Important first questions

[tyndale1946]

Now be honest, Hank.

Was that really worse than the tar and feathering you got last year?

Yeah... There are moderators... Then there's this guy!.. Ummm... You know I love you Jon!... Hank took last year, I guess this year is mine?... Brother Glen

 

[FreeBaptist]

Not really. The first two are basic Baptist beliefs. The last three are covered in the forum rules.



We don't do mind melds, so I guess you could hide it. People here believe in the Bible. It's a fundamental characteristic of being Baptist.

We don't deny all errors in transcription. You can see my post about that here:

The Seven Days of Creation

But no, you can't say that Paul wasn't inspired by God and therefore LGBT is ok.

You aren't allowed to deny the inspiration of Judges because it gets too gruesome.

You can't say the Exodus account is fictional and completely made up.

You can't say that the Bible was corrupted and the Quran is likely the true book.

etc., etc., etc.

Liberal Theologians do his all the time. They really don't believe in any of it and they feign belief in order to sell books and make money as professors, pastors, and administrators.

Liberal Theologians are worse than atheists.

There are eight Baptist distinctives, and inerrancy of scripture is not one of them. Also, denying scriptural inerrancy is not a liberal position. It is merely refusing to attribute to an inspired book a characteristic that should be applied to God only. Fundamentalists do to a book what Romanists do to a man. Both are wrong.

I mostly agree with your last statement about liberal theologians. And I mostly feel the same way about fundamentalist theologians. I am conservative, or maybe moderately conservative, but not fundamentalist.

So, yes, I certainly believe in the inspiration of scripture. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a Christian. But I shall not make the Bible an idol by deifying it, applying terms to it which should be reserved for God only. That is blasphemous. And it is certainly not a Baptist distinctive.

 

[FreeBaptist]

Hi FB,

1) Does the forum affirm soul liberty, or our capacity and ability to choose to trust in Christ or not? No, many here affirm "total spiritual inability." The Calvinist "baptists."

2) Yes, the asking of questions designed to entrap is done here. I was asked a question, and I answered it. I was then banned for 30 days. The person who asked the question was not banned for introducing the subject.

3) I am convinced that our current moderators and admins are fair, kind, and honest. No need to fear mistreatment.

Thank you for your response. Your point number 2 is what gave me concern. The lady that introduced me to this forum told me about this. She even gave me three usernames to watch out for. And I certainly shall. This is not Christlike behavior, more like the Pharisees and scribes.

 

[FreeBaptist]

Yeah, Soul Liberty.

It's one of the Baptist Distinctives if you didn't already know.

And one of the main reasons I'm Baptist. Seems like a lot of Baptists these days don't believe in it any more.

 

[JonC]

There are eight Baptist distinctives, and inerrancy of scripture is not one of them. Also, denying scriptural inerrancy is not a liberal position. It is merely refusing to attribute to an inspired book a characteristic that should be applied to God only. Fundamentalists do to a book what Romanists do to a man. Both are wrong.

I mostly agree with your last statement about liberal theologians. And I mostly feel the same way about fundamentalist theologians. I am conservative, or maybe moderately conservative, but not fundamentalist.

So, yes, I certainly believe in the inspiration of scripture. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a Christian. But I shall not make the Bible an idol by deifying it, applying terms to it which should be reserved for God only. That is blasphemous. And it is certainly not a Baptist distinctive.

How do you know about what does and does not describe God?

Many point to Scripture. The problem, of course, is that if Scripture is not inerrant then the crux of our faith is ourselves as we shuffle through errant stories to know about God.

 

[FreeBaptist]

How do you know about what does and does not describe God?

Many point to Scripture. The problem, of course, is that if Scripture is not inerrant then the crux of our faith is ourselves as we shuffle through errant stories to know about God.

Do you believe that God makes errors? I don't. But humans make them, even God-inspired humans. That's why I will not deify inspired books or humans who write them. Neither the book nor the human is God. Neither are inerrant, not the Bible and not the pope.

 

[JonC]

Do you believe that God makes errors? I don't. But humans make them, even God-inspired humans. That's why I will not deify inspired books or humans who write them. Neither the book nor the human is God. Neither are inerrant, not the Bible and not the pope.

Scripture is God's revelation of Himself to man. If Scripture contains errors then yes, God does make errors.

Personally, I believe Scripture does not contain errors because God does not make errors.

But the man who can read Scripture as if they are a mixture of truth and error is a man who worships a god who looks more like himself than he probably realizes.

That is why I asked how you know about God. If it is through erroneous Scripture then what you know about God may or may not be factual.

There are interesting conversations which could be had with those who reject Scripture as inerrant. That said, it is liberal theology.

 

[HankD]

Now be honest, Hank.

Was that really worse than the tar and feathering you got last year?

Uh, my memory isn't what it used to be - don't remember

 

[HankD]

And one of the main reasons I'm Baptist. Seems like a lot of Baptists these days don't believe in it any more.

For We the Baptists it does have its limitations.

