Biblical Baptist

[Abel]

Since I am new to this forum, I am unsure if this topic has been addressed before. I am a Baptist who happens to believe the Bible. Some here seem to cast doubt on the authority of the Bible. I happen to believe the authority of God's word. For instance, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight. However, some seem to doubt that is God's view.

What is your view of the Bible? Is it inspired by God? Has it been preserved by God? Should the Bible be the final authority on matters of faith?

[Haruo]

Thanks, Abel. I will try to give this some serious thought and get back to you here. Now that I am unemployed I may have time for more thinking. But I think the fact that you raised the issue of homosexuality here is unfortunate, both because it encourages thread drift and because it suggests an agenda on your part that is not germane to your stated topic.

I will just say that the Bible also says that wearing mixed-fabric cloth blends (linen-wool? cotton-rayon?) is an abomination in God's sight, and that the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality per se. But I will agree that certain homosexual acts are among the things listed as abominations.

I haven't even seen where the Bible defines its own canon, so I have no way of knowing, based on the Bible, which books we ought to be referring to (though I know you and most folks here mean the 66-book post-Reformation canon, and that's mostly what I use, too, not because I think God has prescribed it, but because of habit and accessibility, and to avoid upsetting apple carts). God has preserved the 66-book canon, but He has also preserved the longer canons of the Greeks and Romans and Ethiopians, and he has preserved lots of ostensibly non-Christian scriptures. I am unwilling to state a priori that Paul's dictum "all scripture is inspired of God" is only true of Judeo-Christian writings that made the cut in the church, whether in the fourth century or the 16th. And I don't see how the Bible helps solve this dilemma.

I think the important inspiration is that which occurs in the reader or listener, moreso than that which occurred in the physical author. God is undoubtedly active at both ends.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Abel]

[John Sneed]

Abel, I wish you well as you begin to post on this forum. You will find the number of true conservative Baptists here can be counted on one hand. The rest of the folks here range from moderate liberals to something left of that. You will find very allies here based on your first two posts. We are more tolerated here than welcomed. Knowing what audience you have helps going in. So, welcome to the board.

[Abel]

Thanks John.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

[Abel]

[Abel]

[Dave Roberts]

Did Phillip not have four daughters who preached, and was not Phoebe a deacon?

[Abel]

[KeithE]

And Abel, do you attempt to enforce that women must wear hats while worshiping? Do you enforce all fathers to stone to death their sons if they happen to be rebelious? Do you wear fabrics of mixed blends?

Times change, some transient rules change (such as the role/education of women) and much of scripture is laced with such transient rules. Scripture may have been inspired by God, but men wrote it with all the foibles of their cultures, historical and scientific knowldege/inaccuracies, local/temporal morees (sp?) and written with a lack of today's precision that fundmentalists sporadically choose to enforce. It is the Spirit of God that can lead us to all truth. That is where I'm hopefully grounded. The Bible is a good prompter and tells us the story of Christ (our example). But it is demonstrably not inerrant or infallible (if you care to be honest in applying it today).

Go ahead and call me liberal. As a descriptive term, I'll wear that hat. As a derogatory slur, I'll bear the burden as well; but recognize that it makes you a judgmental 'teacher of the Law/ Pharisee', and we know what Jesus thought about them.

[Abel]

I will address each question you propose:

No, I do not enforce women to wear hats in our churches today. During Bible times in the Middle East it was considered shameful for a woman's head to be uncovered. It's that way even today in that part of the world. However, as Matthew Henry put it "The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness." The Bible says women are to dress modest (I Tim.2:9). Wearing a veil in Paul's day was considered modest for a woman.

Do I believe fathers should stone rebellious children? No. We are no longer under the Law, but under Grace. Christ paid the penalty for sin. Is rebellion still a sin? Sure, but being under Grace, we no longer administer the death sentence because Jesus died for that sin.

