1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Can you be...

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by SaggyWoman, Jul 27, 2007.

?
  1. Yes

    87 vote(s)
    80.6%
  2. No

    8 vote(s)
    7.4%
  3. I doubt it but it is possible.

    11 vote(s)
    10.2%
  4. Other

    2 vote(s)
    1.9%
  1. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen, brother! :thumbs: :jesus:

    There is not much left of Christianity if we don't hold to these. And they are all connected.
     
  2. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    And by holding and standing on these does not make us legalists...
    We are simply standing on the word of God.

    Not wanting to hijack this thread, but where I disagree with a lot of modern fundamentalists is the secondary seperation issue... along with stuff like KJVOism, No CCM, etc..

    But to me that stuff is secondary issues not founded in the fundamentals.. IOWS, I use the KJV for preaching and teaching, but I also use other versions in other situations... But I still believe the Bible is inerrant...
    I like CCM, and P&W.. but nothing in my preference of music goes against the fundamentals...
    I don't seperate from someone just because they choose to hold a revival in a Methodist church....etc...

    It is the extra stuff that newer fundamentalists have added to what it means to be fundamental that drives me batty...
    And when asked for scripture to back it up, they have to take scripture out of context to prove their points...

    But as for the 5 (or 6) fundamentals listed in my previous post, they are ever so clear in scripture....
    Therefore, I will stand for them.
     
  3. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can stand solidly on those. What is PW? I'm not crazy about CCM but that's mostly cause I'm old. I know I don't hold for the 7-11 stuff or chanting.I don't think it is inappropriate for the ladies to wear pants , I think it's more important we dress modestly and respectfully.Men should look like men and women should look like women.No Adam and Steve stuff and I'm right to life.I don't think that makes me extra legal or UFO.:godisgood:
     
  4. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, inerrancy because it is a highly qualified, largely misunderstood word. Even inerrancy backers can't agree on the definition see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy for an example of the qualifiers. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and the criteria for interpretation is Jesus Christ

    Yes, virgin birth

    Yes, substitutionary atonement, but understand there are other orthodox understandings of the atonement

    Yes, resurrection

    Yes, miracles

    No, pre-mill second coming, I am a-mill, but understand there are other orthodox understandings of the second coming
     
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Inerrancy is a very straightforward word. It means "no mistakes." It only has to be qualified because people who don't believe in it don't want to be known as liberals, so they fudge. Therefore, believers in inerrancy must add qualifiers. The word "infallibility" used to be used until liberals fudged with that too much.
     
  6. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Praise and Worship... probably what you would call 7-11... but there are alot of newer P&W that don't do that... I don't like the repetition songs, myself... the one that really gets me, is repeating "I can sing of your love forever" and we repeat it for 25 times... I begin to wonder if we will ever stop singing!!!

    I think the UFOs (fundy legalists) are the ones that include what you said into the core beliefs of Fundamentalism... Of course, I agree with you on the modesty stuff and right to life....But I don't see pants, or music styles , or Bible versions addressed in the Bible.. so all we have are my interpretation and your interpretation.

    There should be primary beliefs that all must stand firm on...
    ie. The Fundamentals...
    Then there are secondary beliefs that are not as important... but it may determine, where you worship...But to exalt these as primary, without Bible proof is wrong...
    ie. CCM, KJVO, Pants,etc
    Then there are beliefs that come third, that we must concede are just opinions and interpretations... and are willing to worship and work with those that are different from ours.
    ie. order of worship, carpet color, smoking, chicken instead of Turkey...lol
     
  7. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Inerrency is based on God's absolute integrity. If one views Scripture as God-breathed, written as God moved the writers (verbal plenary inspiration), then it reflects His integrity. Anything less than a Scripture without error in the whole or in the part, means it lacks God's absolute integrity.

