Inerrancy - Bellingham Statement 1

I grew up in the BBFI, but they wouldn't claim me now as I wouldn't now claim them. I have attended a BGC church when I lived in Chicago and fit in well with the church there, and now in Michigan we're part of a GARB church. Our GARB church is probably not typical though (e.g., our church government has elders and deacons).

One great song on the church we sang yesterday at worship was The Church's One Foundation ( http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/h/chofound.htm)

Since I posted on the church I have been thinking of it this evening. Especially the mystic sweet communion with those who have gone before.

I have no doubt most Baptists would run quickly from many of my beliefs (as I would've repudiated them when I was at my fundamentalist Bible college), but I think it's to their loss. Perhaps they or I will change, but I hope in the meantime we can all relish in how God works in his global church despite our bickering down here.

BJ

 

Well, if I implied that both Jesus and the Bible are not revelations of God, that was a mistake. I don't recall saying that. I am not pitting them against each other - you said something that implied or made me think you were going to say Jesus is superior to the Bible, which you did say in this post. I was either anticipating that or you said it earlier and was responding to that.

If this isn't comparing them or pitting one against the other, I don't know what is. Even if one concedes that Jesus is the superior revelation or "more deserving" to be called the revelation, that does not lessen the fact that the Bible is also God's revelation, nor does it make the Bible less important as a revelation. As I previously said, how do you know about Jesus without God's word??

I think my emphasis was more that the Bible is the revelation of God, rather than a revelation from God, as is stated by Heiser. I see a slight difference in meaning in the wording. Maybe Heiser did not intend that, but that is how it strikes me.

If one says that the Bible is a revelation from God, that leaves room for saying the Koran is a revelation from God, too, or the Baghadad Ghita is a revelation from God, too. If the Bible is "the" revelation, that makes it unique, so other books are not included.

I'm with Dr. Bob on disagreeing with you that we know Jesus through the church. Yes, we can grow in Christ with other believers, but we know Him through the word and the Holy Spirit.

 

"I think my emphasis was more that the Bible is the revelation of God, rather than a revelation from God, as is stated by Heiser. I see a slight difference in meaning in the wording. Maybe Heiser did not intend that, but that is how it strikes me. If one says that the Bible is a revelation from God, that leaves room for saying the Koran is a revelation from God, too, or the Baghadad Ghita is a revelation from God, too."

Ahh...I've finally figured out what you're getting at with this statement here. I'm not sure if you can make this move though without excluding other revelation like Jesus. Perhaps you can, but at least I see what you're getting at. I can't speek for whoever is referenced in the OP but I don't see how if he is a Christian that saying the Bible is revelation from God (with the Christian meaning of God here) leaves room for what you're worried about. Jesus is unique and his people identified the canonical writings as authoritative witnesses of him that instruct his people. This makes the Bible unique as far as writings go, and so we agree that far.

I see no need to pit Jesus against the Bible which is why I'm comfortable with the wording of the OP saying that the Bible is revelation from God. I have no desire to lessen the Bible's status as unique revelation from God, but I suppose that I consider Jesus to be revelation of God first and the Bible second as an instrument in bringing people to know him.

The Bible and the church testify to Jesus, and in that way they are certainly in no competition with each other; they each have their place. While I began my posts in this thread with more of a "what if" mentality trying to figure out your position, I can admit that this is part of my theology for sure (perhaps a little Barthian influence). Of course, I see the Bible's role, but I cannot sever its role from the people of God past and present--the church.

Does the Spirit not work through the church? I always am puzzled by people who act as if the ancient creeds were not the fruits of the Spirit's working in the church and try to bypass the church's role in the creeds and the formation of the biblical canon itself. My guess is you have an orthodox understanding of the faith, and it's hard for me to imagine that your understanding was severed from the church with only the Bible as your guide. I think the Spirit has spoken through the church on the right understanding of the faith (some refer to this as the analogy of faith). I think the Bible stands over the church calling it back to its roots and judging it when it goes astray.

