Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205833 | ||
Dear quvmoh, Thank you... You said; Claiming to be a Baptist is like claiming to be an American. There are as many denominations among the Baptists as there are subcultures within America. There are Southern Baptists, Cooperative Baptists, Free will Baptists, Anabaptists, Independent Baptists, American Baptists, and on and on. Yes claiming to be a Baptist is like claiming to be an American, but my question was about the specific question of why some Baptist churches whatever their practical bent may be, use creeds and confessions. After all the Roman Catholics aslo do this, but where theirs may go beyond Sola Scrtiptura as the traditions of men, my questions centers around why some Baptists use the traditions of men as the creeds and confessions are... Taking into consideration that they may be based on Sola Scriptura. And in light of that it would not really matter what kind of Baptist I claim to be, but why other Baptist denominations use confessions and creeds... Could someone elaborate for me why some Baptist churches are not inculcated with the various protestant confessions of faith and some are? What would you say about a Baptist church that is not inculcated with these confessions, but goes by Sola Scriptura alone? Thanks for the help quvmoh, Tamara |
||||||
2 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | quvmoh | 205904 | ||
Greetings, I cannot say about many of the Baptists denominations, but about the Southern Baptists. We adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message, which isn't a Creed but a statement of what we believe. It does summarize and touch on various confessions and creed. As for sola scriptura, the Bible, as in the Old and New testaments, is the only authority of God's word because other so called holy documents fail the test of canonicity. Like the apocrypha, for example, doesn't hold true to prophecy as being scriptural, as well as authors being ambiguous, and many other reasons. The book of mormon isn't concidered to be scripture either, and neither is the koran. The view that many of the churches I have belonged to hold that Christian History, tradition, and even creeds and confessions are good for helping to interpret the scripture, but that they must give leave to the Authority of scripture first. If something with theology or interpretation is inconsistant with the Scripture, you alter the theology or interpretation, not the Bible. Many false beliefs, assumptions, and inconsistant theologies have emerged in the Church as a whole because someone placed another source on equal authority to the Bible. By being sola scriptura, we try to prevent that as much as possible. quvmoh |
||||||
3 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205908 | ||
Dear quvmoh, Yes I have always agreed with this and still do... I was taught Sola Scriptura in church without ever knowing or hearing the term! I do believe that inconsistent theologies come about because the exegesis was never done properly - 1)the intent of the author to his audience and what he wrote as it had to have been understood has been tossed aside in favor or how modern society functions in order to make it "relevant to today". 2)the structure of the grammar and the meaning of the words and phrases are restricted to their English transliterations and the true thrust of all these is missed because the Greek and Hebrew were not looked at. 3)the type of Biblical literature being looked at is not read with for what it is; prose, narrative, history, epistle, etc., and then it has not been studied in light of what kind of features and literary devices that those types of literarture contains. 4)problem areas in the Bible which happen when what was being practiced as normal and known as common in the first century have no comparable equivalent in the twenty-first century because the things described in the Bible no longer occur and which appear to have no practical application for today (II Timothy 3:16 - all scripture is profitable) have not been examined properly to determine what the essence of the teaching is that should be applied today (made relevant to today) without changing, destroying, transforming or otherwise distorting the original intent and meaning of the text. 5)a pre-existent theology from today or through out the ages has been imprinted on one's understanding of the meaning of the Bible's theology from the first century changing how the author intended the text to be understood and used. I agree whole heartedly of Sola Scriptura, which is the literal intrepretation of the Bible, however, there is no such thing as just leaving the interpretation standing there - it has to be applied in order to be effective now, and in every time, and the application has to be from the literal interpretation of the Bible and be able to address what life is like today because the Bible is always relevant. What I have been saying all day long is that there has to be an effort made to take first century applications that could only have applied to first century settings and make them be applicable to today by taking their essence without losing the original intent and "making it relevant to today". But I am not talking about liberation theology or the Jesus movement as I despise these two things; the one is theolgoy from the bottem up - taking the problems of society and making a stunted theology out of finding a solution to today's problems by looking at and twisting only parts of the Bible, and the other is to distort the person of Christ and to "remake the Bible and make it relevant to today" by giving it an iterpretation the author never intended. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||