Featured Fundamental View of the Bible

Hi John of Japan, you will pardon me if I doubt you will discuss the topic, we are on page three and you are still posting diversions. While you are googling to find the source of my last statement of faith concerning scripture, you might what to do some research on "common usage." Otherwise, one might conclude you make charges from ignorance.

http://www.fbfi.org/constitution-aboutus-84 Article III, section 1.

 

Many have asked who should post here and the answer is, “Anyone who will not deny the truths of the Word of God.” For example, we may disagree on the various interpretations of Scripture; but we will not be allowed to deny or question a clearly revealed truth. (Creation, virgin birth, salvation by grace, Old & New Testament miracles, etc…)

Hi Don, it seems you like to ask questions with hidden motives, i.e. to debunk a position without actually taking a position.

Folks, scripture alone is a well known Baptist doctrine, fundamental to our faith, yet it seems at least two know-it-alls think the topic is off limits. Strange behavior considering the importance of the doctrine.

 

Yet another charge but devoid of content. The statement contained an explanation, and so the charge seems simply to be a generalization. Any explanation can be said to be flawed.

 

Yet another off topic post by JOJ, questioning my behavior in order to derail the thread.

Scripture alone is sound doctrine, but scripture as revised by tradition is unsound.

Scripture was written in the common language of people, so to be consistent, translations should avoid archaic words that are "traditional" but are not in common usage today.

 

LOL, JOJ just avoided any actual discussion. nuff said

And note the slander,i.e Van considers JOJ ignorant." No quote will be forthcoming.

 

Yet another name calling, off topic post. Folks, Scripture alone is an important doctrine, what are these adherants to tradition afraid of?

The only poor behavior displayed on this thread are in the off topic posts.

Mandym, is the critical text the inspired text, were the additions of "helpful" copyists also inspired?

 

This thread is properly located, exploring the need to accept the plain truths of scripture and rejecting the traditions of men. Such a view is baptist fundamentalism at its finest.

 

The Scripture: We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone as verbally, plenarily inspired of God, without error in the original writings and the sole authority of faith and practice, providentially preserved as God’s eternal Word (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; 1 Pet. 1:23 (b)-25). We believe in a dispensational understanding of the Bible based on the progressive unfolding of the divine mysteries from God, which result in distinguishable stewardships of God’s truth (Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 1:10; 1 Cor. 10:31).

1. God speaks to us, not only through the Old Testament Prophets, but also through His Son, and through Him all things were made. The word of the Prophets made more certain, as the light shinning on a dark place. Hebrews 1:1-2, 2 Peter 1:20-21.

2.Study God’s inspired word such that you can apply it correctly to yourself and present its truth to others of the faith. Scripture is able to make you wise, for salvation through faith in Christ, and equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 2:15, 3:15-17.

3. The Word of God stands forever. 1 Peter 1:23-25

4. God revealed the mystery of Christ over time and thus God's Word teaches of differing dispensations before and after Christ came to earth and inaugurated the New Covenant in His blood. Ephesians 1:9-10

In summary, the New Testament trumps the Old Testament in all matters of faith and practice, anything in the Old Testament not specifically endorsed in the New Testament functions as a tutor to lead us to Christ, but does not govern faith or practice in the current dispensation.

 

Thanks Phillip, and furthermore, the topic is the fundamental view of scripture alone, biblilogy rather than translation.

Today, we have folks who slice and dice scripture such that it fits with the traditions of men.

We have lip service to trusting the Bible alone for faith and practice, but then put their trust in a particular translation, rather than the critical text. So the real doctrine is scripture as understood by men in the past.

We have the "you must be wrong because the pre-computer search engine scholars of the past did not agree with you."

Truth matters.

 

a. The Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God.
b. The Bible is the only rule of faith and practice (rules out experience).
c. Human reason and knowledge must be subject to the Scriptures.
d. There is no divine revelation beyond Scripture.

Lets examine these assertions.

a. Does the bible say it is infallible and inerrant? It sure says it is inspired and profitable for instruction. Now if our understanding of inspiration is that God's message was correctly put into words by the inspired authors, then for sure the message is infallible and inerrant!
But do we have to also believe the spelling, grammar and math was perfect? Is it valid to believe in the original autographs, what was written by either the author himself or by his scribe was perfect, even in spelling, grammar, and math and all the difficulties in these areas came as a result of subsequent transmission corruption? When we compare the Dead Sea scrolls with the copies 1000 years later, we find differences in spelling but no doctrinal differences. From this can we teach as doctrine that what we have in the critical text is infallible and inerrant, or must we include the caveat, "in the original autographs?"

b. Is the Old Covenant still valid for faith and practice, or should we say the New Covenant is the sole authority for faith and practice?

c. Should we accept a nonsensical view of the Bible over a view that makes (to us) more sense. If we back up and say the intended messages of the Bible are true, and thus truth overrules mistaken conclusions based on reason and knowledge, we are on firm ground. So the Bible, rightly understood, overrules differing messages from human reason and knowledge.

d. Is there no divine revelation in what God has made, i.e. general revelation vice special revelation? Cannot God help us understand truth through the agency of our indwelt Holy Spirit, Paul's "mind of God?" What is true is that no additional revelation can be added to the existing revelation in scripture, thus there are no modern day prophets who give new revelation to others.