Saturday, October 29, 2011

Fundamental Baptist Heritage

"Too bad some preachers haven't been as loyal to their fundamental Baptist heritage as they are to their favorite sports teams."

I read this tweet today and I had to laugh.  Quotes like these are so common from some of the outspoken KJVO, IFB, separated, blah blah blah pastors and preachers on Twitter.  And while I can appreciate their zeal for what they stand for, they really ought to learn to stand for whatever it is they want to stand for because it's right and not worry about "heritage" and "old paths."  They also ought to study history a little more.  You see "fundamental Baptist heritage"  was not KJVO by any stretch of the imagination: just read John R. Rice's book "Our God-Breathed Book" or look to see fundamentalist hero Curtis Hutson's name appear on the committee list of the New King James Bible.  Although these are just two individuals, they echo the sentiment of the movement.  That is why when Jack Schaap said his position on the KJV (which is that it is neither inspired or preserved, just the Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek) is the same has historic fundamentalism, he wasn't lying...for a change.

Here is exactly what fundamental Baptist heritage believed as written in a work titled "Doctrinal Non Issues in Historic Fundamentalism" by Rolland D. McCune and published by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:

"Early fundamentalists did not champion a particular version of the Bible as their official version or elevate a particular codex, text type, or translation to the special status of being inspired or of being the very Word of God to the exclusion of all others. While the King James Version was used overwhelmingly in public, the American Standard Version (1901), for example, was widely assigned and used as a study Bible in fundamentalist schools and was used by many teachers in the classroom [in other words they were lying to their congregations]. Pastors, evangelists, and Bible teachers had no hesitation in recommending it for clarity of reading and understanding. Even the Revised Standard Version New Testament, in use from 1946 to 1952, before the Old Testament came out, was used, recommended, and even advertised for sale by some fundamentalists."

Don't be fooled to think that it is any different today.  KJVO fundamentalists (if they truly are) are the minority of that movement and they certainly don't speak for the "heritage" of the Baptist's that jumped onto this protestant movement.  The heritage that was started is still where the movement stands today; again, Jack Schaap was right.  And while I am glad that they stand for the right Book (publicly at least) here is what the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship (pillars of their movement) had to say at a recent annual meeting concerning the KJVO position:

"In a day when translations abound, fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both selection and rejection of translations.  Some professing [are they suggesting that REAL fundamentalists are not KJVO?] fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God's Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of fundamentalism.  Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalists must be rejected."

Are you a fundamentalist?  Is this your position?  If not then you do not hold to the heritage of fundamental Baptist's nor do you hold to the current position of the fundamental movement.  You are an individual; stand as such in the power of God and his might: which is in the Authorized Version, and not in a movement with a protestant brand name.  The King James Bible is 400 years old.  The fundamental movement is only about 1/4 of that age and Baptists have been part of it for less time than that.

But I guess, if you want to cling to a Bible-rejecting heritage you do have soul liberty.  Amen.


Friday, October 28, 2011

A Word On Music

Here is some interesting commentary from a brother and friend of mine on Facebook concerning the music preference (and it is mostly preference) issue.  He makes some good points. What say ye?

It has been said that all CCM is satanic, I disagree. A song, ANY SONG, is to be judged on it's own merits, not clumped up with a bunch of other songs. Let me just give you a short list of CCM songs:
Easter Song
He's Alive
Rise Again
To God Be The Glory
That is a very short list, so let me ask you, are those songs Satanic because they are CCM? Or should they be judged on their own merit. Should they be judged on what the belief of the writer is? You do know that almost all of the hymns in your hymnal were written by Calvinists or Arminians, don't you? Should we also get rid of those. There are songs in the hymnals I won't sing, due to doctrinal reasons, but I have judged the song individually, not thrown out the entire hymnal because I found an unscriptural song in it.
I have also seen that MOST of the people who are against CCM, say nothing about Southern Gospel, Country Gospel, or Bluegrass gospel, why is that? Could it be that it's because you like that kind of music, but don't like CCM music? Now to the actual meodies, I have heard it said that if it makes you want to tap your foot, it's wrong. So there goes half of the hymnals again. They say it's because of the beat, listen folks, if it doesn't have a beat it's not music. Even Gregorian Chants have a beat. Did you ever notice the numbers at the front of a hymn, that's the beat. Whether it's 3/4 or 4/4 or 2/4 etc. time. THen they will say you cannot have drums, ignoring the KJB when it uses the tabrets and tambrels in Psalms.
And I assume you know the same arguements were given for not using the Hymns in you hymnal when they came out, the Church of England and the Catholic church and the Presbyterian church all wanted only the Psalteries sung, they said the new hymns were of the devil to draw people away from true worship. Also you do know that many hymns music comes from old Shantys and folk songs, don't you? Cleanse Me is from a Maori Chant.
Now, let me be clear, you can dislike CCM if you want, but don't claim it is Of the devil. I myself prefer singing the old Hymns in Church, but that is my PREFERENCE.
All I ask is you be consistant, if CCM is wrong, then so is Southern Gospel, Country Gospel, and Bluegrass Gospel, then you need to get rid of all the songs written by Calvinists and Arminians. Be Consistant.


Monday, October 17, 2011

Ambassador Baptist College: KJVO?

Here is typical look at what a Psuedo-King James Only Baptist College (or even fundamental churches since they just copy statement of faiths) says when they want to look King James Only, while still sounding intellectual so they can attract students and make money (didn't the Bible have something to say about the love of money?).

