Featured Fundamental View of the Bible

Van, what was my very first response to you? It was asking why you placed this thread in the fundamental baptist section. Has that changed in 8 pages?

You've incorrectly assumed that the term "debunk," used on page 2, was in reference to somehow proving you wrong. I say incorrectly because the context in which the word was used was in regards to the relationship of the opening post to this particular forum (i.e., your OP indicated a set of statements attributed to independent fundamental baptists; which JoJ found, and you admitted, actually belonged to a group not associated with fundamental baptists). In other words, it appeared--and still does--that your intent was not to discuss something about fundamental baptists, but to discuss your personal understanding of scripture--something you basically admitted when you were shown where the statements in your OP came from a non-IFB source, and you subsequently posted that you should have paid closer attention to that. You identified in that admission that your motivation for starting this thread had nothing to do with fundamental baptists, but with how people translate, view, and/or understand scripture.

At this point, this thread is still about themes beyond just fundamental baptists; yet you continue to argue about me having some motive other than what I've consistently expressed since the beginning of the thread.

Instead of opening this subject to others in a more appropriate section, you continue to argue it here. Is there a particular reason why you won't take it to those sections? Do you prefer a much less visited area, offering fewer opposing viewpoints, thereby giving the appearance that your opinions/views are unopposed? Do you not want your viewpoints to withstand the maximum amount of testing possible?

 

From post #23:

I point you to a "rule" found further down in the Forum rules post:

So far, your conversation for the last 8 pages has not addressed fundamentalism, but has extensively questioned translations (i.e., traditional view vs. modern view). You have yet to show that your topic is a fundamental Baptist issue.

Incorrect; see posts 41 and 46.

My purpose was not to discuss the topic in this forum; and not to derail it, but to have it moved to an appropriate forum. You can keep re-writing my words any way that makes you feel better, but that's the position I've been maintaining since page 1.

Now, you still have yet to explain why the fundamental baptist forum? Why *not* the Theology & Study forum, or the Translations forum? It's a simple question; the assumption for placing it in this forum is usually that you see more of a problem with this subject with fundamental Baptists than with any other group; or, alternatively, that fundamental Baptists are "better" at it than other types of Baptists or other denominations. If that's your answer -- that's all you had to say after post #2 of this thread.

Instead of answering the question, you chose to go on the attack and complain about people derailing the thread. Then, when shown that your original post contained erroneous information, you had to search out a statement from a fundamental Baptist group -- which, in reality, only proved exactly what I've been saying: That this is not a fundamental Baptist issue, but an issue that pertains to all Baptists, and all Christians, and therefore should be moved to a more appropriate forum.

As I said before, I'll be happy to discuss in the Translations or the Theology & Study forums if I see it there. I'm ending my association with this thread.

 

OK this is a new vein of discussion and I for one appreciate it and look forward (with qualifications) to it.

However I believe it could be, but not should be, a discussion under the umbrella of "Fundamentalism". I suppose the moderators should decide.

One thing Van is your confrontational approach IMO is not conducive to an edifying discussion which is what I believe we all need concerning this very topic. IMO that is why you are largely ignored and even mocked and scorned (you as well as others).

There is IMO an underlying scripture based upon this question you have just raised (and the previous one concerning monogenes).

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

Long after the acknowledged historic completion of the scripture the church was at war with error with an intense battle for the first 300 years.​

Granted, every dogmatic resolution after the completion of scripture after the last apostle penned the last word and went on to his reward would have to come under the umbrella of "tradition" - or would it?​

i.e. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation vs Symbolism.​

Later (much later) in history there are disputes such as Infralapsarianism, vs Supralapsariansm, Futurism vs preterism, etc, etc, etc...​

(NOTE:These are JUST examples among a myriad of others and not to be anwered in particular in this thread).

At one time in the past these doctrine were part and parcel of the then "Fundamentalism".​

So - Does 1 Timothy 3:15 have any thing to say today to Fundamentalism?​

As to a partial answer to your question concerning the scripture - the New Testament canon of scripture was not officially acknowledged until AD367 by Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria (Also the champion of Trinitarian Doctrine) later to be acknowledged/Decreed by the Council of Chalcedon in AD451.Paraphrase: Christianity Though the Centuries, Earle E. Cairns; page 128.​

Obviously a decree supported only by church tradition.​

Now refecting back upon the 1 Timothy 3:15 passage.
Does this passage have any value to us today?​

And if so where is this "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"?​

And if so was Athanasius and/or the Council of Chalcedon part of it?​

After all without these historical facts (Athanasius witness, Chalcedon Decree) we can legitimately ask the question "how do we know that the 27 books of the New Testament are actually the Word of God?"​

Also some church "traditions" vary in the number and validity of the number of the books of the Bible with even the 1611 KJV publication inclusion of the Apocrypha between the testaments.​

I think I can safely predict that if this post is allowed to continue then it will devolve into quarrels and shouting matches about detals i.e. "THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL CHURCH!", "THE CONCIL OF CHALCEDON WAS CORRUPT", etc, etc...​

I believe folks have some kind of intuitive feeling that being loud, assertive, insulting and obnoxious with their responses is somehow spiritual and authoritative but in reality everyone goes away having not been edified but instead licking their wounds, after virtually cursing each other.​

I am willing to engage with a calm non-judgmental disussion with you about this but I will not quarrel or even start that kind of discusion.​

One big problem is that I am going on vacation this week and 1) will be at the behest of others as to where I go and what I do and 2) I won't have most of my literary resources with me (apart from my Bible) should that beome necessary.​

At very least can you give me your assessment of 1 Timothy 3:15 as well as your answers to my questions concerning this verse (or at least an attempt)?​

Thanks brother
HankD​

 

Then that would mean that the Spirit of God was active in the ecclesiology of the church in post-apostolic days into the times of the "Apostolic Church Fathers (such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius who were 'disciples' of certain of the apostles)".

