Question about the history of Christianity

[jmharris23]

I'll testify to the fact that Southern Baptists rarely if ever, even in their seminary/Bible college studies, view or discuss early church leader's writings.
They focus on Schofield, Calvin and their contemporaries.

Just FYI. I have been to a SBC seminary and we studied the ECF's pretty extensively?

 

[dawg2]

After my actual experiences, I deducted that those who most closely followed the literal 1911 KJV were deemed study material worthy, according to the leadership.

I really don't know. And I feel an answer is not necessary for me at this point. I see things without blinders on, and it feels great!

But I do know my eyes were quite opened when I began a historical study of Catholicism.

Would you expound on that statement more? If you don't want to put it in the forum, you can PM me. Just curious...

 

[WTM45]

I'm a Southern Baptist. I have sat in on classes at SBTS. I have sat in on Bible classes at Truett-McConnell College. I have sat in on Bible classes at Bob Jones University. I regularly sit under the teaching of Dr. Mohler (president of SBTS). I like to talk theology, so I like to think that I interact with a lot of Southern Baptist laypeople.

I'm fairly certain that Dr. Mohler would not tolerate the absence of study of ECFs in his seminary's classes. I've never met a Southern Baptist who's not familiar with them, even if he hasn't read them.

I don't object to the fact that WTM45's statement is true in some places, I object to the use of "rarely, if ever" and such a patently false statement about our seminaries and colleges.

Maybe we have a difference in what we define "study of."

Reading is one thing. Actively using the tenents in establishing doctrine is another.

I'm quite confident there is a significant difference in our ages and when our educational experiences occured.
But I know MUCH of how Mercer, BJU, Truett-McConnell, Tennessee Temple, Clearwater, Gwinnett-Hall and others build their curriculum.
Any ECF "studies" are greatly outweighed by the required Luther, Schofield, Calvin and later KJV theologists.

No insult was intended. My apology if it was taken as one.

 

[WTM45]

Would you expound on that statement more? If you don't want to put it in the forum, you can PM me. Just curious...

Simple interpretation, literal vs. figurative, was the most suprising for me.
I found a few differences there that allowed me to peek outside the box that had previously been placed on top of me.

 

[rjcruiser]

I'm quite confident there is a significant difference in our ages and when our educational experiences occured.

I think that Dr Mohler's influence at Southern has been a good thing and a "reformation" for that school.

 

[dawg2]

Simple interpretation, literal vs. figurative, was the most suprising for me.
I found a few differences there that allowed me to peek outside the box that had previously been placed on top of me.

Are you saying where Catholics interpret books of the Bible as the way they were written? Meaning some books are to be taken figuratively (i.e. Genesis), while others literally (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Is that what you mean?

It's no fun being under a box. I used to catch squirrels and rabbits with a box when I was a kid.

 

[dawg2]

I think that Dr Mohler's influence at Southern has been a good thing and a "reformation" for that school.

Never heard of him. What was his influence?

 

[WTM45]

I think that Dr Mohler's influence at Southern has been a good thing and a "reformation" for that school.

I could agree with part of that statement.
But I will admit the current division in the SBC is quite deep, and will be a scar even if it is closed and healed.

 

[WTM45]

Are you saying where Catholics interpret books of the Bible as the way they were written? Meaning some books are to be taken figuratively (i.e. Genesis), while others literally (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Is that what you mean?

I learned the differences in how the Bible as a whole is viewed and used. As a guide. As a tool of instruction best interpreted by the guidance of well established historical leadership.

The real changes for me came after reading Bertrand Russell. You would be very suprised at where that referral came from!

 

[rjcruiser]

Never heard of him. What was his influence?

Just like the reformers...getting away from the political and social norms of the day that had crept into the SBC and returning to the roots.

In all seriousness...you had faculty in the 80s/90s that were taking a very loose translation of scripture...not holding to its infallibility etc etc.

Dr. Mohler became president of Southern probably around 5-7 years ago and has really stressed the importance of the infallibility and sufficiency of scripture.

To put simply, he's trying to right the ship that got slightly off track over the past 20-30 years.

 

[dawg2]

Just like the reformers...getting away from the political and social norms of the day that had crept into the SBC and returning to the roots.

In all seriousness...you had faculty in the 80s/90s that were taking a very loose translation of scripture...not holding to its infallibility etc etc.

Dr. Mohler became president of Southern probably around 5-7 years ago and has really stressed the importance of the infallibility and sufficiency of scripture.

To put simply, he's trying to right the ship that got slightly off track over the past 20-30 years.

I think you are missing a zero behind that "20"

So, is he establishing a standard for Biblical interpretations across the SBC?

 

[dawg2]

I learned the differences in how the Bible as a whole is viewed and used. As a guide. As a tool of instruction best interpreted by the guidance of well established historical leadership.

The real changes for me came after reading Bertrand Russell. You would be very suprised at where that referral came from!

Probably wouldn't be surprised. I have been a student of Jesuits and they have some interesting views as well as recommended reading

 

[WTM45]

He is trying to do just that. A move "back" to actual interpretation and literal translations. He is staunchly conservative, anti-gay and an old school Baptist fundamentalist.
He is on the "Focus on the Family" board of directors.

 

[WTM45]

Probably wouldn't be surprised. I have been a student of Jesuits and they have some interesting views as well as recommended reading

Nailed it. The collars were in a drawer, not part of the shirt.

 

[rjcruiser]

So, is he establishing a standard for Biblical interpretations across the SBC?

Not sure about a "Standard" as there is more to the SBC than just Southern Seminary. I think he is more in-line with the Baptist statement of the 1600s than his predecesors and teaching that to young men about to go into ministry is the greatest way to establish that precedent.

 

[dawg2]

He is trying to do just that. A move towards actual interpretation and literal translations. He is staunchly conservative, anti-gay and an old school Baptist fundamentalist.
He is on the "Focus on the Family" board of directors.

So what is he using for his "baseline" to ensure he is correct in his interpretation?

 

[rjcruiser]

He is trying to do just that. A move "back" to actual interpretation and literal translations. He is staunchly conservative, anti-gay and an old school Baptist fundamentalist.
He is on the "Focus on the Family" board of directors.

Tell us how you really feel about the guy

 

[dawg2]

Nailed it. The collars were in a drawer, not part of the shirt.

You gotta watch those guys and anyone who has been taught by them! They'll make you THINK!

 

[WTM45]

So what is he using for his "baseline" to ensure he is correct in his interpretation?

Old English, think London Confessional.
Protestant Reformation.
Not that long ago, really.

 

[WTM45]

Tell us how you really feel about the guy

I don't know him, nor have I heard him speak. But he is old school. If he wheezes and snorts, yells and shouts, sweats and gets excited, it would probably keep folks awake.

I'm sure he is a good man.

The "Focus on the Family" affiliation does cause me to raise one eyebrow. Slightly.