Statement of Faith

Bible John · Jun 10, 2006

Can anyone that is a fundamentalist take a look at this SOF?

I welcome only kJV only fundies that WILL NOT judge me because I am not KJV only.

This includes no statements like Satan has possesed all non KJV translations

Or other such hateful remarks, which have been said to me by KJV only people.

Thanks for the help guys

http://cerm.info/faith.htm

STATEMENT OF FAITH
By John Wolf

I believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's Agape love, which is greater than any differences I possess and without which I have no right to claim myself Christians.

I believe worship of God should be intelligent. Therefore, I value services with a great emphasis upon the teaching of the Word of God so that He might instruct me how He should be worshipped.

I believe worship of God should be fruitful. Therefore, I look for His love in my live as the supreme manifestation that I have truly been worshipping Him.

I believe in all the basic doctrines of historic Christianity.

I believe in the inherency of Scripture, that the Bible, Old and New Testaments are the inspired, infallible Word of God. I hold to the Verbal Plenary Dictation View of Inspiration.

For exegesis purposes-I believe that the NASB is the most accurate English translation from the original manuscripts. The King James (or authorized version) would be the next most reliable translation.

For devotional and personnel reading-I believe that the NIV is the most powerful dynamic equalivence translation. But I will read just about any translation except the TNIV, and Message which I believe to be the most corrupt of the English texts.

I believe in ONE God who is eternally existent in three distinct persons: Father,Son and Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7) (NKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

I believe that God is the personal, transcendent, and sovereign Creator of all things.

I believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, that He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, provided for the atonement of our sins by His substitutionary death on the cross, was bodily raised from the dead, ascended back to the right hand of the Father, and ever lives to make intercession for me.

I believe in the personal, visible, and pre-millennial second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth. He will return with His saints and set up a kingdom of which there will be no end. After Jesus ascended to Heaven, He poured out His Holy Spirit on the believers in Jerusalem, enabling them to fulfill His command to preach the Gospel to the entire world, an obligation shared by all believers today.

I believe in total depravity that all people are, by nature, separated from God and responsible for their own sin, but that salvation, redemption, and forgiveness are freely offered to all by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. When a person repents of sin and accepts Jesus Christ as personal Savior and Lord, trusting Him to save, that person is immediately born again and sealed by the Holy Spirit, all his/her sins are forgiven, and that person becomes a child of God, destined to spend eternity with the Lord.

I believe that the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Scriptures (Mark 16) are not valid for today. However I do believe that the other non-sign gifts are valid for today. I as a believer do not covet the best gifts, but seek to exercise them in love that the whole Body of Christ might be edified. I believe that love is more important than the other gifts, and without this love all exercise of spiritual gifts is worthless.

StefanM · Jun 10, 2006

I'm not sure if you wouldn't consider me a true fundamentalist (I'm SBC), but I have a few comments.

You have typos --"inherency" should be "inerrancy." Also, you have an extra "s" on Christian in your first statement.

"Basic doctrines of historic Christianity" is waaaaaaay too vague. You definitely need to clarify.

I think you need to clarify your view on inspiration. Typically "verbal plenary" inspiration is specifically used to differentiate between dictation theory. Do you think that the Bible was dictated word-for-word to the authors, or do you think that the Spirit inspired them in such a way that every word is God's word? There is a subtle difference.

I find a significant amount of tension in saying that the NASB and the KJV are 1-2 in rendering the "original manuscripts" because they are based on different text traditions. The NASB is my personal favorite, and I feel that the KJV is an excellent translation of its text tradition, but I find it difficult to put them 1-2.

Also, I would ask why you think the TNIV is so corrupt when you laud the NIV. There isn't that much of a difference. I understand that the gender issue comes up, but I doubt that a few pronouns or a few words here and there makes it the "most corrupt." After all, the NWT (Jehovah's Witnesses' translation) is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar worse. I don't even consider it a Bible because it is so corrupt. Also, the Message is a paraphrase, not a translation.

