Fundamental Baptist View of Scripture

Two verses immediately come to my mind:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)

That the man of God may be perfect , thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:17)

All that I am to be as a Christian I can know by the word of God! I don't need another man, woman, or child to tell me! I have His word and the Holy Spirit to lead the way!

Julia

 

God's Word is complete. There is no need to add to or take anything from it. Not to mention that we are expressly forbidden to do so!

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book;
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the tree of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Revelations 22:18,19


Sue

 

Another verse is Ephesians 2:20 "...built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone."

The foundation of the apostles and prophets has been preserved and passed on to us in complete form through the scriptures. The traditions that the RCC adds to that body of truth are not apostolic. They are later additions.

 

I would add that Jesus said many times "It it written" appealing to the scripture as final authority.

Also: Mark 7:
10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

This is one issue I have been seriously contemplating recently, so I'm glad you brought it up. I look forward to thinking about all the responses.

Certainly, scripture is authoritative, "God-breathed". But how do we know what books are to be considered scripture in the first place? By what "authority" should we believe Jude, or Hebrews, or Revelation, or 2 Corinthians is scripture? I believe they *are* scripture, but nowhere does scripture tell me they are, nowhere does scripture layout what books are authoritative. Is it not "Church teaching and tradition" that determined and maintains this?

 

Sue,

I know some people who claim that this refers to the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible, which at that time, had yet to be assembled. Just another case in point on how the same writings can be viewed to mean totally, and mutually exclusive, things.

 

of course, we have this verse to deal with....

2Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

And ones like this also:

I like verse 5 especially! It puts it all into perspective.

Dave

 

Levels of Inerrancy:

*note 1 - only levels 1-12 are "inerrant".
Levels 0, -1, -2, and -3 are included
for completeleness (some folk don't believe
in inerrancy)

*note 2 - one of the fundamentals of
Fundamentalism is Inerrancy

-3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid
-2 The Bible has major errors
so is only marginally useful
-1 the Bible has minor errors and should
be used with caution
0 The Bible has minor errors but is still useful
1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues
2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues:
doctrinal, historic, and scientific
3 The Bible is inerrant in the origional autographs
4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR)
5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611
(exclusive of translator notes)
6 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611
(including the translator notes)
7 The Bible is inerrant only in the
KJB1769 and/or KJB1873
8 The Bible is inerrant in any English
translation based on the TR
9 The Bible is inerrant in any
English translation translated
by dynamic qeuivalence
10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations
11 the Bible is inerrant as implemented
in the Doctrine of the Church of England
12 The Bible is inerrant as
implemented in the US Republican
Party platform

How inerrant do you believe the Bible
to be? I give it an inerrancy of TEN!!!

 

Bump.

Any more thoughts? I was hoping this thread would be busier.

 

Psa 119:41 Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word. 42 So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Psa 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.

Reading through the entire chapter will convince anyone with a receptive heart, and the entire Bible will convince no one without that receptive heart.

 

I always liked the quote:
"If you see a problem with the Bible, the problem is with you."
I dont understand how people with a finite mind tries to tell the Almighty God that His Book, yes the infalable, Yes the inerrant Word of God, and infinite Word of God, is wrong. I could never understand that. If those who would just study it longer, and stop trying to be a Stinkin Pharisee with the Scriptures maybe thier love life with Jesus Would Increase. You may think I am angry, and yes I am and Christ would be too. With all these differnt "per"versions comming out, why not make a supplement to the Fake Bibles, they are only tring to fill the void missing in thier own.

 

This thread is about "sola scriptura", not "sola KJV".

I find this thread very interesting. Many posts have provided scriptural evidence for the authority of scripture. But that's not what "sola scriptura" is about. Those who are against "sola scriptura" also believe scripture is authoritative. "Sola scriptura" is about scripture being the ONLY ("sola") authoritative source for Christian faith and practice. As far as I can tell, there are no responses on this thread yet that defend the "sola" part of sola scriptura.

 

I don't disagree with anyone here...I want to say that right from the get go.

But how do you explain the "tweaking" of the content of the Bible by Emperor Constantine?

 

That is not totally true. Some of the NT authors' writings were referred to as Scripture. If you want, I can get the references for you. Plus, God is over all men. He may have used a council or whatever to signify what books are in Scripture, but that by no means made those books become Scripture. They already were. No authority lies outside of God, and when we discuss issues we seem to divorce God from the equation. No group of men determined Scripture. They may have recognized it because of God's leading, but it would still be Scripture nonetheless without their recognition. No church, council, or whatever determined Scripture. They have no authority in and of themselves. All authority is ultimately in and from God.

In the Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

Yes, and this verse is written by an apostle, Paul. So the church was to obey what he had taught them, whether it was taught by his spoken word, or in the previous letter he had written.

Since we do not have a living apostle to speak to us today, the traditions the apostles taught have been recorded in scripture and only in scripture. Therefore, the scriptures, and the scriptures alone are our rule for faith and practice.

 

That is not totally true. Some of the NT authors' writings were referred to as Scripture. If you want, I can get the references for you.
</font>[/QUOTE]I have them, thanks. But my comment is still true: nowhere does scripture give us a list of what books are scripture.

You say some NT authors writings are referred to as scripture (I assume you mean by other NT authors) - let's say Book X says Book Y is scripture. That means Book Y is scripture *only if Book X is correct*. Who says Book X is scripture in the first place?

Yes, they were. A book does not become scripture by someone's decision (as you have said), but that book is still scripture even if they missed including it. But how do we know the council made the right decisions, canonizing all the scriptures (not missing any) and not including non-scriptures by mistake?

 

How do you know this? Why can't traditions be handed down orally? What's to prevent the Holy Spirit from continuing to guide the church into truth after the last NT book was penned?

Which ones? How do you know Revelation or James or 2 Corinthians is scripture? (I agree that they are, I'm just asking by what "authority" *you* claim they are).

 

God. No man needs to "say" they are Scripture.

I know it is not an answer you want, but I trust in God's sovereignty. If everything could be explained by men and understood by men, why would we need God? I see God's hand at work through history. I see Him at work, not a group of men. Everything is His and for His glory.

All Praise, Honor, and Glory to God Almighty,
Neal