But is it any wonder that we are beginning to experience rumblings of a fault line in our churches that is casting many into the arms of a cafeteria Christianity in an enculturated "meta-church" and others into the arms of liturgical practices whose basis in the pagentry of the imperial court still recalls a sense of the majesty of God the Father and the Kingship of God the Son, Jesus Christ? I have found that past the rind, as it were, of the Orthodox Church is a very deep and rich theology, which is, in many ways, far more "evangelical" than that of many of our currently evangelical Prostestant churches. Do I believe that all of theology was settled during the time of the church fathers, or was ultimately elucidated by the time of the Council of Nicaea? No. And clearly, the amillennial eschatolgy into which the ancient church had settled was historically determinative in the way the church and the political powers of the time related. I believe there was much that, if it was not precisely new, was stated more clearly and a more vibrant way by the leaders of the Reformation. Certainly, the priesthood of the believer was an important issue. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the Reformation was largely a response to Imperial Roman Catholicism, which had a quite different theological trajectory than the Greek Orthodox church. And certainly I have seen a tendency among many Christians who espouse Reformed theology to treat the Westiminster Confession, and to a lesser extent Calvin's Institutes, and the final revelation of Jesus Christ to his church, just missing being canonical by an accident of history. I hope that by utilizing Clark Carlton as a jumping-off point, we may take a more sober look at ourselves and what Orthodoxy teaches, and compare and contrast our beliefs. I am happy to have you involved in this reflection, since your experience with the Russian Orthodox church is far different than one might experience in the United States. Incidentally, one thing I also hope to discuss is how a church which is based on an episcopacy that is more "presbyterian" than Roman Catholic (as I understand it, the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Orthodox church meet together in ecumentical council as "equals") can have successfully maintained a far more unified theology, liturgy, and practice than the Roman Catholic church, with its emphasis on a monolithic hierarchy and a ruling pontiff. God bless and keep you and your family this season as we remember that incomprehensible moment in time when heaven bent down to kiss the earth... And when God, in giving His Son for us, gave us to him to be his glorious bride... We wish you happiness and joy in Jesus, our Savior and Lord, our great High Priest and glorious King! Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by paxJohn on Dec 23, 2004 13:55:29 GMT -5
You guys are making such wide generalizations that it is difficult to bring things down to earth. Clearly, you can't judge a church by the evil deeds or excesses of individuals...any more than you can say the apostles all failed because they ran away at the arrest of Jesus or because Peter and Paul argued. There never was a golden age where all was concord between Christians ... and it certainly isn't found today.
However, if the purpose of this forum is to reassure ourselves that Reformation theology really is the only reasonable way of looking at things and all else is polemical and false, I would like to know it straight away since I have no interest in serving as a foil. If my presence must be apologized for, it raises the question. Your choice.
Pax, John
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 23, 2004 14:29:15 GMT -5
I would prefer to bite off smaller chunks than Ron. Let's start with a topic of interest and try to distinguish between assertions and arguments. No problem. I went to the document and was overcome with anguish at the problems with his views. The article was long and had a litany of things that I would disagree with. I only got half way through as well. That's fine. I was mostly focused on the problems I saw with his understanding of Baptist/Protestant faith and practice. I've only gone to an Orthodox church in Portland once for the wonderful cultural festivities they have and the good cookin! So I'm hardly an expert on Eastern Orthodoxy. I am very interested in your views on pretty much all doctrine because I haven't run across any clear and consice works by Orthodox writers (such as a systematic theology), but I could just be looking in all the wrong places. I've wanted to add an *influential and representative* Eastern Orthodox Systematic Theology to my collection for some time. It's always bugged me that I don't have one. I expect that we have a very similar understanding of the roles of the believers. This doctrine is particularly tied to the break with Roman Catholicism where the laity at the time was severely restricted in their access to the Bible and the sacraments. It seems to me that Eastern Orthodoxy's rejection of the Bishop of Rome's claim of absolute authority over them contains many of the same elements as the reformers doctrine of the "Priesthood" of the believer. I put priesthood in quotest this time so as to not confuse this doctrine with any sort of belief that laity can exercise the sorts of activities you describe. That was absolutely not a part of the reformation. Only an ordained minister is qualified to do such things as that is clearly the Biblical teaching. I understand what you mean and I believe this confirms that we are on roughly the same page as to what the reformers meant with this doctrine. I was raised Roman Catholic and only left the church in my late 20's and think that any discussion of that doctrine must be done in light of the teachings of Rome during the reformation. Much has changed, though. Now some of my Catholic family members actually have Bible studies with friends. Rome was burning people at the stake for that during the reformation... In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 23, 2004 15:05:16 GMT -5
Why does Pentecostalism represent something different than Protestantism? It appears to me that Protestantism has its roots in the Reformation churches that separated from Rome. Surely, we would include Methodists although they only later split off from Anglicans. Do not the Pentecostal churches derive from splitting off from the Reformation churches? Or is there another definition here for Protestantism that needs to be articulated? Pax, John Many do not include them just as many do not inclue Baptists as a Protestant denomination. So in many ways it depends upon what your working definition of Protestant is. I include or exclude Baptists from the definition based upon the understanding the person I am speaking to appears to have. If the person defines a Protestant as belonging to a church that "protested" Rome's teachings then I stick to Lutherans, Reformed churches, and Anglicans. Baptists would then be "protesters of the protesters" so to speak... So why do I categorize them differently? Because they really do represent a radical change from historic protestant understandings. They, more than any other denomination, pay virtually no attention to church history in formulating doctrine. Their writings, in my opinion, seem to jump from the end of the book of Acts to their conversion experience. They have generally left Sola Scriptura in the dust with their particular views of prophecy. They give occasional lip service to it, but it's a shell of what it is in churches that still look to the reformation for their doctrine. It's hard to describe how much different they