Fundamental View of the Bible

[Don]

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

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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

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?

 

[Van]

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 believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, as it is in truth, the Word of God... (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God's preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.

As I said, this is not fundamental Baptist doctrine, scripture alone, but does endorse scripture as understood by men in the past, i.e. tradition over scripture.

 

[Don]

As I said, this is not fundamental Baptist doctrine, scripture alone, but does endorse scripture as understood by men in the past, i.e. tradition over scripture.

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

 

[michael-acts17:11]

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.

Click on About Us.

 

[Don]

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:

Since no one living today holds or has ever seen the original autographs, the "Bible" we believe in is the one that is available to man today, the King James 1611 Authorized Version. Therein, God has preserved the "Holy Bible", "The Scriptures", "The word of God", for the last period of the church age. It is inerrant, infallible, every word as it is written. Not only is this Authorized Version superior to all other versions, and translations, but it is superior to any Greek text in existence.

and

That only those foreign translations made from the King James 1611 Authorized Version or from the Textus Receptus Greek Text shall be considered reliable, the final authority shall be the Authorized KJV 1611.

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

 

[Van]

Pitchback

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

Do you have anything to say concerning the topic??

 

[Van]

How many of these statements of faith concerning scripture had adequate explanations of the Barthian view of inspiration? Zip. But that was the flaw of the OP statement. How many of these had an adequate explanation of verbally and plenary. Does the use of such terms say the TR is without corruption, i.e. all those added parts according to the critical text, were actually the inspired words of God written by the original writer? Or do we have lip service to scripture alone, but devotion to the traditions of men?

 

[michael-acts17:11]

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.

 

[Don]

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?

 

[michael-acts17:11]

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.

 

[Van]

If the original autographs were "verbally" inspired, does that mean the Holy Spirit provided the thought, but the words to clothe the thought were supplied by the human author? Or is the idea that the Holy Spirit supplied both the thought and the very words to clothe the idea?

Do folks who advocate for a literal word for word translation say if it was good enought for the Holy Spirit, it is good enough for me?

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

What does it mean to say scripture is "plenarily inspired." Does this really mean the author's were compelled to record the entire message, they did not leave anything out, and that the critical text, we believe, is the sum total of the inspired writings, or does this view allow for the possiblity of discovering additional writings of the inspired authors?

 

[HankD]

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

 

[Van]

Thanks HankD, sorry but I had to address off topic posts calculated to "debunk" the thread.

Scripture alone is an oft stated doctrine, and is explained historically as Luther challenging the man-made doctrines of Catholic tradition. But like a dog returning to its vomit, it seems modern day believers cling to tradition even when to do so requires nullifying scripture.

Lets put John 3:16 up for analysis. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Now the foregoing version is from my memory, learned about 50 years ago. But only begotten is a mistranslation, one of a kind is the correct translation. Or how about God so loved the world seeming to mean God loved the world so much, when again an accurate translation would be God loved the world in this way, that He gave....

Next, consider the bracketed parts of a modern translation. Why are they included? Is this an example of clinging to tradition over scripture alone?

Contrary to those who would derail the thread, the subject was the need to revisit the doctrines of the past and make sure we both understand what they are really saying, and two, we can actually support those positions from scripture. Too often we see doctrine supported by an argument from silence, rather than an explicit statement. For example, you can make a pretty good case for the original autographs of scripture to be inerrant, but to claim more than that seems to be adding man-made doctrine to scripture.

What say you?

 

[Don]

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.

 

[Van]

Hi Don, your original two questions were for the purpose to "debunk" the thread. I have explained why this thread is on the fundamental baptist forum and that the topic does not revolve around translations.

Contrary to those who would derail the thread, the subject was the need to revisit the doctrines of the past and make sure we both understand what they are really saying, and two, we can actually support those positions from scripture.

 

[HankD]

Thanks HankD, sorry but I had to address off topic posts calculated to "debunk" the thread.

Scripture alone is an oft stated doctrine, and is explained historically as Luther challenging the man-made doctrines of Catholic tradition. But like a dog returning to its vomit, it seems modern day believers cling to tradition even when to do so requires nullifying scripture.

Lets put John 3:16 up for analysis. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Now the foregoing version is from my memory, learned about 50 years ago. But only begotten is a mistranslation, one of a kind is the correct translation. Or how about God so loved the world seeming to mean God loved the world so much, when again an accurate translation would be God loved the world in this way, that He gave....

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.

Next, consider the bracketed parts of a modern translation. Why are they included? Is this an example of clinging to tradition over scripture alone?

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.

Contrary to those who would derail the thread, the subject was the need to revisit the doctrines of the past and make sure we both understand what they are really saying, and two, we can actually support those positions from scripture. Too often we see doctrine supported by an argument from silence, rather than an explicit statement. For example, you can make a pretty good case for the original autographs of scripture to be inerrant, but to claim more than that seems to be adding man-made doctrine to scripture.

What say you?

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

 

[Don]

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.