I completely agree with you. It does indeed take a smart and persuasive man. But since you are on this thread let me ask you if you don’t mind answering, what was used to prove believers baptism, sola scriptura, lords supper all being symbolic.
Believer’s Baptism follows from the mistaken assumption that regeneration occurs by an act of faith in Christ which a baby cannot make. In addition there are no clear examples of infant baptisms and several clear examples in Scripture of believer’s baptism. They are usually unfamiliar with argument from circumcision, but they aren’t very open to the argument. If it was me, I would object that circumcision was for boys only, so why if baptism is like circumcision, are infant girls baptized. Infant girls weren’t circumcised. Kind of a diversionary tactic but it would work.
Sola scriptura is the weakest plank in their support structure my opinion. This is where I am always aiming. They have a few passages affirming the authority of God’s Word in general and Scripture specifically. They have made much of anti-traditional such as where our Lord condemned the traditions of men in speaking to the Pharisees, making the word of God of no effect. They take this as a clear application to Catholic tradition in their own time. By the fact that no tradition is thought to be acceptable, Scripture is all that is left. But the Gospel passage isn’t condemning all Scripture, only those “of men”. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they have received. This would be in the King James Bible that most Independent Baptists prefer. (2 Thess. 2:14)
I had never been taught nor do I accept the common fallacy attributed to Baptists, namely, that they somehow use a literal interpretation of Scripture only. No one uses an exclusively figurative/allegorical hermeneutic (science of interpretation), and no one uses and exclusively literal (non-figurative) hermeneutic. They certainly argue against the literal interpretation of John 6. One thing I agree with that I heard a Baptist once say is that most differences of opinion among Bible believers revolves around the question of literal vs. figurative interpretation of Scripture. They don’t believe Jesus was a door with hinges and a knob. They don’t believe that God has wings even though he gathers us under them. It is a fallacy to accuse them of being particularly literal.
But in regard to the Lord’s Supper, they argue for figurative and symbolic with regards to the eating of Christ’s Body and Blood as explained John 6. First, they will draw parallels from other places in Scripture where believing is compared to eating. “Taste and see that the Lord is good”. They don’t take that passage literally either. John 6 begins by talking about manna they begin by showing how Jesus compares the manna to Himself as the Bread of Life saying that: “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.” v. 35, v. 40 also affirms their point of view:“And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.”
You then see that it is unbelieving Jews who are disputing and gainsaying with Him even before the passage that Catholic take literally. This is important because these will be the disciples who eventually leave. Jesus warns the murmurers that they need grace…that they cannot come to him unless the Father draws them. When He finally repeats His previous instruction, except by using a metaphor (“eating and drinking” was already explained as “coming and believing”) they are further offended and leave. Clearly, the Father was not drawing them. They were proud and too haughty to teach. This explains why it would have been to no purpose for our Lord to pursue them and explain that it was only a metaphor. And later, for the disciples, He explicitly teaches them this was metaphorical when He says, “the words that I speak are spirit”.
This is not good exegesis. Nowhere else in Scripture do we see the word spirit mean “spiritualizing” Scripture as they interpret it here. But it is a satisfying icing on the cake after the whole passage has been carefully analyzed.
Also, even though you as a Pastor can prove all this wouldn’t anyone in the congregation, maybe even a visitor such as myself wonder why he is told to believe in the bible literally and then presented a passage and told that it wasn’t meant literally? Or do people just not question these kinds of things?
As I said Matt, nobody is ever told to believe all of the Bible literally. But everybody is on a journey. I preached John 6 one Sunday night just about like I explained it up above, and my own wife didn’t buy it! This was about four years before I left the ministry (to visit other churches) and probably seven before we finally became Catholic.
The congregations accept some common assumptions but I got all kinds of questions, and challenges. Probably in part because I was pretty young. I had one guy, who after my conversion to Catholicism was more accepting than almost anyone else. But he would raise his hand with this sly grin and ask some question every adult Sunday School and he irritated me. I think he enjoyed discomfiting me. But it was good. He eventually came to respect me and always thanked me for one particular study that we did that he really felt blessed about. That whole church to my knowledge has moved on into different directions. Several of us became Catholic. Most of them went a Calvinist route that is much closer in many ways to our own views, especially of the Old Testament and our relation to the promises given to Israel. Maybe our church was unique in that respect. Some pastors assuredly have more authority than others. I remember being accused in college of thinking I knew more than Brother______, the Pastor. Most congregations are probably somewhere between these two extremes.
Lastly, I understand that most of them aren’t familiar with their history because I was told their religion came from the bible. Do you know what their opinions are on being such a new religion following a new teaching? I am very much aware that they disregard historical fact due to not being biblical, but wouldn’t at least some question this or does it just not matter to them because they think as long as a religion follows the bible, it could of have been created yesterday?
Its is good to get them into history, but they are satisfied to understand that there HAD to be a surviving remnant that believed as they did to pass the true faith, as they see it, down through time. Independent Baptists usually for that reason don’t appreciate being identified as Protestant. They don’t necessarily agree that they emerged from the Calvinist. Lutheran, or Zwinglian branches of Christianity.
I’ll share a quick story. It was sometime in the early 80’s. Brother _______ got hot in the pulpit one Sunday night because college students were complaing about Church History class. They objected be cause Professor ___________ kept talking about the Church Fathers and we would read them and see they weren’t like us. They were bishops mostly and seemed to be sacerdotal and we just didn’t connect with them. Brother _________ promised that the next semester would be different. The class would be about “our bunch”: Soul winning, blood bought, pre-millenial, Bible believing Baptists of the last 1,950 years.
I took the class the following semester. Long story short…it was disappointing. One more outspoken student raised his hand about half way through the semester and asked about what Brother __________ had promised and why we weren’t hearing about “our bunch”. Poor Professor __________. He was really under the gun. He threw up his hands and admitted, “I can’t. It isn’t there.”
That didn’t leave me with an immediate impact. Most deep and abiding lessons don’t necessarily have immediate effect. But I never forgot it. And who knows, maybe Professor _________'s straightforward candor in that class will be the glass of water he gave this wayfarer that will have been his salvation. I sure hope so, God bless him.
Rory
I love when I read words such as these. 