are unless you read their works and go to their services. It's more than just a difference on tongues speaking and very hard to put into words. When I read the reformers and the great protestant writers of the following centuries they rely so heavily on those that came before them. That doesn't just mean from the reformation on, but even before that. The greats were always well read on Christian writings from the very earliest times. The early creeds of the church were always in very high esteem and impliciltly accepted in confessions. As soon as I could afford it, I purchased the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene collection because of their influence on me. I refer to these volumes regularly now. This just isn't the case with Pentacostals. You never know what they're going to say about the Trinity for example. They frequently display an almost condescending attitude for those that came before us and the creeds and confessions they wrote. Unfortunately many backwoods Batpist fundamentalist preachers have gone the same direction and give us a bad name in this was as well. Perhaps I'm too harsh in my judgement, but regardless of denomination we can't ignore those who God placed before us. They aren't infallible, but they're important. We ignore the heritage God gave us at our own peril. In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 23, 2004 15:29:54 GMT -5
Clark Carleton writes: I became acutely aware that the congregation was not simply hearing the Word of God, it was hearing the Word of God according to me! Ron replies: It was hearing from a man who was obviously not cut out to be a preacher because he was more concerned with his popularity than preaching God's Word. He also didn't seem to be aware his guide was God's Word itself. He still doesn't. He wants someone else to tell him what he's supposed to say plain and simple. To which I reply: That's a harsh judgment that I don't know you are in a position to make. Moreover, your summary dismissal of his position has not persuaded me that his point is invalid. Unless you are reading directly from Scripture, you are at minimum paraphrasing. I made the judgement based upon historic Baptist homiletic practices. It's harsh because he was deviating so far from what is normally taught. I'll expound more in a moment. Not really sure what you mean here. I expect that's a phrase not generally used in Orthodox circles so perhaps there's a misunderstanding? This is exactly why I was harsh. Early in the Baptist movement General Baptists (meaning Arminian Baptists) did this sort of seat of the pants preaching. Congregations suffered horribly from their lack of preparation and it died out quickly. I can't imagine a Baptist preacher, properly educated, would not have had everything prepared much earlier. Pentacostals do this too like the early General Baptists did. Drives me nuts. They go all over the map when they preach because they aren't properly prepared. Our pastor has his outlines of thought done at least one year ahead of time. It was the same at my last church. This is the norm. If you are invited to preach at the last moment the sermons given are generally ones that have been given before and thought appropriate for the current service. This is so normal that not knowing what to preach going in would leave any seminary homiletics professor at a major Baptist seminary beside himself. It's taught that serious study should go into a sermon and the process should be bathed with prayer. Of course last minute modifications as the Spirit leads are commonplace. Perhaps even the *occasionaly* 180 degree turn. But that shouldn't be the norm. I see no signs from his writing that he followed these practices. He said he was unprepared and didn't want to offend the congregation in any way. I can't imagine ever sitting under a pastor long that thought this way. I made all of my judgements based upon his admitted lack of preparation and fear of saying something about Biblical teaching that someone in the congregation might not like. Perhaps the sermons he gave were excellent in the end. He didn't publish any of that so I have no idea and can't jusdge what the final product looked like. Perhaps we are. I don't know. I would say good preaching contains a lot of teaching as well. And sometimes in a Bible study someone could become very passionate on a topic and essentially "preach" a very short sermon if you will. Again, the focus of my criticism was on the fact that he seemed to be implying that his unorthodox efforts at preaching are somehow the norm in Baptist circles. I know of Baptist pastors that take a long vacation once a year to pray intensely and dig deep into scripture about what messages they should bring their congregation in the next year. The primacy of preaching in Baptist churches is the historical norm. It should be Christ centered and specifically designed to help the congregation grow in Christ. The gospel should also be present so that any in the church that day that have not committed their lives to Christ might be invited to do so. This is more of a pulpit activity, for instance, that would define preaching over just teaching in a Baptist church unless it's an evangelistic Bible study designed to have unbelievers present (kind of juming backwards to the question of what's preaching and what's teaching). In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 23, 2004 15:45:42 GMT -5
One last question for today: What is the difference between a creed and a confession? Now perhaps this merely a verbal issue in this example but I note that the Episcopal Church traditionally claims that it is not a confessional church but a credal church. I don't believe there would be a definition that makes all Baptists happy, but if you speak to your general run of the mill Baptist they would probably answer as such. A "creed" would mean (again, from a normal Baptist) that you must accept this statement period, end of story. A confession would be understood as a document that most everyone can accept as a general statement of belief. It is also good for evaluating whether someone is off the deep end so to speak if they're disagreeing with too much of it. For example, the confession of our church is the 1689 LBC, but to become a member you don't have to agree to it. You only have to agree with a very small, basic list of things entitled "Those things most assuredly believed." If you don't believe at least those very basics of the faith, then you can't be a member. The 1689 is the teaching position of the pastors in the church. If you have radical disagreement with it you may be uncomfortable in some sermons or Bible studies, but you can be a member who disagrees with some statements therein. This would be the same in an Southern Baptist church. Southern Baptist Missionaries are expected to be able to sign a document saying that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is basically what they believe. Professors at Southern Seminary must sign the "Abstract of Principles". It maintains some control on the theology of those claiming to represent Southern Baptist ideals so that the liberals aren't able to take over again. We would do the same for an official missionary from our church. Don't know if that was what you were looking for, but if you use the terms with a Baptist this is probably how they would understand the usage of "Creed" and "Confession". I suspect this would be the same for the PCA because the church down the street would let me become a member even though I disagreed with the statement in the WCF on baptism. I just couldn't become a deacon, elder or teach which is understandable. In christ, Ron
|
|