Featured Fundamental View of the Bible

For the last one: All I saw was a page that said "Letters from our pastor"; can you point us to the specific section where they keep their statement of beliefs? (I looked through most of their links, and didn't find it)

As for the rest: Have you asked them individually what they think "verbal" and "plenary" means in regards to scripture?

This is the point I was trying to make: "Independent" means that each IFB church governs itself; and sets its own statement of belief for that individual church.

 

The first one makes my point, since it uses "verbal-plenary." The last one is Ruckmanite, and I don't hang around with those people. So do I really have to wade through all of that? What is your point, actually?

 

How do you come to that conclusion from the statement you quoted?

 

Click on About Us.

 

Ah. Got it. Missed the scrollbar on the right of that in-set window.

Nope, can't go with these guys; two statements that killed it for me:

and

The first statement ignores the fact that the KJV itself was translated from available manuscripts.

 

Such doctrinal statements are more common than we'd like to admit. They are just further evidence of the lack of critical thinking skills in our nation & a lack of individual thought in our churches. True Biblical discernment is sacrificed on the altar of Group Think. I'd bet money that the church members have never even opened a 1611 version, much less read one. The ignorance among such groups of Baptists is mind-boggling.

 

No argument there.

Question: "such groups of Baptists"? I assume you mean the obvious Ruckmanite types like what's exhibited on that web page?

 

Ruckmanites, extreme IFB's, & other cult-like groups.

 

Maybe its just me but after struggling through several pages I am still not sure of the underlying debate issue.

The O/P debate premise seems a complaint - Tradition vs Scripture.
Or (perhaps) a KJVO argument disguised as Tradition vs Scripture.

In either case can the O/P author give an example of a modern Tradition which overrides Scripture in the venue of the O/P premise?

One example will do, then perhaps we can go from there?

Thanks
HankD

 

Nice explanation. But it only furthers to cement my original questions to you: Why is this in the fundamental Baptist forum? Why not in the Baptist Theology & Study forum, or the Bible versions/translations forum? In what way does your explanation justify that this is a fundamental Baptist topic/issue?

Nothing in your explanation identifies why this is a fundamental Baptist issue; rather, your entire explanation revolves around translation debates.

 

Well, I don't know that a "mistranslation" comes under the umbrella of "tradition". I do know a little Greek and "only begotten" is acceptable for a translation of mongenes.

The problem is that koine is a "dead" language, that is - no one speaks it for common conversation anymore. monogenes might have had an idiomatic meaning known to the then speakers of koine and the nuance has been lost to the 21st century somewhere along the way.

So, "His uniquely begotten Son" might be a better (but more clumsy) translation indicating that the Son is begotten from eternity or in other words the relationship between the Father and the Son is one of eternal begotteness of the Son.

Not sure, it may be a way of retaining the Traditional Text within the body of the critical text but showing doubt as to its authenticity.

I think everyone would agree a least partially with this premise.
Though not everyone would want a complete overhaul to every single dogma based on a change of a nuance of a word.

What is the saying? Rome wasn't built in a day?

HankD

 

But you're wrong, Van. Your premise is based on your own words: "But only begotten is a mistranslation"; "again an accurate translation would be God loved the world in this way, that He gave...."; and "consider the bracketed parts of a modern translation". Everything in your premise is founded on the agreement that what you say are the correct translations, are actually the correct translations.

In other words, you're asking everyone to accept that you're providing a more correct translation, without ensuring that everyone agrees. You have to ensure everyone agrees that you've proffered the correct translation of those passages, not merely assume that everyone recognizes you as the expert on the subject and no further discussion is required; thus, you've made this a Translations discussion.

Until you have consensus regarding your offering of "correct translation," you can't proceed to the other questions. The rest of your argument rests solely on this premise.

Even if we come to agreement on the translation, you still haven't defined why this is a "fundamental Baptist" issue rather than a Theology & Study, or even a General Baptist Discussions topic. Granted, some independent fundamental Baptist churches have performed as you indicate; but so have some GARBC, Southern, and all other flavors of Baptists. In other words, this error you wish to discuss is not limited to only fundamental Baptists; and thus, you must indicate why you believe this is solely a "fundamental Baptist" topic for discussion.

My attempt is NOT to derail the thread; it's to put the thread in it's correct area of study.