T-Bone said:
ALAYMAN said:
The leadership of the Convention increasingly identifies itself as "evangelical" instead of ''Baptist." Calling Baptists "evangelical" is problematic. In general, "evangelical" refers to those Protestants who believe in biblical authority, a personal experience of salvation, evangelism, and congregational polity. Certainly Baptists fit this description. But evangelicals make doctrine a central concern. Doctrines such as biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, penal substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the bodily return of Jesus are thought necessary to being a Christian. Evangelicalism is thus a first cousin to Fundamentalism, which is strongly rationalistic and intolerant toward other views, even to the point of refusing to "have fellowship" with those who question doctrines such as those just mentioned.
Two questions:
1) Do you know any Southern Baptists who think that being known as "evangelical" is problematic in the vein referred to via the quote above?
2) Per the moderate Southern Baptists (Cooperatives et al) who lean heavily on the "no creed but the Bible" theological framework what is your argument against their claim to believe what they do (and practice it) under the auspices of the priesthood of the believer?
As a SBC for 50+ years and a SBC pastor for 40+ years. I have no problem with identifying with the above statement of being a Baptist and an evangelical. As for the second point I would say to the moderates, as I did when President Clinton made the same assertion, that they do not understand the concept of Priesthood of the believer if they think it gives them license to violate the clear teachings of the Scripture.
First, thanks for taking the time to give your insider perspective.
Regarding #1 above I found it curious that the moderate in the quote implied that those evangelicals he was talking about, those who were making Scripture "a central concern" were misguided. But if Scripture and revelation isn't the primary concern for how a Christian knows what to believe then *what* exactly does the moderate believe *should be* the arbiter for their beliefs?
Regarding #2 it seems to me that the moderate is essentially saying that their interpretation is just as good as any other believer, so butt out of their relationship to God! Of course as you pointed out they often go against ages-old orthodox teachings (on even fundamentally vital doctrines such as the virgin birth, or bodily resurrection, not merely on secondary issues such as the role of females in the home and pulpit) in order hold to their differing beliefs. Given the assumption that there are likely some of those who hold to such radical views of soul competency that are actually born again, do you believe that most of them who navigate to the left side of that moderate spectrum hold their beliefs out of legitimate consideration to what Scriptures teach (and have been understood by Baptists for centuries to teach) on primary/fundamental doctrines? Or are they much like the stereotype we hear of the Roman Catholic who is not pious regarding their faith?
Put another way, are the moderates of the left-leaning persuasion mostly just cultural Christians, living and believing what they want to believe according to societal norms of their (southern) culture rather than and in distinct contrast/opposition to what they actually know the Scriptures are teaching?
