Important first questions

[37818]

By that principle, the pope can claim infallibility.

No.

 

[37818]

The '63 BF&M says something to the effect that the criteria on which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ. I go along with that.

Which Jesus Christ, if He is not the Son of God of the 66 Book Bible? (Luke 24:44; 2 Corinthians 11:4)

 

[Rob_BW]

From 1963:

I. THE SCRIPTURES

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of Gods revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.

Ex 24:4; De 4:1-2; 17:19; Jos 8:34
Psa 19:7-10; 119:11, 89, 105, 140
Isa 34:16; 40:8; Jer 15:16; 36:1-32
Mat 5:17-18; 22:29; Lu 21:33; 24:44-46
Joh 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Ac 2:16; 17:11
Rom 15:4; 16:25-26; 2Ti 3:15-17
Heb 1:1-2; 4:12; 1Pe 1:25; 2Pe 1:19-21

 

[Van]

A little on the usefulness of "scripture." As we know, the "scripture" that is described in 2 Timothy 3:16 included many or all of our OT books, copied imperfectly over many years (hundreds and perhaps more than 1000 years.)

Many say the original autographs (handwritten by the author and /or scribe) are inerrant, and although what we have may contain errors, the message of God has not been corrupted, the gospel is true, and since all the things said in 2 Timothy 3:16 were true concerning the copies used in the 1st century, the whole bible remains trustworthy, reliable and we can base our lives on its message.

Anyway, that is what I believe.

 

[JonC]

Jesus.

I don't reject specific parts of scripture as error, but I do compare everything with the teachings of Jesus. If anything seems to contradict or conflict with His life and teachings, I choose to follow Jesus.

Since Jesus did not write Scripture, exactly where do you get your information about Him? If in Scripture, how do you know the human authors were not in error?

The reason I am asking is that I do not see how your view stands up logically and am trying to do so.

 

[kyredneck]

Don't feel bad. Reformed doesn't like me either.



Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

...lol, don't let the snoots get you down...

 

[MartyF]

There are eight Baptist distinctives, and inerrancy of scripture is not one of them.

If you're talking about an acrostic a single Baptist pastor came up with in the 60s - "inerrancy of scripture" would be the first B.

Also, denying scriptural inerrancy is not a liberal position.

Denying scriptural inerrancy is the basis for Liberal Theology.

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

I apologize ahead of time to those who get upset by quoting Wikipedia. I'm lazy and don't want to look up the original sources.

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.

InTheLight gave a good response to this. Just because I may recognize that a computer program has no errors doesn't mean that I'm deifying it.

That is blasphemous.

And you were complaining about us and the barbs.

Wow! So much for soul liberty.

You misunderstand soul liberty. It doesn't mean that Baptists have to accept everyone or that churches have to accept those with errant beliefs. It means that we won't come to your house and beat you up, kill you, or banish you from the country for it like the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Orthodox, and others have done.

That's a lot of twisting. Congrats.

A lot of people have gone out of their way to take what you have written in good faith. It would be the appropriate thing to return the favor.

And how do you interpret the Bible? Do you seek to understand the context in which each book was written -- geographical context, historical context, cultural, social, theological, philosophical, etc.? That can make a considerable difference in meaning. How do you determine if a passage is meant to be taken literally, or allegorically, etc.? That also makes a difference. Those are some reasons why there are so many denominations. And what about the canon? How do you know which canon is the correct one? Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox have different canons. What about the church fathers? Do you give their writings any weight? The early church saw things differently than the later church.

I would suggest reading first. You may find there are a lot of different opinions expressed here.

I don't reject specific parts of scripture as error, but I do compare everything with the teachings of Jesus. If anything seems to contradict or conflict with His life and teachings, I choose to follow Jesus.

The only viable Christ-centered hermeneutic I know is by Greg Boyd but it doesn't seem like you've read any of his books. Can you explain further?

So, the attacks have started. Who's next?

Fighting words? - Jesus?

That's not what "Reformed" was doing.

Judgemental.

I didn't come here because I needed to raise my blood pressure.

Really?! Ok, allow me to suggest that jumping on a forum for the first time and immediately attacking everyone on it will likely raise your blood pressure, especially if you are personally involve through a friend and have taken an event that happened to your friend personally. You might not want to do that if you don't want to raise your blood pressure.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The set of Baptist distinctives I was taught by the late Dr. Richard Weeks, Professor of Baptist History and Polity, Maranatha Baptist Bible College (now Marantha Baptist University) is:

Bible our only rule for Faith and Practice
Regenerate Immersed Church Membership
Autonomy and Independence of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer.
Seperation of Church and State
Immersion of Believers and Commemoration of the Lord's Supper the only two Ordinances
S2 Seperation Ethical and Ecclesiastical​

From where I sit, the first distinctive is predicated on the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture Old and New Testaments.

There are eight Baptist distinctives, and inerrancy of scripture is not one of them.

 

[agedman]

The set of Baptist distinctives I was taught by the late Dr. Richard Weeks, Professor of Baptist History and Polity, Maranatha Baptist Bible College (now Marantha Baptist University) is:

Bible our only rule for Faith and Practice
Regenerate Immersed Church Membership
Autonomy and Independence of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer.
Seperation of Church and State
Immersion of Believers and Commemoration of the Lord's Supper the only two Ordinances
S2 Seperation Ethical and Ecclesiastical​

From where I sit, the first distinctive is predicated on the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture Old and New Testaments.