    Claiming "other orthodox understandings of the atonement", requires some explanation. If the atonement wasn't substitutionary, what was it? Keeping in mind, the multiple and near instantaneous (to the human mind) ramifications of Our Lord's death on the cross are to me as complex as quantum physics. Claiming orthodoxy without citations won't make the grade in this forum.
     
  8. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen! Theopneustos (God-breathed) demands inerrancy!
    Amen!
     
  9. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You didn't know there are other theories of the atonement? I would have thought folks as well read as you all would have been familiar with such things as the Governmental, Sacrificial, Moral-Influence theories of the atonement. Ultimately I think they highlight an aspect of the atonement whereas the substitutionary theory is a more comprehensive view including many of the individual aspects highlighted by the other theories.

    The Bible is the inspired word of God and the criteria for interpretation is Jesus Christ. Do you apply inerrancy only to the originals or to translations as well and if to translations, which one(s)?
     
  10. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'll let others reply to atonement topic. My main area of interest is Baptist History. Have you read Wayland on the topic? I haven't check his Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches (published in 1856 long before the Modernist/Fundamentalist controversy) out. I will later on today. I'm sure he has some remarks on the subject.

    As for the other, I apply inerrency to the originals and supernatural preservation to the copies and translations.
     
  11. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tiny,
    As I mentioned the deal on CCM is purely personal and mostly due to being an old dude(hard to teach an old dog new tricks). You may have missread my note on the ladies wearing pants, I have no problem with that or which translation of the Bible you read or study, because it is as you say, the Bible makes no mention of these things.
     
  12. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Little clarification please
    When you say "I apply inerrency to the originals and supernatural preservation to the copies and translations." are you saying:

    1. I believe in inerrancy of the originals and I believe in the supernatural preservation of the copies and translations

    2. I believe in inerrancy of the originals includes the supernatural preservation of the copies and translations
     
  13. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Using Occam's Razor, I'll go with number one. It's the simplest. God in His providence preserved His Word through out the generations. I don't think JoJ, POB, Tiny T, holds an extreme KJVO position. I know I don't. I've spent too much time involved in translation work (as has JoJ) to go that route.
     
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The originals, of course. This is the standard position of evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, both. All of the classic Fundamentalist writers on the Bible held this position: Warfield, Rice, Custer, etc.

    The radical KJVO position that inerrancy applies to the translation rather than the originals is a recent innovation (1970's), and only a small minority of Fundamentalists today hold that position, regardless of your minimal experience with our group.

    Now since you evidently do not believe in inerrancy, I'll tell you once again. You are an intruder on this forum. Read the "stickies." The first one says, "Welcome to the Fundamental Baptist Forum, we hope you enjoy posting here. This forum was born out of a cry from many who despaired that their conservative and traditional views were constantly being attacked. It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate."

    It was instituted on the BB for Fundamentalists to get away from people like you. If you want to attack us, feel free to do so on "General Baptist Discussions" or "Baptist Theology and Bible Study."
     
  15. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'll go you obviously don't want to be confused or challenged with any facts! Too much of daddy's and grand-daddy's history to be step over I guess.

    Your response is a reminder why fundamentalism is destructive. Because I don't believe in the man made doctrine of inerrancy I somehow now don't believe the Bible. Translated = since you don't believe like me GET OUT! See you on the other forums
     
  17. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I actually laughed out loud when I saw this. go2church has given nothing but unsubstantiated opinions and attacks in this thread. :laugh:
    I simply reminded you of the BB rules. :tongue3:
     
  18. dcorbett

    dcorbett Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is YOUR definition. Not mine, and not the definition that many many wonderful Christians adhere to.

    Debbie Mc IFB
     
  19. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    G2C, I'm not a first generation Christian. But, I am a first generation Baptist and Fundamentalist. As for your second paragraph, JoJ is simply saying you've knocked over the furniture once too many times. I agree.
     
  20. Jules80

    Jules80 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I do not believe the two can co-exist
     
Loading...