| Rich - great topic and one that deserves to be developed.
When I joined the PB in August of '05 I was a decided Calvinist. I subscribed to the 1689 LBC but would have pled ignorance if I was drilled on it. Nearly two years later the commitment that many Presbyterians have to the WCF challenged me to examine the LBC. While I still question part of it (namely the Pope being the antichrist), I can solidly refer to myself as confessional. Why? Because I am convinced that the LBC accurately reflects what the bible teaches on the areas that the confession addresses.
Now, I know some Greek. I have been to bible college. I even graduated from the New Jersey public school system. Do any of these accomplishments put me in a superior position to challenge nearly 500 years of Protestant scholarship? By raising this question am I automatically calling epistemology to task? Not at all. All of us are in a quest for knowledge. The framers of the LBC and WCF were no different. From all historical accounts these men wrestled with the scripture in order to interpret it correctly. Infalliable? Of course not. But further theological study on both sides (Presbyterian and Baptist) affirmed the commentary on scripture for both confessions. I am not saying that we should blindly trust confessions at the expense of scripture. The confessions only have worth to the degree that they accurately reflect scripture. Even then it isn't the confession that is right but scripture.
Now there is an inherent problem when we have one side (WCF) that claims the other side (LBC) is in error. No one likes to be told that they are wrong. Both sides agree that scripture only has one interpretation. Of course both sides conclude that they are on the right side. That's a problem and the purpose of this thread is not to solve what hasn't be solved in nearly 500 years. It's there like a ripe pimple on the end of our nose. While the baptism forums may never convince an individual to switch sides, they do have the ability to raise questions (and effect change) in other areas. I've said this before, the baptism forums have been instrumental in helping me move from dispensationalism to a more covenant-friendly* theology. They've actually helped me frame my own position within the context of the LBC. Does this mean the vitriol in the baptism forums is acceptable? No. Rudeness is never excusable. Some become so rude and arrogant that it does effect the desire to interact with them again. When that occurs it is sad and regrettable.
Lastly, I want to touch on the subject of orthodoxy. What does orthodoxy mean? Well it is one of those terms that is defined by those who use it. It is similar to the term "evangelical." And evangelical today is much different that an evangelical 50 years ago. But still, what does the term imply? Well the term basically means a common set of beliefs. I suppose you can divide orthodoxy into two sections: general orthodoxy and specific orthodoxy. For example: Paedo-baptism would be specific to WCF Reformed churches. Trinitarian baptism would be more generally accepted. That is one of the reasons I have no problem considering both views of baptism as orthodox within the sphere of Christianity. In the Repent! thread Adam mentioned "crazy Pentecostalism." I would not consider Pentecostal doctrine orthodox since since it has no solid basis in church history and is not in keeping with our approved confessions. Does this toss me in the presuppositional camp? Yep. Sure does. I am assuming that our accepted confessions define what is orthodox.
*Let me explain what I mean by covenant-friendly. I am reformed in the WCF sense of the word. I am a credo baptist. That causes a major schew in the way I view covenant theology. But I do have a convenantal view of scripture. It isn't the same as my WCF brethren but it's not Darbyian either.
Last edited by North Jersey Baptist; 06-26-2007 at 11:09 PM.
Reason: spelling
|