I would shy away from using 1 John 5:7 for your trinitarian statement because of the doubts over its authenticity. Critical text-based versions do not include it (that means the NASB). Same thing goes for the "signs" in the ending of Mark 16--doubts over authenticity.

As far as Christ making intercession, you may want to expand it beyond "me" to "believers" or something of the like.
----------
As a personal suggestion, I would break up some of the complex/compound sentences and smooth out the arrangement.

Also, I'd suggest not devoting so much of your statement of faith to Bible versions. As it stands, you have more about how bad the TNIV and Message are than you have about the "basic doctrines of historic Christianity." Maybe you should just mention something about inerrancy in the autographs and your doctrine of inspiration, and then leave it at that.

This is a good start. If you refine it a bit, you'll have a solid statement.

Bible John · Jun 10, 2006

Re

Actually there is a HUGE difference between the TNIV and the NIV.

I did have a 20 page article discussing the differences between the two, but I cant find it on the web at this time.

Howver before it was deleted or moved, I copied it to my Palm Pilot. If you will email me [email protected] I will send you the article.

I will take a look at those grammar errors. Thanks..

John

StefanM said:

I'm not sure if you wouldn't consider me a true fundamentalist (I'm SBC), but I have a few comments.

You have typos --"inherency" should be "inerrancy." Also, you have an extra "s" on Christian in your first statement.

"Basic doctrines of historic Christianity" is waaaaaaay too vague. You definitely need to clarify.

I think you need to clarify your view on inspiration. Typically "verbal plenary" inspiration is specifically used to differentiate between dictation theory. Do you think that the Bible was dictated word-for-word to the authors, or do you think that the Spirit inspired them in such a way that every word is God's word? There is a subtle difference.

I find a significant amount of tension in saying that the NASB and the KJV are 1-2 in rendering the "original manuscripts" because they are based on different text traditions. The NASB is my personal favorite, and I feel that the KJV is an excellent translation of its text tradition, but I find it difficult to put them 1-2.

Also, I would ask why you think the TNIV is so corrupt when you laud the NIV. There isn't that much of a difference. I understand that the gender issue comes up, but I doubt that a few pronouns or a few words here and there makes it the "most corrupt." After all, the NWT (Jehovah's Witnesses' translation) is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar worse. I don't even consider it a Bible because it is so corrupt. Also, the Message is a paraphrase, not a translation.

I would shy away from using 1 John 5:7 for your trinitarian statement because of the doubts over its authenticity. Critical text-based versions do not include it (that means the NASB). Same thing goes for the "signs" in the ending of Mark 16--doubts over authenticity.

As far as Christ making intercession, you may want to expand it beyond "me" to "believers" or something of the like.
----------
As a personal suggestion, I would break up some of the complex/compound sentences and smooth out the arrangement.

Also, I'd suggest not devoting so much of your statement of faith to Bible versions. As it stands, you have more about how bad the TNIV and Message are than you have about the "basic doctrines of historic Christianity." Maybe you should just mention something about inerrancy in the autographs and your doctrine of inspiration, and then leave it at that.

This is a good start. If you refine it a bit, you'll have a solid statement.
Click to expand...

Rooselk · Jun 10, 2006

I agree with StefanM that, "Basic doctrines of historic Christianity" is waaaaaaay too vague. You definitely need to clarify." For instance, you might want to add, "as expressed in the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds."

Grasshopper · Jun 10, 2006

But be careful not to read the works of the preterists who claim that Christ returned in the 1st century. For them I leave with this passage.

[2Pe 3:3] First, be aware of this: scoffers will come in the last days to scoff, following their own lusts, [4] saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation." [5] They willfully ignore this: long ago the heavens and the earth existed out of water and through water by the word of God.
Click to expand...

:laugh: :laugh:

Bible John · Jun 10, 2006

Re

Rooselk said:

I agree with StefanM that, "Basic doctrines of historic Christianity" is waaaaaaay too vague. You definitely need to clarify." For instance, you might want to add, "as expressed in the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds."
Click to expand...

