The Circenses Faith and Message 2004

Not exhaustive but exhausting.

Prologue

A few weeks ago a pastor of some influence in the SBC questioned my faith and commitment to Christ merely because I defended the faith and beliefs of another more liberal Christian. This pastor assumed that if I defended another person I must inevitably agree with that person. Yes, I was called a liberal who lacked adequate faith and blah blah blah. Now none of this offended me in the slightest. I frankly don’t care what a radical-fundamentalist pastor thinks. I do not care what any of the so-called “leaders” of the SBC think; only their actions concern me. Nevertheless, I was somewhat amused at the scoffing, ignorant and controlling nature of this pastor. He seems to want all people in the SBC to be under the 2000 BFM down to every pastor in a SBC church and every student in a SBC school. Now I know this man is probably (hopefully) not representative of the vast majority of the SBC leadership. Well, many may be ignorant and controlling but very few are scoffing. Most are very loving and humble and do not persecute others who disagree with them on peripheral issues … they usually hire other people to do the persecuting. Nevertheless, I thought it might be time for Circenses to give a few of his beliefs. For you see, I have always considered myself a conservative and never a liberal. I’ve usually been called a rebel but rarely ever a liberal; so I was intrigued by the notion that someone could call me one. Of course, I now no longer know what these labels mean. What makes one a liberal? What makes one a conservative? Is it based on relation to another? Most conservatives who do not know me think I am a liberal. Most liberals who do not know me think I am a conservative. Most liberals and conservatives who do know me think I am a moderate. Moderates who do and don’t me think I am a Christian. Therefore, I must just be a follower of Jesus. If that’s it then that’s not so bad. But rather than give you my and everyone else’s opinion of myself allow me to give you a sample of my beliefs and let you decide. I suppose one could call this the Circenses Faith and Message 2004. Like any confession (not creed) it is merely a snapshot in time and doesn’t hold the individual to any specific set of propositions to which he is forever chained. No, I reserve the right to believe whatever belief my experiences grant me and I am allowed to interpret the Scriptures however I feel they are meant to be interpreted regardless of the opinions of my peers. I take the opinions of others seriously and with due consideration but I will not allow my beliefs to be governed by the majority rule of a small fraction of Christendom at one point in history. I believe what I please and there is absolutely nothing that anyone in the SBC can do about it. It is none of their business and in this regard I answer only to God because He is the only one in authority over me. Having said that ...

I. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe the Father is fully and eternally God, I believe that the Son is fully and eternally God, and I believe that the Holy Spirit is fully and eternally God. I believe that Jesus was the Son and fully man and God. He was God Incarnate and was literally resurrected and will forever exist as the God-Man. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the empowering presence of God. He is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus. But while I believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and believe this is God, I have my doubts about how they have been formulated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The idea that there are three distinct persons appears to be foreign to the Scriptures. Nowhere does the Bible speak or teach about God being three persons. The Bible only says that God is One. The doctrine of the Trinity and the idea that God is Three and One developed out of a need to protect the true teachings of the Scriptures from heresies. The Apostolic witness does not go into such formulations. It merely states that the Father is God, the Son/Jesus is God, and the Spirit is God. The relation of this Father-Son-Spirit relationship is a mystery that the Bible does not go into and is not a part of the Apostolic teaching and, therefore, should not be a part of our teachings and preachings. The Reformers recognized this fact and discouraged the church from engaging in Trinitarian speculations.

