Featured BF&M 2000 vs 1963

I know exactly what I am talking about. And the denial of this liberty leads to rabid fundamentalism which denies historic Baptist principles and instates creedalism and coercion.

 

This thread right here is evidence of why I so intensely dislike the far right and the far left.

 

Sophomoric at best. A cheap shot from the cheap seats. Are you aware of what was being taught in our schools?

 

You are either one or the other.

 

That isn't what scripture says, Jesus is the revelation. The bible can only be a record of that revelation, a god breathed record but there is a difference. Like creation which was spoken into existence is different from the Creator that spoke them.

As a record, the bible will show that there was a full revelation of God in the person Jesus. I think of it like this. You can be saved without a bible, but you can't be saved without Jesus.

 

I have never seen anyone make such a distinction. I fond it very odd. (that is not a criticism) I am very curious why you find that sort of distinction important.

And I would add:

Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Rev 1:2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

 

Southern Seminary doesn't use the BF&M 2000. It has been a sticking point with some. They use Abstract and Principles.

 

Insults all you've got? Why should I respond to anything you say when you resort to making it personal? I guess you have to do so when the facts are against you.

 

I despise both and am neither.

 

You are still sensitive even with a new username. But really it is just a defense tool when you have nothing else. I did not insult you.

 

Very good! Fundamentalist Baptists and others rail against the RCC and an infallible pope, and then they create a paper pope.

 

I know and I would neither attend there nor let any of my children attend there. I have no way to know what the standards of teach are or will be.

 

Your insult: "Sophomoric at best. A cheap shot from the cheap seats."

So, now in addition to the evident insult, you can add liar to it.

And what are you talking about a new username. I tell you what, keep lying, and I'll bet you can get really good at it.

 

Jesus as the revelation is provides all that is needed for salvation, the bible doesn't do this. The bible is the record of God revealing himself to humanity. What the Law could not do, Jesus has done. Making the bible the revelation and not the record of the revelation puts it on equal status with Jesus, which by extension would mean that technically salvation could be found in the bible somehow apart from Jesus. Though I would doubt any SBCer would ever say this, by removing the words the record of, it makes it very real possibility.

I believe the bible because of Jesus, not the other way around.

I will be the first to admit it is a technical point that not many consider a big deal, but for me it is a very important point.

 

Not an insult. Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

uh huh............

 

If not mistaken the word "The" often used in translation of Revelation 1:1 that you used should just be read "Revelation of Jesus Christ" and the use of the second "the" isn't there making the actual reading "Revelation Jesus Christ, which God gave...."

Any Greek guys out there can help me out here? Correction, clarification, whatever would be much appreciated.

 

I am trying to follow the logic here (not a criticism) so could you break this thought down for me?

 

Alright, pal, tell me who I used to be. I want to do some reading.

 

The 63 says record of revelation in deference to Jesus as the ultimate revelation sent by God. The 2000 removed the words the record without any statement or explanation that Jesus fulfilled the role of ultimate revelation. By doing that they left the impression that the bible is on equal status as Jesus. Note the first sentence.

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's 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. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. 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. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Note how the bible is called perfect again without explanation that perfect can only apply to the original manuscripts, see Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

Note the sentence where the bible and not Jesus is called the true center of Christian union.

Finally note how Jesus is called the focus of divine revelation and not the ultimate expression of divine revelation.

I love the bible, but the bible isn't my salvation, Jesus is.

 

I should note the 63 is not without issues as far as I'm concerned. They are just less objectionable then those of the 2000.

I teach and preach according to the 63, as is the tradition and expectation of the church I pastor. Where there are differences I noted before I came and where acceptable to my congregation. They are minor differences (most would say tecnicalities really) and well within historic baptist thought throughout the ages.