I do not agree with the creeds as I agree with the bible.

It so seems that in every fundamentalist church I have been in, creeds nor theology was emphasized. But the bible was.

However in Lutheran, Presbyterian, and the Christain and Missionary Alliance, creeds and historical theology seems to eb valued.

IronWill · Jun 10, 2006

Bible John said:

I do not agree with the creeds as I agree with the bible.

It so seems that in every fundamentalist church I have been in, creeds nor theology was emphasized. But the bible was.

However in Lutheran, Presbyterian, and the Christain and Missionary Alliance, creeds and historical theology seems to eb valued.
Click to expand...

A Creed is nothing more than a statement of faith. What is it Baptists have against Creeds?

bapmom · Jun 11, 2006

I couldn't really get much beyond the first statement............

Are you sure that you believe that the basis of fellowship is love? What are you trying to say with this? Are you talking about the basis for church membership? Personal friendships? what? The basis for Christian fellowship should first and foremost be salvation, and then belief in the basic, necessary tenets of God's Word.

At the rist of "starting something" I hope you will soon tire of your remarks towards KJVO people. In the least it is seen as needling us.

Thank you, and have a nice day!:wavey:

Bible John · Jun 11, 2006

Re

What is a KJVO person? I only know of KJV only.

Yes perhaps I will tire, if you will tired from your racist and hateful remarks others like you have made about me.

Comments such as

Satan is working in BJ, because he reads from the NIV
All non KJV only translations came from Satan and are not from God.

This statement of belief from a website is a classic example of what I call hate geared at non KJV only christians.

This church spends a bit of time on bible translations so I will quote a few of their statements.

* We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God and that He has preserved it for the
English-speaking world in the Authorized King James Version.

King James Version

At xxx xxxx Baptist Church we take the stand that the King James Version is the Bible which God has preserved for the
English-speaking people. God has blessed the King James Version for more than 300 years. It is the Bible of every revival
among the English-speaking peoples of the world. Today we are being inundated with new versions of the Bible in English,
and all of these versions have one thing in common- they have been translated from corrupted texts. We are not radicals,
but we are not going to allow Satan to confuse Christians without pointing out his deceptions and trying to defend the
Word and work of God.

bapmom said:

I couldn't really get much beyond the first statement............

Are you sure that you believe that the basis of fellowship is love? What are you trying to say with this? Are you talking about the basis for church membership? Personal friendships? what? The basis for Christian fellowship should first and foremost be salvation, and then belief in the basic, necessary tenets of God's Word.

At the rist of "starting something" I hope you will soon tire of your remarks towards KJVO people. In the least it is seen as needling us.

Thank you, and have a nice day!:wavey:
Click to expand...

StefanM · Jun 11, 2006

KJVO = KJV only

Bible John · Jun 11, 2006

Also

I once had a website of a church in the Pacific Northwest that had a webpage on Spiritual Terrorists. The article clearly indicated that non KJV only christians are spiritual terrorists.

I confronted this pastor by calling him and sending him an email, and questioned this position. He got angry because I would challenge his views, so he said in an email that he would expose me to his entire congregation by reading my email in his next sermon. Heck he probably also played my voice mail as well.

This is one reason why I dislike the attitudes of many KJV only people who seem to hate fundies like me.

However this is not to say that all KJV only people are as hateful and mean as that pastor was.

John

StefanM said:

KJVO = KJV only
Click to expand...

bapmom · Jun 11, 2006

Bible John,

first of all, you are now calling me racist and hate-filled, when Ive been nothing but nice to you. You misrepresent me, and you misrepresented the other board that Im on that you came here and talked about. Those are my friends there, and they were not rude and mean to you, as you claim. So what you say about others you've talked to doesn't carry as much weight with me.
The website of the church, in the part you quoted from about their stance on the inerrancy of the Bible, I have no problem with. They have the right to believe that, and I personally agree with it. But their statement is not an attack on any other Christians.

