Baptist Pastors Not Believing the Whole Bible?

I'm sorry, but that seems like a contradiction to me?

 

I know David Cloud, not personally, but we have met and he has eaten in our home. I am very familiar with his site. I disagree with a great deal of what he says. But to associate him with the concept of God-breathed translations does him an injustice. He has more of a respect for God's word than that - http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/KJVheritics.html This is not what he means by 'partial inspiration.'

No translation is inspired, or, God breathed. I don't know how many times I can say that and still be accused of not answering the question. Though godly translators seek the help of the Holy Spirit He does not breathe His word through them. He did that only to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the others. It is heresy to claim that God rebreathes His word in every language.

If translations were truly inspired they would not need to use manuscripts for the Holy Spirit would simply breathe His Word through the translators.

I am truly hoping that there is a confusion of the words 'inspiration' and 'preservation' here. If one contends that there is 100% preservation in a translation that is an opinion. If one contends that there is 100% inspiration in a translation that is heresy.

 

Wow, your life must've been extremely slanted then. I have never met an IFB that accepted homosexuality...not one.

 

I have been an IFB since 1974 and, for all the flaws in the system
I have yet to meet one who accepts homosexuality or salavation apart from Christ alone.

 

Wow! I have to agree with what C4K and dcorbett said. I've been IFB all my life, probably preached in a couple of hundred IFB churches, and never met one who accepted homosexuality, only one who gambled (my brother in law who quit being IFB later on), none who believed salvation could be attained aside from Jesus (I don't even like that "attained" word in this context).

As for the doctrine of inspiration, I do agree that the doctrine of an inspired translation is current among some IFB folk, though the large majority will disagree. Lately, for example, both Jack Schaap of FBC Hammond and the Dean Burgon Society have both come out against the inspired translation doctrine of Gail Riplinger.

 

I'd have to agree with you all based on my 30 years of experience as an IFB prior to falling off the wagon, and I thank John for getting us back to the OP- kind of. :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

Does any pastor, preacher, missionary etc posting here not qualify?

There are Christ deniers in every generation. There were apostates long before any 'modern versions.'

Why would homosexuals love this?

 

I agree with the three of you. I've been in 100's of IFB churches and every one I've been in ,none of them accepts homosexuality or salavation apart from Christ alone.

 

Please spare us the 'Elijah syndrome'. We don't have our heads buried in the sand and we don't need you or David Cloud to tell us what has been true for 1,900 years or so and for at least 1,500 years before there was even a KJV.

The problem is not MV's- the problem is Christians who spend too much time listening to and following men instead of God and who worship their Bibles instead of practicing what is taught therein.

 

There is absolutely nothing new here. This is exactly why Fundamentalism began back 100 years ago--liberalism. Read The Fundamentals from 1907, which has chapters opposing many of what you just mentioned. I was born in 1951 and grew up in Fundamentalism. Been there, done that.

My grandfather was an original fundamentalist, some would say the founding father of the southern Fundamentalist movement. But the first time, the first time he opposed a modern version he was already in his 50s and it was the RSV. Now in those days Fundamentalists opposed the RSV not because of the Greek texts it used, not because it was in modern English, but because it was liberal, and had such renderings as the Hebrew almah and Greek parthenos as "young woman" instead of "virgin."

Granddad used the KJV for preaching, but sometimes used the ASV for study and even recommended it. So did many fundamentalists back in the day. We had no problem with any Bible version but paraphrases or ones done by liberals. I still have pamphlets by Ian Paisley against the NEB (1960s), M. L. Moser agaisnt the NEB (1971), Moser against Good New for Modern Man (1970), etc.

Let's oppose versions that are truly liberal. But should I oppose modern versions in Japan? No, because that's all we have. My advice to those who love the KJV? Don't waste your time fighting folks in America. Support new translations on the mission fields of the world.

The folks at the Dean Burgon Society apparently oppose me because I wrote a bad review of H. D. Williams' book on translating on Amazon. So Williams lambasted me with a vicious article on their website, still there. Williams, their "missionary representative," for crying out loud, attacking a Fundamentalist missionary! It was a lousy book with tons of mistakes and should be opposed. And Williams actually told folk not to support my Japanese translation from the TR! When there is no other option--none--for TR supporters in Japan to have a NT from the TR. Ridiculous and hypocritical.

DBS--be ashamed, be very ashamed.

I've written more than I planned to. Hope it's a help. Let me get down off my soapbox now.

 

No, He did not. Men translated what God inspired.

 

Thank you for your answer. I just asked him if he believes in the double inspiration or not. I just wonder.

 

exactly!

God inspired JUST the original documents, but He did and has preserved faithfully to us in the current greek/Hebrew texts used as the source of modern translation "essentially" the original inspired aiutographs, so we can say with confidence EVERY good English traslation is the word of God to us today!

 

He was for it before he was against it. He actually endorsed it at first before Carl Macintire convinced him otherwise.

 

Some responded to my post about IFBs acceptance of certain practices and beliefs. Note that I did not say churches (though I could have) but I said IFBs.

I posted this to make a point: when we judge everyone by experience, be it the minority or not, we're making sweeping generalizations. We also must be careful to judge anyone this way, regardless of their majority or minority status. While my experience may be an anamoly, you can ask 200 folks who live near the people and/or churches I'm referring to and they'd all say what I said. So 200 testimonies would seem rather overwhelming. However, they are no more or less defining than any other sampling. So we should be careful when we use an opinion or an observation as a measuring stick.

 

I thought he endorsed it in his book on the Bible- but I could likely be wrong. I'll have to look later. Wife's waiting to go to supper.