II. I believe that the Bible is the inspired (God-breathed), inerrant, infallible, record of the revelation of God. But while I am an inerrantist I do not mind other Christians and Christian scholars who do not believe in inerrancy. I think they are wrong but their beliefs are their own and it is between them and God. Furthermore, I agree with the neo-orthodox scholars who say that the Scriptures are not the Word of God. To understand what the neo-orthodox scholars mean by this statement it is important to understand that they have a very high view of what the Word of God is. They also have a very high view of revelation. To them revelation is when the Word of God comes to a person. When a person reads the Scriptures it can have two different effects upon them. On one hand, a person can read the Scriptures and God can speak through it to the person and the truth is revealed to that person. On the other hand, the person can read the Scriptures and God does not speak through it to the person and the truth is not revealed to the person. It is only when God speaks through the Scriptures to the person that the Scriptures become the Word of God. Reason suggests that this must be the case. Why is it that someone can read the Bible and have an experience with the Divine while others can read the Bible and not experience anything other than reading a document? The difference is that God has chosen to or not to speak through the Scriptures to the person. So the Scriptures are not the Word of God, the Bible is not revelation but, instead, is the vehicle of revelation and the manner in which God can speak to man. And, lastly, I agree with the 1963 BFM that states that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” I think this is a beautiful declaration of faith that I am sorry is no longer a part of the Southern Baptist confession. This statement existed to answer questions about how we relate to the Old Testament. Do we stone people who are caught in adultery? Do we exert ourselves on the Sabbath? How do Christians interpret the Law of Moses? The answer is that we follow the teachings of Christ and use Him as our means of interpreting Scripture.

III. I believe in macro-evolution and do not see it as conflicting with the Scriptures. I have a non-concordist view of the first three chapters of Genesis. I do not believe that the Bible speaks about science because it does not wish to speak about science. Evolution is science and speaks of something other than what the Scripture speaks. Evolution and the Bible are neither in conflict nor contradict the other because the two speak of two separate matters. When the Bible gives the account of man’s creation it is no more giving a scientific account of that creation than it is giving an architectural account of the tabernacle when it gives the account of the construction of the Temple. Science is not the Bible’s concern anymore than its concern is architecture. The Bible is concerned with man’s relation to God and the rest of creation. Evolution is not the Bible’s concern and does not mention it. Therefore, from a scientific perspective, I believe in evolution and this belief does not conflict with my understanding of the Bible and neither lessens the value of man nor negates the role of God in man’s creation.

IV. I believe in the literal and physical return of Christ just as much as I believe in His literal and physical resurrection. However, I do not believe in a secret “rapture”. When Christ returns He shall come only once and in glory for all to see. I believe that most of the events in the book of Revelation (chapters 1 thru 19) have already occurred. In this regard I would be considered a preterist. I believe that the so-called millennial kingdom is currently underway (chapter 20). I believe that this millennial kingdom of God was inaugurated at the coming of Christ and continues to this very day with Christ enthroned at the right hand of the father. I look forward to the creation of a new heaven and a new earth at the consummation of the present age with the return of Christ (chapters 21-22).

V. I believe in the resurrection of the body and the spirit (the whole of man) at the end of the present age at the return of Christ. In the intermediate period between death and resurrection I believe that the believer is dead and in the ground and so is his spirit. I do not believe that his spirit is in heaven between death and resurrection. I look at man as a holistic being that is both physical and spiritual. I do not believe that the Bible states that we are in heaven after death. On the contrary, I believe that the Bible is very clear that after death man “sleeps” and turns back to dust from which he came. It is only at the resurrection that man will live again.

VI. I believe that “hell” awaits all those who do not have a relationship with God. I believe that at the resurrection the bodies of unbelievers will be resurrected ala Lazarus and will be judged and punished for their sins in “hell.” I do doubt whether or not the punishment involved is eternal, conscious punishment. I suspect that the punishment is the cessation of existence for the unbeliever. The unbeliever would cease to exist forever and that would be his eternal punishment. This is the annihilationist view that I have been toying with for the past two years. I have not made up my mind whether or not this view is Biblically accurate but the Scriptural evidence for this position is mounting.

VII. I believe that everyone has sinned and has fallen short of the glory of God. I believe that everyone has and will sin. But I do not believe that a person is born with a sinful nature. I believe that he has a nature in which he can choose between good and evil but because of his separation from God he inevitably chooses evil and his nature becomes sinful. A person then needs God in order to overcome the sinfulness of his nature. The idea that man inherits a sinful nature by virtue of merely being a man (a descendent of Adam) is a concept foreign to the Scriptures. This was an idea of Augustine’s that has penetrated the church’s teaching but is foreign to the Scripture’s teachings. When looking for Scriptural evidence for this concept most theologians cite Psalms 51:5: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” But, despite the fact that its poetry, the psalmist is referring in this verse to the sin of the mother. I think it’s unwise to base our entire theology of original sin on one poetic verse. Poetry by its very nature is ambiguous and highly subjective.