Lastly, let me get this straight. We don't know Jesus through the church, but we can grow with other believers (the church), but we know him through the Word and Spirit? How can we tell our understanding of what we know is valid. What is our touchstone? Does your position not open yourself up to all the stuff Dr. Bob mentions, mysticism, charismata? People become absolute in their own understandings of the Bible led by the Spirit. How can you say they are wrong without appeal to orthodoxy or what the church believes? If you do appeal to such things, then how can you say we don't know Jesus through the church? I think it's better to keep the church and Scripture joined together as instruments the Spirit uses to bring people to Christ.

BJ

BJ

 

Well, I guess I don't see the need to say this or make this distinction. Jesus and the Bible are different categories and cannot really be compared, imo. And I don't think of Jesus so much as a revelation of God as much as I think of Him as being God (the Son).

Yes, I think the Spirit works through the church; I wasn't saying that He didn't. I became a Christian rather late in life and was not familiar with the creeds until the last 10 years or so.

I don't think the creeds are inspired but I think they are doctrinally sound because they are based on God's word.

My touchstone is the Bible. The historic faith of the church is also a touchstone, but is secondary to the Bible. Rather than say I know Jesus through the church I would say I know the historicity of sound doctrine through the church. I know Jesus from the moment of salvation through faith by God's grace. I know him better as I read and learn God's word.

 

Hi preachinjesus

You said........

I believe the charge of “heresy”, does apply in this case.

The issue of inerrancy and infallibility, has “always” been of major importance, to believers.

Just as preservation, aught to be important to us today.

 

Hello Marcia,

Well it seems that the impass has come where it does little good to post more on this because I have been and am now repeating myself as are you.

Of course, I affirm Jesus as God, and Scripture claims that he has revealed more about God than anyone or anything else. I don't understand how one can claim two things to be revelation but incomparable, and I think Hebrews 1 goes against your notion where the author compares God's speaking through the prophets with speaking to us in his Son and most of the author's argument is to show how Jesus is superior to them and even to the written law.

Your last post tells me that you believe the Spirit has worked and works through the church and was involved in how you understand (or dare I say know) Jesus. You just don't want to use the word know for this. I bet though you know him better through the preaching of the word and the observing of the sacraments (or ordinances for good Baptists) and through other ways you worship him through your church. You act as if your relationship to the church is dead and static as if its only there to show you what the historically sound faith was and is, but it has no place in helping you actually know your saviour better or introducing him to people. Some of this may be an argument from silence, but it's hard for me to fill in the blanks as to where you see the Spirit actually working in the church today.

Lastly, if the touchstone is the Bible understood apart from the church, then it is really nothing more than your own understanding of the Bible. You can claim the Spirit has led you to what you believe about the Bible as many have done throughout the church's history.

Anyways this post is full of repetition and I would assume that youre response would be more of the same. You can have the last word and we can leave it at that.

BJ

 

Hello, Brandon,

Your remarks have caused me to pause and think and clarify, which is always a good thing. That's what I look for here on the BB, so thanks.

You are right about Heb. 1 but you are referring to the Bible to make your point. In other words, anything we say about Jesus as an absolute truth is pretty much going to come from the Bible or be affirmed there. I am not sure I am making my point but maybe you can see what I'm trying to say.

I don't see my relationship to the church as dead or static. Maybe it's the word "know" that we are hung up on, and giving different meanings to.

I am not sure about the Bible being a touchstone not apart from the church except that when it comes to essential doctrines, we can see the (universal church, by which I mean all regenerated believers) church affirming those. However, the church is affirming them because they are in the Bible.

Maybe it's one of those relationship things almost like the Trinity - Jesus, Holy Spirit, Bible, church -- which all work together as one, yet are distinct.

Thanks for letting me have the last word. But if you feel the need to respond, please do! :wavey:

 

Hello again Marcia, your posts have also led me to pause and reflect so they were well received. I think you're right about giving different meanings to know. I'm pleased with where this ended up. I guess we'll see where the next installment on inerrancy goes. Who knew the rabbit trails I'd dig up in this thread? I certainly wouldn't have foreseen any of them.

BJ

 

Sounds pretty much like standard orthodoxy to me. He disagrees with verbal plenary inspiration which is a relatively recent doctrine.

Regarding Jesus and the Bible, here is Jesus' view about which revelation is "the" revelation from God.

 

Great posts in this thread Brandon.

