Fundamental View of the Bible

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by Van, Mar 13, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    All of the Bible is given by inspiration of God and is thus without error. It is the very Word of God. It does not merely contain the Word of God, as if it contained the erroneous words of men mingled with the perfect words of God. The doctrine of inspiration is the first principle from which all biblical doctrines are derived. Its truth is revealed to man by God. [2Sa 7:28; 23:2; Psa 12:6; 25:5; 111:7-8; 119:43,89; 138:2; Dan 10:21; Joh 17:17; Act 3:18; 1Co 2:4,12-16; 2Ti 2:15; 3:15-17; Heb 1:1-2; 2Pe 1:20-21; 3:15]

    This is a typical doctrinal statement concerning the Bible. It makes several assertions and then lists several verses supposedly supporting the assertions. Now if we study this statement using the minimalist approach to deriving the intended message of the referenced passages, will we find that the doctrine is solidly supported or is partially not supported? Now another step would be if something is not supported by the referenced passages would be to cast a wider net and see if any passage of scripture supports or refutes the assertions. But lets simply take a look at the level of bible study in evidence in this doctrinal statement.

    1. “All of the Bible” is not defined specifically and therefore should give one pause. The idea is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and therefore only the scriptures that were inspired, and not added by helpful uninspired scribes make up the Bible. To be specific, we could say that the “critical text” of the Old and New Testaments comprise the inspired text of the Bible. Now others might include some of the excluded scripture contained in earlier efforts to put forth the inspired word of God. Perhaps we should note that whatever underlying text those that endorsed this statement were basing it on should be included somewhere in the document.

    2. “All of the Bible” in the original language is given by inspiration. This assertion is supported by 2 Samuel 7:28 which say God’s word is truth and this good thing, the Word of God, was promised (or spoken) to Samuel, His servant. 2 Samuel 23:2 says the Spirit of the Lord spoke to Samuel and His word was on Samuel’s tongue.

    3. “It is the very Word of God. It does not merely contain the Word of God, as if it contained the erroneous words of men mingled with the perfect words of God.” In Psalm 12:6 scripture declares God’s word is pure, like refined silver, so whatever the original message was by the inspired author, it was true and did not have anything unreliable within the message.

    4. So far so good, everything up to this point seems to me to be well founded.

    5. “The doctrine of inspiration is the first principle from which all biblical doctrines are derived.” Now here we find an assertion as to what those who wrote the statement claimed they were doing. And it seems like a sound principle to me, but is not supported by scripture, except that we all should trust in the truth of scripture.

    6. “Its truth is revealed to man by God.” This statement seems unlikely to be true in that many men have studied God’s word and come to differing conclusions, so if its truth is revealed by God, the revelation is not inspired and the errors of men are mingled with God’s truth in our various commentaries. Psalm 25:5 seems to be a typo, but Psalm 25:4 does express the prayer that God would make known to us God’s ways and teach us His path. So certainly God gives us the light we use to discern His truth from His inspired word, but the verse does not support that God causes us to discern the truth without error. As a side comment, other verses certainly indicate under the New Covenant, our indwelt Spirit does lead us and guide us into a greater understanding of God’s word, for without it, we cannot discern some spiritual things, 2 Corinthians 2:14-3:3.

    7. From Psalm 111:7-8 we see that God’s word is part of “the works of God’s hands” and so His word is truth and is just (nothing unjust in God or His word) and His “precepts” are sure or trustworthy. Precepts or statues or commands refer to the guidance for walking in God’s righteous path given in God’s word and these requirements “quicken” us, which means to revive and sustain and provide our living walk with God.

    8. From Psalm 119:43 we see a prayer that God not take the word of truth “utterly out of my mouth.” What goes into you mouth is in you, and what goes out of your mouth is no longer in you. So the prayer seems to be that God’s word provides us with hope, it sustains us and guides us, and without it, we would be hopeless, and therefore God, please allow me to have your word –in me – because it gives me hope. This verse demonstrates the other side of the coin, God can take away whatever understanding and support we derive from His word, but it does not support that God supernaturally puts God’s word in us, i.e. gives us supernaturally our understanding of all of God’s word.

    9. In Psalm 119:89 we see that God’s word is “settled in heaven” forever. Thus we are to abide by it, and not seek to change it, or take away from it or add to it. If it does not fit with our understanding of other scriptures, we are not to nullify it, we are to change our understanding.

    10. Every once in a while the NASB translation clouds the message and some other translation provides a far better reading, i.e. God’s truth just leaps off the page. Psalm 138:2 provides an example. Only the ESV seems to clearly present the message. “I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.” Thus this verse tells us we should not nullify God’s word because it seems inconsistent with our understanding of God. You can get the same idea from the NASB translation, but you have to work for the understanding.

    11. Daniel 10:21 provides an example of God using a messenger to reveal the truth inscribed in God’s word. So the mechanisms of His revelatory guidance includes visions, angels, prophets, apostles, evangelists, teachers, and ordinary believers who walk the talk, as well as the Holy Spirit speaking to us in our prayerful study of His word. None of this supports the idea that God’s word itself is not a lamp unto our feet, providing the milk of the gospel to the lost.

    12. To be sanctified in the truth of God’s word is to be set apart from the falsehoods of false doctrine, and thus the message of the New Covenant is just as solid and as true as the scriptures of the Old Covenant, based on John 17:17.

    13. Acts 3:18 tells us that what God announced in the Old Testament has been partially fulfilled in the New Testament, such as Christ suffering in accord with Isaiah 53.

