-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Fundamental View of the Bible
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
- Status
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.
http://www.fbfi.org/constitution-aboutus-84 Article III, section 1.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
The OP's statement was, " It does not merely contain the Word of God, as if it contained the erroneous words of men mingled with the perfect words of God." The phrase "contains the Word of God" is usually understood to refer to the Neo-Orthodox, or theological existentialism, doctrine of inspiration. According to that doctrine, the Bible is not the "erroneous words of men mingled with the perfect words of God," but the Bible becomes the Word of God existentially as it speaks to the heart of the reader. Therefore I said that the OP's statement was flawed.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are a very patient person.
So Van doubts if I will discuss the topic. (Actually, I was looking forward to it since I love the topic of inspiration.) And he considers me to be ignorant of the subject, and calls Don and me "know-it-alls". The only possible conclusion from his contentiousness is that he is not here to discuss but to teach--but not Don and me since he has such a low opinion of us.
Sorry, Van, but I have no desire to learn about inspiration from you, considering the wonderful teachers I've had on the subject, including my father, my grandfather (who wrote a scholarly book on the subject), and my many Bible college and seminary profs. Sayonara!
Thanks, but I'm afraid I just lost my patience in the post after yours. :laugh:
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.
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.
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?
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?
MODERATORS - Please move this thread to the Bible Versions/Translations section, where it can be discussed in the proper venue.
See, Van? Not trying to evade discussion; simply putting the discussion in its proper location.
BTW: Never heard of the FBFI before. I'm currently away from home, but will re-look at that website when I get a chance.
See, Van? Not trying to evade discussion; simply putting the discussion in its proper location.
BTW: Never heard of the FBFI before. I'm currently away from home, but will re-look at that website when I get a chance.
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.
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.
Correct site
I am not a moderator of this particular subject "Fundamental Baptist Forum"; but, I think the subject is close enough for this section because it is related strictly to the translations of Bibles by a particular section of the Baptist group (the IFB churches) and might not be found if somebody tried to find it in the "translations" subject.
I am not a moderator of this particular subject "Fundamental Baptist Forum"; but, I think the subject is close enough for this section because it is related strictly to the translations of Bibles by a particular section of the Baptist group (the IFB churches) and might not be found if somebody tried to find it in the "translations" subject.
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.
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.
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.
You obviously haven't visited very many IFB's in my area. Here are the statements of faith for a few with which I am personally familiar. This is such a small sampling because many IFB's are too small & "old-fashioned" to have a website. The last one is a very interesting read:
http://www.glbcmalvern.com/our-doctrinal-statement.html
http://www.heritagebaptisttemple.org/faith.htm
http://www.libertyfortheworld.org/doctrine1.html
http://www.tbcaltus.com/menu/id/36/Statement of Faith
http://www.hopebaptistlittlerock.com/?file=kop11.php
http://www.kingjamesbiblebaptistchurch.org/index.html
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status