Many would dispute this, but then where did we/they get the authority to enumerate the inspired books? This also brings up many other questions unasked or ignored today concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit in the contemporary church.

Personally I would be of the Traditional School (in support of the Antioch/Byzantine or TR Based text) but you proabably already guessed that point. I am not KJVO but Traditional Text prefered though I do use modern translations based upon the Critical Text where folks are at home with it.

I am in agreement. Verbal Plenary Inspiration can also be explained and illustrated without using the theologically significant words. Theology is a science as is medicine. The layman can learn from the wise doctor without the theological "gibberish" which is of great value to the doctor but not necessarily the "pew warmer".

Agreed. Leading to this question - How is a "true" 1 Timothy 3:15 church identified?

The Church of Rome claims an iron-clad identification.

HankD

 

A I Timothy 3:15 Assembly--

Would have all of these marks:

1. Indwelled by The Spirit, The Holy

2. Born again membership

3. Practice closed communion

4. Accept no alien baptism/pedobaptism

5. No connection with Rome

6. No affiliation with the daughters of Rome

There are two kinds of churches: those founded by Jesus extending from the first one gathered from the shores of Galilee and still indwelled by The Spirit, The Holy since Pentecost; and those started by men/women--without The Spirit The Holy--going back to before Constantine, the great one. The distinction is readily apparent using the above paradigm.

There are also some which have had their candlestick(The Spirit, The Holy removed. See Rev. 2 and 3, the seven churches of Asia.

The trail is bloody; Jesus has preserved His Bride in every generation--just like He promised: "I will never leave you nor forsake you." Jesus is faithful--even when we are not.

"Why do you call Me Lord and do not what I say?"

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,
Bro. James

 

I agree that the UBS4 and NA27 are much better texts than the TR, but did you mean to include "archaic" words. I think all the Greek words are "archaic."

 

refers to the ORIGINALS only, as they were the revelation inspired by God!

the greek texts of today are "essentially" the original manuscripts, so can be trusted and seen as being infallible in all they teach and describe!

 

Don't forget the NKJV. It doesn't have those archaic words but used the TR.

 

The Revision Version and the American Standard Version both use archaic language.

Absolutely. I am one of them. But that has nothing to do either with the text nor with archaic language.

You speak of what you do not know. There are many of us who prefer the T.R. who also prefer modern language. The success of the NKJV proves that.

Possibly so, but that has nothing to do with a preference for the T.R.

The 1689 Baptist Confession states (1:8): 'The Scriptures are therefore to be translated into the ordinary language of every nation into which they come.' I thoroughly agree with this. However, many of us believe that the Byzantine Text type is more likely to reflect the original than the Critical Text.

I would further add that in Bible translation there is no need to pander to the most ignorant and least literate. 'Propitiation' is the best translation of hilasterion and the ESV translators agree. If necessary, a glossary can be included at the back of the Bible.

Steve

 

Actually, words can only be archaic in their own language, i.e. koine Greek to modern Greek. So no, words in the TR are not archaic. They are completely consistent with 1st century AD Greek documents, just as are any Alexandrian manuscripts. But I realize you were just feeding off Van's ignorance. (And he insinuated I was ignorant early in this thread. :tongue3

However, "archaic Form or use of a form which is obsolete or belongs recognizbly to an older stage of a language: e.g. the syntax of
God Save the Queen! or the use of words like hereafter in legal documents" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, ed. by P. H. Matthews, p. 25).

And I strongly disagree that the Critical Text is "much better" than the TR. Are you familiar at all with Ernst Colwell's or Maurice Robinson's work? Mainline textual critics are starting to agree with these men that the "shorter is better" canon must go. In which case the whole critical text, eclectic method is up in the air, and the Byzantine text type is closer to the originals than the Alexandrian or Western text types on which the eclectics base the UBS/Nestle-Aland texts.

 

Actually, the Traditional Text (sometimes referred to as the TR - Textus Receptus, of which there are variants - Stephanus, Beza, etc) is a kind of Greek collation compiled from Byzantine type manuscript copies of the originals and has no "thees" or "thous" as these words are 1611 English translation words.

"Scripture Alone" depends not only on preservation of the original language text as accurate but must include IMO a reference to transmission of the those text as well. Historically there has been a dispute between the crtical text type (Alexandrian based - Wescott, Hort) and the Traditional typt text type (Byzantine - Burgon) as to which is more faithful to the original manuscript(s).

Obviously this aqccuracy cannot be determined without question as the original manuscript(s) no longer exist on planet earth (as far as we know).

On preliminary perusal your definition of verbal plenary inspiration is workable but still lacks some definition concerning the transmission through scribal copies of these texts.

My time is limited and will try again later to respond Van but I won't be back from vacation until Sunday-Monday.

Also the thread has entered into a confrontational mode and in all probability nothing will be gained and in fact the overall result will no doubt become counter-productive.

Thanks
HankD