But let us look at Adam. He was created and was “good” according to God, yet he sinned. He sinned and his nature became sinful. He did not originally sin because he had a sinful nature; rather, he had a sinful nature because he originally sinned. He originally sinned because God gave him the ability to choose between sinning and not sinning. But subsequent to his sin, he took on a sinful nature from which he was unable to release himself. Sin becomes addictive to all and is transferred like the most communicable disease to everyone in which it comes in contact so that everyone who comes in contact with sin sins and is unable to stop sinning. Only God can save the sinner from sin. As in Adam so as in everyone else. We who come after Adam even though we did not sin in the same way as Adam also sin like Adam. We are not born with sinful natures but we catch sinful natures at birth from our sinful environment. The more sinful the environment the more sin we catch. The less sinful the environment the less sin we catch. This is why the Proverbs speak so much about raising children righteously in the fear of the Lord. When we raise children not to sin it lessens their chance of sinning. But because all people sin, no one can ever cease from sinning a part from God. There will never be a person who will not sin and who doesn’t need God. Again, we are just like Adam. We are born without sinful natures but cannot resist sin and, therefore, inherit a sinful nature. If you doubt this allow me to give you another example. Jesus is the Second Adam. He is one who was born a man and lived the life of a man but never sinned. He was not born with a sinful nature any more than Adam was. Yet, when faced with a similar temptation by the Satan, Jesus chose not to sin. It was not a lack of a sinful nature that allowed Jesus not to sin. Adam did not have a sinful nature when he first sinned. It was not that there wasn’t a possibility that Jesus could choose to sin. If there was not a possibility that Jesus could sin then the temptations were meaningless and do not reflect man’s situation. Jesus, a man without a sinful nature, succeeded where Adam, a man without a sinful nature, did not. Adam failed and received a sinful nature because he chose to act apart from God. Jesus succeeded and did not receive a sinful nature because he chose to act with God because He was God. So, just like Adam and Jesus, we are born without sinful natures. But, like Adam and unlike Christ, we sin. And, just like both Adam and Christ, we need God.



VIII. I believe in the JEDP theory of the Pentateuch. I think it is the best current solution for solving some of the anomalies of these books. Also, I believe in Deutero-Isaiah. It seems doubtful to me that Isaiah wrote this section. This section does not claim Isaiah as its author anymore than the Pentateuch claims Moses as its author. I do not believe that Daniel is primarily a historical work written by Daniel. I think the book is a hodge podge of oral tradition, invented stories and apocalypse written by two or more authors and assembled, redacted and glossed over by another author. While Christians have always put the book of Daniel among books of prophecies, the Jews have always recognized the book as among the writings like Jonah and Esther. Much of the book of Daniel is “historically” inaccurate. The writers of Daniel appear to be well aware of the historical “inaccuracies” they are making but, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, shaped their materials to reflect their theological purposes. The book of Daniel is inspired, infallible, and, as I believe, inerrant for its matter. The matter is not "the end of times" because the final authors of Daniel are concerned with the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in the year 164 BC. This is probably when the book was finally assembled. I also believe that John the apostle wrote his gospel, his apocalypse and the three letters. He probably had assistance with at least the gospel, but, perhaps, also with his apocalypse. With regards to the latter work, I believe Revelation was probably written between AD 67-68, following the time of Nero. I think Paul wrote all of the epistles traditionally attributed to him, including the Pastorals and Ephesians, but I do believe that the apostle Barnabas wrote the epistle to the Hebrews.

IX. I’ve spoken quite often about my egalitarian views. I believe that the Holy Spirit is not gender specific and that any church “office” that a man can hold can be held by a woman, including pastor. I think the Bible is undoubtedly clear on this and have given ample evidence of this in the past so I won’t go into it here.

