DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,188
- 2,677
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
While you may, or may not agree, it is my opinion that other than our stand on the KJV, our beliefs are in fact, very much alike.
While you may, or may not agree, it is my opinion that other than our stand on the KJV, our beliefs are in fact, very much alike.
No, we are not.
God Bless
Till all are one.
While you may, or may not agree, it is my opinion that other than our stand on the KJV, our beliefs are in fact, very much alike.
No, we are not.
God Bless
Till all are one.
For the benefit of DeaconDean I will state the following:
1) I affirm the statement made in the 1649 London Baptist Confession of Faith Article 1, Paragraph 8, in regards to the Scriptures; DeaconDean does not. Rather, he affirms the statement made in the 1878 Niagara Bible Conference concerning the Scripture, which states:
"14 point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878:
1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts"
https://truthisfundamental.wordpress.com/1878-nbcc/
To clarify my position, here is where I am coming from:
"Let us not be deluded into thinking that the Southern Baptist Convention can integrate Southern Baptist thought by fiat of creedal declarations. Is it a response to the Southern Baptist Convention's more narrowly defined version of the Baptist Faith & Message recently adopted in Orlando, Fla.? No, actually it's a statement published in the Baptist Standard April 30, 1925, when the SBC stood on the brink of adopting the first Baptist Faith & Message document in Memphis, Tenn. The warning was penned by John Ellington White, at the time pastor of First Baptist Church of Anderson, S.C., and president of Anderson College...On one hand, "No creed but the Bible" has been Baptists' mantra from their emergence as a distinctly identifiable group. Yet on the other hand, Baptists from the beginning often have written statements of faith to let others know what they believe...Baptists had been persecuted for not adhering to the authority of the state church and for insisting that every believer should have direct access to God without coercion from church leaders and without being required to work through a human intermediary or subscribe to a human-written creed.
___Historically, Baptists have shunned creeds," Alan Lefever said. In England, early Baptists "refused to adopt a confession. They said we need no confession but the Bible...And when the SBC was formed in 1845, no confession of faith or creed was adopted. W.B. Johnson, first president of the SBC, explained: "We have constructed for our basis no new creed, acting in this manner upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible."
___Prior to this time, numerous confessions of faith had been written by individual Baptists, local churches and associations. In fact, in the early days, Baptist churches and pastors would exchange statements of faith as part of the process of calling new pastors, McBeth said.
___The tension over confessions of faith also surfaced in early America as the so-called Regular Baptists and Separate Baptists eventually came together, McBeth said. "The Separates insisted that there be no confession, but the Regulars had a confession."
___To resolve the difference, both groups agreed the confession of faith would be "advisory only" and that no one would be required to subscribe to every point, McBeth said.
___The SBC existed for 80 years--more than half its current life--without adopting any confession of faith. If you read the preamble to the (1925) Baptist Faith & Message, it basically says you can disagree with all this and it is OK. The preamble is the safety valve for Southern Baptists."
"Baptists have debated creeds & confessions for centuries", By: Mark Wingfield, Managing Editor, The Baptist Standard
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/...es/creeds.html
I will not be made to affirm, or otherwise be made to, swear to any Creed or confession. Whether it is the Southern Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, or the Apostles Creed, or the Nicene Creed.
To go further, Dr. Jimmy Draper once said:
A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.Ernest Reisinger wrote:
DANGERS OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONShttp://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/re...goodnews02.htm
One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.
Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.
The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).
1
a: validate, confirm
b: to state positively <he affirmed his innocence>
2: to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed
3: to express dedication to <affirm life>
intransitive verb
1: to testify or declare by affirmation as distinguished from swearing an oath
2: to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court
Quakers as well will not agree to creedal statements. Our relationship with G-d is a living thing, it cannot be encapsulated by words, especially words written to force a political agreement on the religion of an empire.
Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old),and the New Testament in Greek, which (at the time of the writing of it) was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto; and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [ie. common] language of every nation, unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may hope.
i can only guess, but it seems that the controversy stems from paragraph 8.
From the 2nd London Baptist Confession:
Note to the reader: I edited out thefootnotes of "scriptural proofs" to save room.
Source
The Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742 (same paragrah):
Note again to the reader: I edited out the footnotes of scriptural proofs to save room.
Source
Where, in either one, puts me in conflict with "the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original autographs"?
God Bless
Till all are one.
DeaconDean, I do indeed affirm the teachings that I stated I affirm. That means, that I not only agree with these teachings (since they are based in Scripture), but stand by, and defend them while others leave the faith, and surrender to a more modernistic teaching.
Since you can't seem to understand the difference between the two statements shown, allow me to give you a hint as to the controversy that is on going. The words, " ... and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages ... ".
Those men did in deed believe in the purity of the "original autographs", (as do both you and I); however, you deny the afore mentioned words. You have once again played a game of semantics, stating you are not denying the "the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original autographs", but fail to show that you do NOT agree with the words, " ... and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages ... ". Which I not only agree with, but affirm.
Jack
the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic;
What did they say Jack?
Hint:
The Greek and Hebrew: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages".
Sorry guy, you don't have a leg to stand on.
God Bless
Till all are one.
A single perfect translation is nowhere implied there, and certainly not explicitly stated, by that quote. Especially a translation whose language is already outdated and which already needed revision of any sort. That which is pure by definition needs no revision.
I have to disagree on the language being outdated.
It shouldn't be so difficult for anyone to understand considering the reading comprehension of the King James is on a elementary level.
Slang is not a language nor would I want a Ebonics text Bible.
No need to be tripping over the thee's and thou's
I have to disagree on the language being outdated.
It's not the reading comprehension level. I don't find any particular translation particularly challenging. There are words whose meanings have changed over 400+ years though, and therefore the language would be immediately clearer to people in 1611 than in 2015.
Just read the KJV for a while and don't judge it or research it.
I have to disagree on the language being outdated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?