However, you have no right to be calling a pastor of a church and attacking him for his viewpoint. The church's statement of faith is not a matter that they intend to debate, it is simply what the church believes. If you do not like it, than don't go there. But I would say it is presumptuous of you to call the pastor and complain about it.

You are pushing the KJV issue at nearly every turn. This is what you did on that other board, and THAT is the reason you were kicked off. Here they tolerate more debate and more varied viewpoints. That is their prerogative, of course. But the other board does not, and that is THEIR prerogative as well. It does not make them (or me) racist or hateful. They want a board without debate, and let me tell you, they've got it.

I don't know where you would get "racist" anyway. lol

You've really got to get off this "non-KJV-only kick". We consider ourselves just as Fundamental as you do, and we are just as much Christian as anyone else who is saved by grace through faith in Christ.

IronWill · Jun 11, 2006

bapmom said:

Bible John,

first of all, you are now calling me racist and hate-filled, when Ive been nothing but nice to you. You misrepresent me, and you misrepresented the other board that Im on that you came here and talked about. Those are my friends there, and they were not rude and mean to you, as you claim. So what you say about others you've talked to doesn't carry as much weight with me.
The website of the church, in the part you quoted from, I have no problem with. They have the right to believe that, and I personally agree with it. But their statement is not an attack on any other Christians.

However, you have no right to be calling a pastor of a church and attacking him for his viewpoint. The church's statement of faith is not a matter that they intend to debate, it is simply what the church believes. If you do not like it, than don't go there. But I would say it is presumptuous of you to call the pastor and complain about it.

You are pushing the KJV issue at nearly every turn. This is what you did on that other board, and THAT is the reason you were kicked off. Here they tolerate more debate and more varied viewpoints. That is their prerogative, of course. But the other board does not, and that is THEIR prerogative as well. It does not make them (or me) racist or hateful. They want a board without debate, and let me tell you, they've got it.

I don't know where you would get "racist" anyway. lol

You've really got to get off this "non-KJV-only kick". We consider ourselves just as Fundamental as you do, and we are just as much Christian as anyone else who is saved by grace through faith in Christ.
Click to expand...

I agree. Non of the KJV'ers here that I've seen have attacked you John.

And where does the 'racist' thing come into play?

StefanM · Jun 11, 2006

To Bible John:

Now, I'm VEHEMENTLY against the KJVO movement. I have absolutely no sympathy for the position. I think it is completely unbiblical, and I get hot under the collar whenever the position is pushed strongly.

BUT....

I think you are getting a little too upset over the whole issue. Not every KJVO person is going to have the same approach/attitude. Your attitude tends to pick fights with the KJVOs, and who can expect them not to defend themselves?

If the KJVOs want to hold their position, they can. They are still brothers and sisters in Christ. If they try to force their position down your throat, oppose them. On this board, though, KJVOs haven't really done anything to you.

Bottom line--get the chip off your shoulder.

Bible John · Jun 11, 2006

I said

many KJV only people who seem to hate fundies like me.

However this is not to say that all KJV only people are as hateful and mean as that pastor was

Where did I mention you in that statement?

bapmom said:

Bible John,

first of all, you are now calling me racist and hate-filled, when Ive been nothing but nice to you. You misrepresent me, and you misrepresented the other board that Im on that you came here and talked about. Those are my friends there, and they were not rude and mean to you, as you claim. So what you say about others you've talked to doesn't carry as much weight with me.
The website of the church, in the part you quoted from about their stance on the inerrancy of the Bible, I have no problem with. They have the right to believe that, and I personally agree with it. But their statement is not an attack on any other Christians.

However, you have no right to be calling a pastor of a church and attacking him for his viewpoint. The church's statement of faith is not a matter that they intend to debate, it is simply what the church believes. If you do not like it, than don't go there. But I would say it is presumptuous of you to call the pastor and complain about it.

You are pushing the KJV issue at nearly every turn. This is what you did on that other board, and THAT is the reason you were kicked off. Here they tolerate more debate and more varied viewpoints. That is their prerogative, of course. But the other board does not, and that is THEIR prerogative as well. It does not make them (or me) racist or hateful. They want a board without debate, and let me tell you, they've got it.