But I do not think that homosexuality is good and approved by God. The Biblical evidence is quite clear on this and my experience witnessing to homosexuals confirms it. I strongly disagree with those who think that if we allow women pastors we will soon allow gay pastors. For obvious reasons I do not think this is a logical conclusion. Furthermore, I think it is an insult to women to suggest such a thing. Nevertheless, I do not believe that evangelical leaders are handling the issue as well as they should. The love of Christ is much more effective than legal challenges. You cannot sue the kingdom of God into place.

X. With regards to the issue of soul competency, I agree with the Mullins-Hobbs configuration of this doctrine. With the specific doctrine of the priesthood of the believers, I know many fine and wonderful professors who always correct others and say “priesthood of believers”, plural. I agree that the doctrine has an aspect of corporality about it but I do not believe that is a lack of individuality. One cannot have a corporality without individuals. The NT makes that very clear: individual parts making up a body. Yes, I see the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer as both individual and corporate. I always argue both but since the tendency among my peers is to stress the corporate and deny the individual I tend to stress the individual to argue that it’s still there.

XI. I think the NT model for the church is a plurality of elders/pastors and not a single pastor.

XII. I do not think that the flood story as recounted in Genesis is either literal or strictly historical. I do think there was a flood but I think it was probably localized and not covering the entire earth and every mountain. I think that this is a God-breathed, infallible and inerrant story written for a specific theological purpose that is true for its matter. But regardless of its historical “accurateness”, the meaning does not change for us whether or not we see it as historical or not. The same goes for Genesis 1-3 and Daniel. Furthermore, the meaning of a book of the Bible does not change if the author we suppose is different than the actual author. I think Paul wrote the pastorals, but if he didn’t it does not change its meaning or its truth. The human author does not make a book inspired, only the Holy Spirit.

XIII. I think Roman Catholics will be saved just as Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Pentecostals will be saved. While I disagree with much Roman Catholic theology, I do not think that it thoroughly prevents its adherents from a saving relationship with God. I think that the theology does hinder many, and that’s why it should be spoken against, but I do not think it hinders all. Heck, I think a lot of Southern Baptist theology hinders some from a relationship with God but I know that many Southern Baptists have a relationship with Him.

XIV. Also, I love the theology of Soren Kierkegaard and the neo-orthodox movement, particularly Reinhold Niebuhr and Emil Brunner.

XV. I am fascinated with the new perspective on Paul. I think that it has some wonderful aspects and much to offer. It certainly has answered many questions I have had about Judaism and the theology of Paul.

XVI. I believe that imbibing alcohol is Biblically sound but drunkenness isn’t. [Editorial note: the editor of Panis Circenses is not imbibing alcohol while he is in seminary.]

XVII. I believe God is bigger than anything I can comprehend. I know that I haven’t exhausted the experiences that one can have in relation to God. I am always fascinated to hear of other experiences with God. Therefore, while I certainly believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, I keep an open mind about whether or not conscious faith in Christ is required. I know that many before the time of Christ and without knowledge of Christ were saved by their faith. I currently believe that no one can reject Christ and be saved. He who has faith in God will not reject Christ because Christ is God. Regardless, as the author and psalmist of the book of Jonah wonderfully writes, salvation is of God and not man. I leave the knowledge of another’s salvation up to God and witness to all who either reject Christ or do not have fruit. I would expect other believers to do the same for me.

XVIII. I do believe that a believer can lose their salvation and abandon their relation with God. Every book of the NT, except Philemon, warns the believer to persevere lest they fall. The Parable of the Sower spoken by Jesus and parts of Hebrews and 1 and 2 Peter make this possibility quite clear.

XIX. I do not support capital punishment nor think that Christians should fight in war, but I am not at all dogmatic about this. I have quite a few friends in the military both Christian and non-Christian who I greatly love and I never mention this disagreement to them. I do not think it is a major issue.

XX. Lastly, I interpret “honoring the Sabbath” the way Jesus did. The Sabbath was given to man by God; it is for men and not for God. Jesus worked on the Sabbath when He so chose and so do I. But when Jesus did choose to rest, He took what Leonard Sweet calls “instant sabbaths”. These Sabbaths may be on Sunday or they may not. They maybe only for a few hours but they need to be taken. I think I will take one now.