Personal Views and Opinions or Orthodoxy?

[JohnV]

Rich:

Thanks for starting this discussion. It's given something to think about. And that's just what I've been doing.

I know I had a bad experience with Presbyterianism. And it's probably because of that experience that I think usurping the pulpit for to propagate one's own opinions, ones not specifically forbidden but also not declared to be doctrine, is such a bad thing. On the other hand, I've had little bad experience with Baptist views. I've had a few, but nothing that really stands out.

I can appreciate that some people have come to their baptist views honestly. That is, though I don't think that the baptist view is honest, yet with the givens and backgrounds that are there, as opposed to the ones that I had to deal with in my life, I can see it from their point of view that it all makes sense to them. I can appreciate that they really do believe it to be what the Bible really teaches. I won't jump out at them for dishonesty, though I still think they're wrong.

On the other hand, I myself can see no excuse for men using the pulpits for their own soapboxes. They represent an office, not themselves. They have no business doing that. I'll be hard on them. I'm pretty sure I would have been whether or not I had had a bad experience with it. But all the same, my bad experiences are no excuse for not biting my tongue.

There are those who have had bad experiences with the Benny Hinns of this world, or with Arminianism or Dispensationalism. And some with Baptists. And some Baptists with Presbyterians. I guess that can also make us a bit testier on those subjects where we've had bad experiences. It's so easy to say, "Why don't you just stop it? It's all nonsense that you're saying; why don't you just stop it?" Or we can take the high road and tell them to repent. After all, we've got church authority behind us, we think.

But this is a discussion board where all these things are allowed. Some of us still have some of our background as baggage, but we're now trying to reform, and we embrace the Reformed doctrines. So that makes us all eligible for this Board.

I think I'm going to try to make is a habit to have my tongue firmly between my teeth when I log onto the PB from now on.

 

[Herald]

I can appreciate that some people have come to their baptist views honestly. That is, though I don't think that the baptist view is honest, yet with the givens and backgrounds that are there, as opposed to the ones that I had to deal with in my life, I can see it from their point of view that it all makes sense to them. I can appreciate that they really do believe it to be what the Bible really teaches. I won't jump out at them for dishonesty, though I still think they're wrong.

John - If that's your opinion on Baptist belief then so be it. I have no problem with it. I feel the same towards Presbyterians. I love them but consider them in error. Big revelation, huh? I suppose having that white elephant sitting in the middle of the room is too juicy a target for some to ignore. Some almost feel compelled to correct the brother we consider to be in error. Of course we know that it is not that simple.

What does this have to do with confessional belief? If we trace our belief back to our confession's interpretation of the bible both sides have a standard that they can point to as to the reasons why they believe what they believe. That is both good and bad. Why? Well we know that one side is wrong on baptism. Neither side is willing to concede that is their side. Hence, there is an inherent flaw in one of the confessions, at least in the area of baptism. I think this lends itself partly to Richard Zuelch's argument. Since one of the confessions is obviously flawed mustn't we look to the scriptures continually for understanding? This does not diminish the confessions. On the contrary, it strengthens them. If after study, prayer and more study we find ourselves in agreement with these historic confessions we are better able to support them. One of us is still wrong, but we may never know that until glory, and as someone else hinted at in this thread, "By then it won't matter."

 

[JohnV]

John - If that's your opinion on Baptist belief then so be it. I have no problem with it. I feel the same towards Presbyterians. I love them but consider them in error. Big revelation, huh?

Yeah, I was going to go back and edit my post. I had in mind while I was writing it that the Baptists would feel the same about my view. And I would expect that. I would demand that. I don't want to discuss this with someone who's coming to this topic dishonestly.

That was my point. Sometimes we won't give that other party the benefit of the doubt about their integrity. We see their error, but that doesn't mean they do.

If I'm driving along with so many bricks on my wagon, because that's always been considered a full load where I come from, then it takes someone from somewhere else to tell me that I'm a few bricks shy of a full load. It won't dawn on me otherwise.

 

[JohnV]

I mean, Bill, that I'm going to figure that that's how you feel about it. Then it's up to each of us to figure out how we ourselves are not taking everything into consideration.

Sure, I think the Paedo view is right. But that doesn't mean that I think I'm the best defender of it. There's a lot of things about it that a good Baptist can snow me under with. There's always the thing about a better arguer, whether he would be on the right side or the wrong side. There's the thing about someone who can choose his words better so as to be more convincing, even though he might be on the wrong side. There's the thing that people just might like someone better, for whatever reason, even though he might be on the wrong side. There's so many things to take into account.

There's just so much bad Presbyterianism out there too, as I'm sure you might admit about Baptistarianism, or whatever you call it. But for all that, there's a lot more bad use of words and thoughts out there. And we're both in the same boat on many such things.

It's the time we live in. Scholars aren't afraid to say really stupid things anymore, because it is scholarly acceptable to say that man came from apes, or that life came out of non-life; or that sound scientific reason came from minds formed by random chance. Stupid as these things are, it's the scholarly standard of our day. And it's affected our church's intellectual atmospheres perhaps too much.