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!

Where do we draw the line?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Benjamin, Nov 13, 2006.

  1. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Oct 6, 2004
    Likes Received:
    As I was reading in another tread on the aspects, origins, and meanings of the word (if), I thought:

    You know this is another good example of the non-stopping efforts of working theology unto ones belief that leads as far as going back to a point in time beyond what can be known with precise historic accuracy and then arguing about the beginning of translations and perceived historic interpretations of languages until one finds what they want to hear and then fits it as per ones beliefs. These methods are weak proof at best being a science that attempts to use these tools of speculations on linguistic interpretations, by limited information, that could conceivably cast doubt and question EVERY SINGLE PASSAGE in the Bible to suit personal requirements while trying to go so far back into time to retrieve these “facts” by fitting together bits and pieces of unclear historical information, and again, these same things being only interpreted and fitted as desired per ones beliefs.

    So I appreciate Bob’s statement in this other tread, although I realize it could be taken wrong as worded, but don’t think he meant it to be accusatory:

    This discussion about (if) is something I’ve heard before and at first thought I would think this controversy about (if)was nothing more than attempts to hold to vital C doctrinal theology, except, I’ve also heard some Arminian smoke on the subject coming from others such as Pipedude on this board, who IMO is a noteworthy scholar, as he was also relating (if) as not being in the original text either. (Of course he could have been being sarcastic; it’s hard to tell about him sometimes) :smilewinkgrin: Personally I stick to being a Biblicist and neither C or A, but in these instances I feel my Bible is under attack.

    I can’t recall the names of these scientific methods of speculations that use analyses of unclear bits and pieces of historical documents for interpretations to rework the text, but this philosophical system has came up several times as a method to prove or disprove a theory. (I do know that it is taught in some seminaries) I once had these methods pulled on me in depth by Oneness Pentecostals trying to prove to me that there was no Trinity and that it was added into the text and was historically distributed by the (EFC) Early Church Fathers being altogether false in origin. That was the toughest, most time consuming, soul searching, heated, and even tear yanking debate I have ever had in theology. (It eventually resulted in closing down that board and having all the theological debate sections removed) I was absolutely amazed at their relentless, unending, attempts to go against what I perceive the true meanings as written in the scripture. At that time I prayerfully came to the realization that I had to trust that God had preserved His Word in truth and trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit to teach me the things I should know, knowing of where I had learned them, heeding the warnings about the doctrines and philosophies of men; and so I felt it when it was said, if God didn’t have a hand (I would add “preserving”) the scriptures, then as Bob said, “we are in big trouble”.

    I take linguistic interpretations for what they’re worth but never forget that agendas are put behind these analyses just as easily as any other interpretations.

    So spiritual guidance weighs against the doctrines of men and must rest on the Word that was translated for us by inspired men of God at the same time; so do we judge which men were inspired from the beginning of translating or do we trust that God preserved? I see no choice but to trust in God’s preservation and be lead through HIS Word and Spirit with what he has given us. One other thought that comes to mind is:

    (Ecc 12:10) The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and thatwhichwas written was upright, even words of truth.

    (Ecc 12:11) The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.

    (Ecc 12:12) And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books thereis no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

    (Ecc 12:13) Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

    (Ecc 12:14) For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether itbe good, or whether itbe evil.

    Ecc 12:12 says a lot to me at times :BangHead:
    #1 Benjamin, Nov 13, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2006