Here is a passage regarding the church as God's revelation.

While the verse specifically mentions heavenly places, I believe The Message interprets this well in the context of the rest of this passage which is about making Christ and God's plan of salvation known to man.

 

No one is advocating putting Tradition or papal/presbyter authority over biblical authority.

The topic is revelation. I think the London Baptist Confession of Faith states it very well that while all necessary revelation is provided in scripture alone, God does reveal himself in other ways like through the Spirit and through creation. It also recognizes circumstances where "the light of nature" and "Christian prudence" are used if they follow the general rules of scripture. I take that to be addressing issues not explicitly stated in scripture.

 

Yes, Golddragon, I'm certainly not advocating putting authority in the church over the authority of Scripture. I do advocate that the Spirit uses both Scripture and the church with each having a distinct, but related role, and there's no need to separate these two like many Baptists do.

Scot McKnight has recently posted on why he will never become RCC or Eastern Orthodox, and I like much of what he says in this post, so I thought I'd include it here. He doesn't speak much about revelation, but he does speak about how the Spirit has worked and works through the church. I have never been tempted to leave the Baptist church, but I have enjoyed thoroughly getting back in touch with the historical Baptist church in which I find a much richer theology than what is common today.

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=4368

PS-I could make a few corrections, but one I would mention is that Galileo was condemned because he had defecient proof for his claims. His claims ended up being correct, but he did not have a good way of verifying them, and the proofs he offered failed. People would've accepted his claims if he could have backed them up, and when others offered proofs that worked his claims became non-controversial.

 

I would like to make a correction. While verbal plenary inspiration is a recent doctrine it does not appear to be what Michael Heiser disagrees with.

My understanding of verbal plenary inspiration was incorrect. Most definitions of verbal plenary inspiration I could find refute the dictation theory of inspiration and the idea that the personality, style, context (worldview) of the human author was overridden during inspiration. There are some people who may understand verbal plenary inspiration as involving dictation and the removal of any contribution from the human author but that does not appear to be the common view.

So it is possible that Michael Heiser subscribes to verbal plenary inspiration but he clearly does not subscribe to the dictation theory of inspiration.

 

How can so many of us sit still, while “verbal plenary inspiration” is called a “recent doctrine”:

When we have so many Scripture references such as this......
Matthew 4:4
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

 

The articulation of the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration came about because of the issues of inerrancy, textual criticism and translations that arose starting in the 1800s.

While it can be argued that the doctrine of biblical inspiration was always considered to be verbal plenary inspiration and may be true, the reality is that the description of inspiration in those terms was a recent one.

 

I read this. McKnight says:
...I believe in ongoing discernment of what the Spirit is saying to the Church, and I believe this discernment is a function of church leaders and churches in communion with one another. Discernment for the day is different than infallible teaching for all time.

I think the Holy Spirit speaks primarily through God's word. God has already spoken to the church in the Bible. Yes, we have to apply this but I don't think that is what McKnight is talking about. In the next paragraph, he refers to "God's ongoing speaking through the Spirit in the Church." If he is saying what I think he is saying, then I disagree with this. It sounds like ongoing revelation.

He also says:
"I long for the day when evangelical Christians are united through the authority of the Spirit as that Spirit has guided the revelation of Scripture and shaped the Church in history."

What does he mean, the "united through the authority of the Spirit?" We are already united in the Spirit, and the authority is God's Word, with the Holy Spirit speaking to us through that Word.

 

Hi Gold Dragon

Thanks for the explanation!

 

The rich sola scriptura theology of the historical Baptist church, as contrasted with the Westminster formulations:

Westminster Confession:
I.1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation;

1689 Baptist Confession:
I.1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.




Westminster Confession:
I.6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:

[ = Although God neglected to describe paedobaptism in Scripture, the Church has deduced by good and necessary consequence that he intended such.:laugh:]

1689 Baptist Confession:
I.6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture:




Westminster Confession:
I.10. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decress of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

1689 Baptist Confession:
I.10. The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.

 

What he does say is troubling:

"my “wiki” understanding of the Bible."

"the gospel and God’s revelation participates in “wiki” (or ongoingly renewed and renewable) versions."