I don't know where you would get "racist" anyway. lol

You've really got to get off this "non-KJV-only kick". We consider ourselves just as Fundamental as you do, and we are just as much Christian as anyone else who is saved by grace through faith in Christ.
Click to expand...

Bible John · Jun 11, 2006

Re

I will no longer be reading no replying to anymore of your messages.

I have not yet figured out a way to killfile, but I think the bets solution is for you and me not to communicate.

John

bapmom said:

Bible John,

first of all, you are now calling me racist and hate-filled, when Ive been nothing but nice to you. You misrepresent me, and you misrepresented the other board that Im on that you came here and talked about. Those are my friends there, and they were not rude and mean to you, as you claim. So what you say about others you've talked to doesn't carry as much weight with me.
The website of the church, in the part you quoted from about their stance on the inerrancy of the Bible, I have no problem with. They have the right to believe that, and I personally agree with it. But their statement is not an attack on any other Christians.

However, you have no right to be calling a pastor of a church and attacking him for his viewpoint. The church's statement of faith is not a matter that they intend to debate, it is simply what the church believes. If you do not like it, than don't go there. But I would say it is presumptuous of you to call the pastor and complain about it.

You are pushing the KJV issue at nearly every turn. This is what you did on that other board, and THAT is the reason you were kicked off. Here they tolerate more debate and more varied viewpoints. That is their prerogative, of course. But the other board does not, and that is THEIR prerogative as well. It does not make them (or me) racist or hateful. They want a board without debate, and let me tell you, they've got it.

I don't know where you would get "racist" anyway. lol

You've really got to get off this "non-KJV-only kick". We consider ourselves just as Fundamental as you do, and we are just as much Christian as anyone else who is saved by grace through faith in Christ.
Click to expand...

StefanM · Jun 11, 2006

Bible John said:

What is a KJVO person? I only know of KJV only.

Yes perhaps I will tire, if you will tired from your racist and hateful remarks others like you have made about me.
Click to expand...

I think bapmom was referring to that statement.

bapmom · Jun 11, 2006

bapmom said:

I couldn't really get much beyond the first statement............

Are you sure that you believe that the basis of fellowship is love? What are you trying to say with this? Are you talking about the basis for church membership? Personal friendships? what? The basis for Christian fellowship should first and foremost be salvation, and then belief in the basic, necessary tenets of God's Word.

Thank you, and have a nice day!:wavey:
Click to expand...

I still wonder about this.............

Bible John · Jun 11, 2006

Re

StefanM said:

I think bapmom was referring to that statement.
Click to expand...

Oops..

Well then it was not you who made that statement and I am sorry for addressing it like such remarks were from you.

I do apologize for this. However this does not mean that these types of people do not and continue to make these types of statements.

Bible John · Jun 11, 2006

Re

bapmom said:

I still wonder about this.............
Click to expand...

I did copy some of that statement from Calvary Chapel and have modified a little.

Perhaps I should do a little more searching and find a fundy church to copy from.

I usually modify what I disagree with.

John

Statement of Faith

Bible John New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Bible John New Member

Rooselk Member

Grasshopper Active Member
Site Supporter

Bible John New Member

IronWill New Member

bapmom New Member

Bible John New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Bible John New Member

bapmom New Member

IronWill New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Bible John New Member

Bible John New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

bapmom New Member

Bible John New Member

Bible John New Member

Useful Searches

Statement of Faith

Bible John New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Bible John New Member

Rooselk Member

Grasshopper Active Member Site Supporter

Bible John New Member

IronWill New Member

bapmom New Member

Bible John New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Bible John New Member

bapmom New Member

IronWill New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Bible John New Member

Bible John New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member Site Supporter

bapmom New Member

Bible John New Member

Bible John New Member

StefanM Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Grasshopper Active Member
Site Supporter

StefanM Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

StefanM Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

StefanM Well-Known Member
Site Supporter