Mixing fabrics was part of the O.T. ceremonial law. The law was a shadow of the coming of Christ. He completed the law, therefore the law has no power over us, including the mixing of fabrics. However, it served a purpose then as well as now. Mixing truth with error today is a wrong as mixing cotton and silk in Bible times.

These arguments are the same, exact arguments presented to me for the two years I spent on an agnostic forum. I am beginning to see a similar pattern. It may not be that Christians do not believe the Bible, but they are ignorant to Biblical doctrines and proper hermeneutics.

If the Bible is not inerrant in all parts, how can any of it be trusted? Who decides what is true and what is not? Understanding my own inadequacies, I realize I could not determine which parts to accept, and which sections to reject. Therefore, I take God at His word and trust He has indeed kept His word free from error. If I can't believe God can do that, how could I trust Him to keep my soul from Hell?

[jeremy_shoulta]

Abel - you seem awfully sure about which passages are to be taken literally and which are not. You also seem sure as to which verses are restricted to ancient contexts and which aren't. You have neatly fragmented dietary laws from ceremonial laws from moral laws - as though there was no overlap. Finally, you seem to be confident that the Old Testament is no longer applicable to us today because of the work of Christ.

How are you so assured of your conclusions? You claim to have a "proper hermeneutic" - as opposed to the rest of us on this board. I'm just curious as to how you have so much figured out and the rest of us don't.

[Abel]

Then prove me wrong. Show me from the pages of scripture where I am in error. Is the O.T. Law not segmented into dietary, ceremonial, and moral laws? Did the Lord not abolish dietary laws when He gave Peter the vision in Acts? The O.T. is most relevant for us today. Just not the punishments of breaking the Law. My confidence is not in myself, but the Word of God. If I am in error, please indicate where.

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

Abel--

You seem to have your mind pretty well made up! I'm not sure there will be much "convincing" here over what you have chosen to believe. Your question is the core of the SBC "pretend" reason for splitting: the nature of the Bible. The Conservative Resurgence folks would give no room for any other words than "inerrant / infallable" to describe it = not wise in my view.

If they really belived such, they would never travel by air for fear of finding the "corners of the earth" and falling off---which is the actual description and belief of this world in the writers' time. If you believe this, you are an inerrantist / if not, then you have modified a basic biblical belief to suit modern findings about us on a globe orbiting the sun.

For me: "The Bible is a book of faith grounded in history."

By this I mean that it is the story of man's faith-walk with God. It contains historical information which is being confirmed and studied even today. It is authentic and reliable for my guide in life. It's technical word description is CANON which means "measuring rod."

It's content was determined by Church Council vote and many "scriptures" (writings) were excluded. Some were "barely included." Others are there because of their historical story from the Garden of Eden through the days of the Early Church. To discover the real depths of the Bible, one must take into account the views of men in the day it was written---some quite accurate / others not based on what we now know about this earth and the nature of religion in many cultures.

The most important aspect of it, for me, is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the here and now of today. With such spiritual help we can find points of agreement which resolve the areas of faith required to accept the reliability of the Bible.

I see the NT as the highest part of a mountain leading up to the 4 Gospels and looking back as the Early Church tried to maintain a walk with Christ in mind. People who want to see it all as equal and infallable are not taking into account how Jesus changed things by becoming "God in flesh walking among us." Even that takes a step of faith to declare we believe Jesus is The Christ revealing more of God to us than ever before.

What amazes me is the propensity of men to develop arguments out of something which should unite all believers. The most awful wars have been those based on religious belief. They have always been---and seem to always be---a "reason" to forget the commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Too much killing of influence and friendships took place in the "Battle for the Bible" which came to its climax in the 1979 election of a Conservative President who went about his "friends business" rather than "The Master's Business" in the Southern Baptist Convention.

[Haruo]

[Abel]

[ET]

Do I get a whiff of a "King James only" argument waiting in the wings?

[Tim Bonney]

[Abel]

[Abel]

[Tim Bonney]