Like if we derailed on one of the other distinctives we would be in trouble.

 

[FreeBaptist]

Scripture is God's revelation of Himself to man. If Scripture contains errors then yes, God does make errors.

Personally, I believe Scripture does not contain errors because God does not make errors.

But the man who can read Scripture as if they are a mixture of truth and error is a man who worships a god who looks more like himself than he probably realizes.

That is why I asked how you know about God. If it is through erroneous Scripture then what you know about God may or may not be factual.

There are interesting conversations which could be had with those who reject Scripture as inerrant. That said, it is liberal theology.

I see what you are saying, and I can agree with the intent. But, with scripture, an inerrant God is inspiring errant humans. So, to me, to call scripture inerrant is applying deity to scripture, which I cannot do. And I am no liberal. This is the same principle by which I deny that the pope is infallible.

 

[FreeBaptist]

For We the Baptists it does have its limitations.

Like if we derailed on one of the other distinctives we would be in trouble.

Right. I agree. The distinctives are what make a person Baptist.

 

[JonC]

I see what you are saying, and I can agree with the intent. But, with scripture, an inerrant God is inspiring errant humans. So, to me, to call scripture inerrant is applying deity to scripture, which I cannot do. And I am no liberal. This is the same principle by which I deny that the pope is infallible.

It depends on whether or not you believe that God authored Scripture through men or simply was the human arthors Muse. If Scripture is inspired then they are as inerrant as the one who inspired them. If Scripture is just a book written by inspired men, then it is simply a sacred text about their philosophical ideas of God.

 

[FreeBaptist]

It depends on whether or not you believe that God authored Scripture through men or simply was the human arthors Muse. If Scripture is inspired then they are as inerrant as the one who inspired them. If Scripture is just a book written by inspired men, then it is simply a sacred text about their philosophical ideas of God.

By that principle, the pope can claim infallibility.

 

[JonC]

By that principle, the pope can claim infallibility.

If the Pope only said and did what God "breathed" he would be.

The issue is the part you decided was an error (that Scripture itself is inspired, the Spirit provided what the Apostles were to write, etc ). Why did you decide that was wrong? Was it because you decided it was wrong?

 

[InTheLight]

FreeBaptist: I'm hearing you say a couple of things about inerrancy of Scripture.

#1: It creates a deity out of the Bible.
#2: It is the same things as the pope claiming infallibility.

As to #1, the Bible can be inerrant (I believe it is) but that in no way makes it a god or the same as God. Only people can create such a construct in their own minds. I could write computer code that was inerrant, and it wouldn't be something worthy of worship.

As to #2, the pope is human, therefore a sinner, therefore he does commit errors. It's possible the pope does not commit errors in certain areas of his life. Also, the pope claiming infallibility is not the same as the Bible claiming to be inerrant. (I guess I'd have to do some thinking on whether or not infallibility is or is not equal to inerrancy.)

The pope is an office, occupied by many, many different people over the years. The Bible is a completed work, that has stood the test of time. It's prophecies have been shown to be true, which goes a long way in proving inerrancy.

 

[FreeBaptist]

If the Pope only said and did what God "breathed" he would be.

The issue is the part you decided was an error (that Scripture itself is inspired, the Spirit provided what the Apostles were to write, etc ). Why did you decide that was wrong? Was it because you decided it was wrong?

No, it's because humans are fallen and live in a fallen world, thus imperfect. Not even the angels are infallible.

 

[FreeBaptist]

FreeBaptist: I'm hearing you say a couple of things about inerrancy of Scripture.

#1: It creates a deity out of the Bible.
#2: It is the same things as the pope claiming infallibility.

As to #1, the Bible can be inerrant (I believe it is) but that in no way makes it a god or the same as God. Only people can create such a construct in their own minds. I could write computer code that was inerrant, and it wouldn't be something worthy of worship.

As to #2, the pope is human, therefore a sinner, therefore he does commit errors. It's possible the pope does not commit errors in certain areas of his life. Also, the pope claiming infallibility is not the same as the Bible claiming to be inerrant. (I guess I'd have to do some thinking on whether or not infallibility is or is not equal to inerrancy.)

The pope is an office, occupied by many, many different people over the years. The Bible is a completed work, that has stood the test of time. It's prophecies have been shown to be true, which goes a long way in proving inerrancy.

It's the same principle, that a human can always transmit inerrant writings, statements, etc.

 

[JonC]

No, it's because humans are fallen and live in a fallen world, thus imperfect. Not even the angels are infallible.

But Scripture claims to be inspired of God, not men or angels.

Why is that one of the "errors" of the Bible?

 

[FreeBaptist]

But Scripture claims to be inspired of God, not men or angels.

Why is that one of the "errors" of the Bible?

The pope claims to be inspired of God.

 

[JonC]

The pope claims to be inspired of God.

I know.

It goes back to what you believe about God. Where does that come from?

If a fallable Bible, then it is a fallable god because we are the ones picking out truth from error.

But if Scripture is inspired then it is as infallible as the One who inspired it.