I didn’t know you were a Maranatha man.

Decades ago, I taught with a few good graduates from that school. We all moved on and haven’t a clue what has become of them.

 

[Jerome]

Here's a different perspective on 'inerrancy', a real blast from the past from SBTS men Al Mohler and David Dockery (both also on The Council of The Gospel Coalition):

http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7009,17-Aug-1990.PDF

“Southern Baptists must understand the Bible is truthful, authoritative and is both a divine and human book, said Dockery. 'A lot of us get quite hung up on terms like inerrant and infallible,’ he said. ‘I think it is very possible to move the discussion forward and still talk about the nature of Scripture without using those particular red flag terms’…’I would prefer that we talk about the Scripture as truthful, reliable and authoritative and see it having to be the normative guide for the church, for our lives and for the Christian community'”

“Another speaker, R. Albert Mohler Jr., editor of the Christian Index, newsjournal for Georgia Baptists…described inerrancy as ‘an important issue’ but it ‘isn’t the most important word about Scripture.'”

 

[FreeBaptist]

A little on the usefulness of "scripture." As we know, the "scripture" that is described in 2 Timothy 3:16 included many or all of our OT books, copied imperfectly over many years (hundreds and perhaps more than 1000 years.)

Many say the original autographs (handwritten by the author and /or scribe) are inerrant, and although what we have may contain errors, the message of God has not been corrupted, the gospel is true, and since all the things said in 2 Timothy 3:16 were true concerning the copies used in the 1st century, the whole bible remains trustworthy, reliable and we can base our lives on its message.

Anyway, that is what I believe.

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[FreeBaptist]

You misunderstand soul liberty. It doesn't mean that Baptists have to accept everyone or that churches have to accept those with errant beliefs. It means that we won't come to your house and beat you up, kill you, or banish you from the country for it like the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Orthodox, and others have done.





Really?! Ok, allow me to suggest that jumping on a forum for the first time and immediately attacking everyone on it will likely raise your blood pressure, especially if you are personally involve through a friend and have taken an event that happened to your friend personally. You might not want to do that if you don't want to raise your blood pressure.

I understand soul liberty perfectly. Are you sure you do? What you describe is religious liberty. I suggest you research soul liberty, a core Baptist distinctive.

I have attacked no one.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And I didn't list "soul liberty". I listed the Priesthood of the Believer. And I wouldn't be too much of a punctilious pedant in separating "soul" liberty from "religious" liberty. Those denominations cited above believed in a sacral state.

Sacral – By the word “sacral” which we will be using frequently and which we request the reader to impress on his mind, we mean “bound together by a common religious loyalty.” By sacral society, we mean society held together by a religion to which all the members of that society are committed.pp. 22-23, Verduin, Leonard, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, Baker, 1980.​

Most of us today are familiar with the situations in the Peoples Republic of China and the DPRK. In those countries, the Communist Party is the focus. However, this is the current state of affairs in the Russian Federation. There the Russian Orthodox Church is being protected from rivals.

​

I understand soul liberty perfectly. Are you sure you do? What you describe is religious liberty. I suggest you research soul liberty, a core Baptist distinctive.

I have attacked no one.

 

[FreeBaptist]

It was stated earlier that denying the inspiration of the scriptures was a reason for banning. I don't know of any Christian who denies the inspiration of scripture. Do any of you know of such?

 

[37818]

. . . the inspiration of scripture.

What one means by the term makes a difference. I hold the view that inspiration of Scripture refers to those writings being "God-breathed." The implication is that those writings are inerrant in God being inerrant.

 

[JonC]

It was stated earlier that denying the inspiration of the scriptures was a reason for banning. I don't know of any Christian who denies the inspiration of scripture. Do any of you know of such?

I do, yes.

It goes back to the issue of liberal theology. Part of its danger was "double speak" in that terms were starting to expand and liberal ideas were creaping into churches unnoticed.

For example, in our conversation here you have considered Scripture to be inspired - but in examining your actual posts what you actually say is that inspired men wrote Scripture.

This is not the same thing as Scripture being inspired (God "breathed"). I may be inspired by God to write a study of Hebrews for my church. That does mot make my study itself inspired (God "breathed").

Scripture is different. Its human arthors claim that God gave them the words and make a note when what they write is their own words. To believe Scripture errant is to deny Scripture itself or to hold God errant. Those are the only two options.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Some quarters term this as Neo-Orthodoxy, Same vocabulary, different dictionary.

It goes back to the issue of liberal theology. Part of its danger was "double speak" in that terms were starting to expand and liberal ideas were creaping into churches unnoticed.

 

[Revmitchell]

"What have we done? We have taken the great, sanctified doctrine of the priesthood of the believer and made it to cover every damnable heresy that mind could imagine.... It's a tragedy."

~ W.A. Criswell

 

[Revmitchell]

"May I speak on The Curse of Liberalism? Because of the opprobrious epithet “liberal,” today they call themselves “moderates.” A skunk by any other name still stinks!"

~ W. A. Criswell

 

[FreeBaptist]

Criswell is not a Baptist, in my opinion.