    14. The authority of New Testament scripture such as the writings of Paul, does not stem from persuasive arguments, but from the inspiration of God, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 12-14.

    15. 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.

    16. 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. The New Testament light also shown through the writings of Paul, 2 Peter 3:15.

    In summary, God’s truth is revealed to men in His inspired word, some of it understandable to men of flesh, but its spiritual meat can only be discerned with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Currently our best understanding of what is the inspired word is the critical text, but some of the apparent additions clarify rather than corrupt the inspired text, thus they are kept in modern translations, but bracketed to highlight the possibility they are more of a commentary on the inspired text.
     
  2. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    Was there a point to this post? Much less posting it to the Fundamental Baptist section?
     
  3. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Folks say much the same thing concerning their view of the Bible, but hold very different views. For example if the Bible contradicts a traditional orthodox doctrine, many feel the Bible verse should be nullified, rather than alter the doctrine to conform to what the Bible actually teaches.

    A fundamental view requires that the Bible alone is the sole authority and not the traditions or orthodox views of men.

    Claiming that the Bible is the sole authority but not saying whether the critical text, the majority text, the received text or the King James translation is meant pays lip service rather than commitment to this fundamental principle.

    Next we have the assertion that biblical truth is revealed to man by God. Does this mean all biblical truth, i.e. a person cannot read it in a fallen natural state and learn from God's inspired Word, but rather must be supernaturally given the truth otherwise hidden in God's word.
    The fundamental truth is that God's inspired word was given in a form whereby natural unsaved people, such as Timothy, could learn and grow in wisdom concerning salvation, well before he ever met Paul.
     
  4. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    Question still stands. Are you looking for debate on this subject? Or is there someone, or some particular church or group or denomination that holds an opposing viewpoint? Or are you merely using this as a medium to make your own thoughts public?
     
  5. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    1) You question was answered.
    2) Discussion of the topic is desired.
    3) The bolded statement at the top of the OP is from the IBF statement of faith.
    4) Yes, my posts are my own and represent my views.

    A statement of faith that glosses over the truth pays lip-service to the doctrine of scripture alone.
     
  6. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    Which "IBF"? Since the "I" stands for "independent," and there are those here who argue that by its nature of "independent," ifb is not a denomination per se; and since you didn't identify a specific source for your bolded statement; then we must conclude that you're generalizing a characteristic, and thus starting from a flawed premise; and thus, no further discussion is required.
     
  7. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157


    Which translation or translations are without error?
     
  8. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Thanks Crabtownboy for addressing the topic.

    Naturally I have not even read many of the English translations, let alone those into other languages. So with that caveat, I believe all translations contain renderings that do not convey the intended message of the original. But, OTOH, I believe our translations convey the essential message of God, you are a sinner, you are piling up wrath, and only by trusting completely and fully in Jesus can you receive mercy and salvation from the wrath of God.
     
  9. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Folks that find excuses to avoid discussion of Baptist Doctrine seem to be advocating the status quo, rather than growth in our understanding of truth.

    In summary, God’s truth is revealed to men in His inspired word, some of it understandable to men of flesh, but its spiritual meat can only be discerned with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Currently our best understanding of what is the inspired word is the critical text, but some of the apparent additions clarify rather than corrupt the inspired text, thus they are kept in modern translations, but bracketed to highlight the possibility they are more of a commentary on the inspired text.
     
  10. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    If this is a conversation about translations, why isn't it in the Bible Versions/Translations section?
     
  11. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    You posted this in the Fundamental Baptists section, and you specifically addressed "ibf." The "i" stands for "independent." So either clarify that you're addressing any/all independent fundamental baptists -- in which case, your premise is in error, because not all IFBers use what you've posted as their basic understanding of the Bible -- or clarify that you're addressing a particular church or group of IFBers.

    There's no excuse to avoid discussion; there's a very clear statement that you're guilty of over-generalization.
     
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    What Don said. :thumbs:

    And like Don said, there is no "the IBF statement of faith." So the whole OP is a complete non sequiter.
     
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Okay, the statement at the beginning of the OP is from something called the "Christian Confession of Faith" at: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfindex.htm

    This statement or part of it occurs 51 times on about 8 other websites according to Google, including a Chinese Vineyard Church site of all things. Not one single time does it occur on a fundamental Baptist site. Check to Van--and mate. [​IMG]
     
  14. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    Sir, kudos to you. You put more effort into debunking this thread than I had the patience, time, or inclination for.
     
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Comes from spending too much time on Google. :smilewinkgrin: Actually, all I did was copy the first sentence, put it in quotes and put it in Google. Then I went to several websites to check them out. Two of the 8 sites are actually non-Christian forums where someone quoted the statement trying to get a debate going.
     
  17. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    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).

    Does this statement reveal a significantly different gloss on the doctrine of scripture alone? Does this refer to the critical text or what?

    .
     
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Oops, it seems I made a mistake in crediting an IBF source for the OP Bible statement of faith. But it is a published statement and is consistent with most Baptist statements concerning scripture.
     
    #18 Van, Mar 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2012
  19. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    So - if it's not directly attributable to a fundamental baptist group or organization; and the intent of your post is to discuss versions of the bible....

    Why don't you consider moving this to an appropriate section?
     
  20. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Nope, the OP reads little like any of the 100s of IFB statements on the Bible that I have read. For example, "verbal-plenary" appears nowhere.

    Furthermore, the statement is ignorant of what it is saying. The part about "contains the Word of God" is a reference to Neo-orthodox Bibliology, but the explanation is flawed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...