I am a Seventh-day Advenist. (I know. Some are already rolling their eyes.) For the most part the Fundamentalist Manifensto as given I have little quibble with. As may I gather to be true of other brands of Christianity, my church has a broad range of approaches to application of faith. I find myself firmly in the conservative, fundamental wing. The church even made an official statement of acceptance of the NIV! I object. I find virtually all modern translations/paraphrases based on (Greek/Latan) text approved by the agent of the Dark Ages. While not a "KJV only" character I do insist on Received Text or equivelant basis. As a Protestant it is meaningful to me to use a Bible that has the credential of fueling the Reformation (Tyndale, Geneva , KJV for English resources).
There is an aspect of fundamentalism that most of Christianity misses. God wrote the 10 Commandments in stone - twice. The implication of something being written in stone means it is fixed, solid, will not change. Now, I am not a legalist either. While I am not saved BY keeping the law, cannot be saved while in defiance of it (Eccl 12:13,14; Rev 22:14). I come into conformity to it as I become a new creature in Christ. That is why I honor the Sabbath of Jesus (who wrote the Law) and the apostles as well as the other commandments. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). On this point I take the position the SDA Church, Seventh-day Baptists, among other small associations have advanced the Reformation in recovery of another point largely lost in the Falling Away.
Now for where I take exception with the Manifesto. I hope this next item doesn't raise a lot of fire. As I understand the idea of "verbal inspiration" I take exception. I do believe all of Scripture is inspired of God - "inspired" of God. The only part HE wrote was the Ten Commandments. There are portions of the writing where His spokesperson acted as stenographer and took dicatation. The text often contains clear evidence of such dictation. But mostly the writers were under inspiration to write what they wrote - not word by work but the thought. Often the writing was a record of historical or biographical events. Some writers were shown things in vision and struggled to describe what they saw. In a sense these people were translators of God's thoughts to human language. That is one reason we compare Scripture with Scripture - to line-by-line build, shape, correct the concepts He is trying to convey to us. Even our study is under inspiration as the Holy Spirit illuminates our understanding. If we take the idea of verbal inspiration (that the Bible was word-by-word verbally delivered) to the bitter end, then we MUST ALL be flawlessly fluent in the ORIGINAL languages to have a chance of understanding it aright. I hold that God also inspires God fearing translators to find the most faithful way to convey His desires to the receiving language.
Another way I may differ with the Manifesto is in "Sola Scriptura." I am a technician in an area of electro-mechanical devices. Much of the instrumention I use is regularly calibrated with "NIST traceable standards." Those standards provide the global definition of standard measure - what is a meter, second, a kilogram. Then I use those "calibrated" instruments. The Scriptures are THE standard against which ALL teaching is compared. There we find the definition of our origin, our purpose, our fall, our redemption in and through Jesus the incarnate person of God, and the hope of our restoration. All the "tools" used in the implimentation of salvation are calibrated by the Bible.
Very little of the application of technology is traceable to Scripture. But the study of nature is a valid facit of the study of Divine nature. It brings great joy and wonder and draws the God fearing person to praise Him. The Genesis record of Creation (and supportive passages) is a great informer of the origins and purpose of the world of nature in which we find ourselves. So such teachings as find root or bias in evolutionary ideology, for instance, are set aside or challenged.
God speaks through the experience and learning of other people. But I better be sufficiently knowledgeable of Scripture both to understand and appreciate what they are saying and to filter, correct, or discard their expression.
In addition, I don't believe God was ever muzzled (except by those who refuse to hear). If He chooses to commission another spokesperson (prophet) He is free to do so. I find that gift is right in there with teachers and pastors. Rather than say that gift was closed, He gave us tools by which to test those who claim to speak for Him. It is recorded in Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Could it be, that as close as we are to the grand event of the Second Coming He might commission such spokespersons to aid in preparation for it?