We believe…

  • …that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments were “God-breathed,” or given by the inspiration of God, resulting in a product that was inerrant and infallible in the original autographs. (This sounds great except it says nothing.  So what if the originals were inerrant and infallible, you can't get them and neither can I since they no longer are in existence.  Furthermore, we have no idea if they were actually inerrant: can you be sure Paul's scribe didn't spell one word wrong in the original epistle to the Romans? Sounds silly to say, but if you can't PROVE the opposite then you honestly have to admit the possibility.  Not to mention the Neo term "God-breathed."  I'm no Th.D and I don't have an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson so this may automatically disqualify my opinion, but I think I read back there in the Old Testament that the original 10 Commandments were written on tables of stone by the finger of God.  Now, unless you think God breathes through his finger, you have a serious problem.  And if you do think God breathes through his finger, you have no business teaching in a "Bible" college.)
  • …that God has fulfilled His promise to preserve His Word for every generation of human history, through copies and translations of those original writings. (Again, another say nothing statement: preserve His Word?  The Word (capital W) is Jesus Christ: of course, they would know that if they read just 5 verses their King James Bible.)
  • …that inspiration applied only to the autographs, but that their words have been accurately retained through God’s preservation. (Typical statement made by silly fundamentalists and neos alike.  Of course if they'd bothered to look at the context of the passage one time the word inspiration appears in the New Testament, they would have noticed that Timothy is said to have known the "holy scriptures."  There's not a psuedo on the planet that believes Timothy had the originals in his possession at anytime so why would you ignore the clear context?  Furthermore the Book of Jeremiah that actually ended up in the canon of scripture is actually the third version of what was written by him and his scribe and the Book of Proverbs was put together partially from copies of Solomon's writing's copied out by Hezekiah's men.  Not to mention, if they were Bible believer's they would know what the law of first mention was; and knowing that they would know that the first mention of "inspiration" is in the Book of Job and has absolutely nothing to do with scripture, but rather how God imparts understanding to man.  But you'd only know this if you actually read your Bible; and who does that these days?)
  • …that God has preserved His Word in the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Greek Text of the New Testament. (Once again the capital W: seriously, can't they read 5 verses of scripture?  That's great that there are some Hebrew and Greek manuscripts left in world: too bad nobody at this college or any of their students are part of the less than 1% of the population of the world that actually speak these languages.  Not to mention, Koine Greek (of which nobody can actually prove was the original language of the NT) has been dead for over 1500 years).
  • …that the King James Version of the Bible is the best English translation available, not only because it is an excellent translation, but because it is a translation of the best Hebrew and Greek texts. (Great statement with no conviction.  Who says the AV is the best translation?  You; ambassador college?  And you are who?  Fundamentalist founder C.I. Scofield didn't think so.  The "Captain" John R. Rice didn't think so.  Curtis Hutson didn't think so for a large part of his ministry. So why is your preference superior to their preference and opinion?  Any scripture to back up your preference? I thought not.)
  • …that consistency in position demands that we use only the above-mentioned Hebrew and Greek texts and the KJV translation in our classrooms and chapel services. (What: did you just say your position is consistent?  What happens when the Hebrew and Greek conflicts with the AV?  And don't be fooled to think that they don't.  The "TR" used in most Bible colleges is Scrivener's text put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society.  This text was not in existence at the time the AV1611 was translated.  It was created by Scrivener by taking the AV New Testament and back translating it into Greek.  Yes you read that right: Ambassador's Greek authority over the KJV came from the KJV itself.  However, Scrivener was also on the committee of Wescott & Hort, so naturally being the "man of Gaaaaawd" that he was, he "corrected" the back translated Greek from the "errors" of the KJV translators.  So, as always was, there is no Greek text that has ever existed that reads exactly like the KJV.  So just what is their final authority and what are they teaching the next generation of preachers is their final authority?  Well, naturally it's whatever the baptist pope in their classroom says and therefore they should repeat in the pulpit.  This is why 99% of preachers HAVE to mention something about the meanings of Agape and Phileo when they preach from John 21.  But naturally, being the biblically illiterate amateur Greek scholars that they are, they forgot that God the Father has phileo love for Jesus Christ in John 5:20; they forgot that Jesus has only phileo love for the believer in John 16:27; and that Jesus only had phileo love for Lazarus in John 11:3.  But who wants to be a dumb King James Bible believer these days and actually believe what the text says: "Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?"  "The third time" could only be the right rendering if all three questions actually meant the same thing.  But that's too simple and doesn't sound intellectual so it can't be right.  Plus, if you actually believe the text of the AV "as is" you might get labeled a "Ruckmanite" and you don't want to be grouped in with a divorced pastor do you (hide your Scofield Bible at this time as not to seem like a hypocrite)?)


Friday, October 14, 2011

Dr. James Lince on Sermon Preparation

"Textual, topical, or word studies are the common result whenever the deductive approach to sermon preparation is used.

"Many, if not most [pastors], prefer to read the Bible and prepare their sermons with their own convictions already in mind.  All they ever need to prepare a message is a scriptural text that appears to support their own personal convictions.  Unfortunately, their convictions are usually nothing more than religious ideas flying around their minds looking for a place to land.  So they are forced to find a verse to light on just to prove that they have a biblical basis for what they are preaching.

"Many preachers choose to preach topical sermons because they do not require any real effort to dig down into the text for all the hidden insights - the golden nuggets of truth that are there for the picking.  It is much easier to do a broad overview of some topic and come up with a basic outline that restates a generally known biblical truth...This is what I call quick and easy, in other words, lazy preaching...Consequently, many of tghe brethren have been living on stale bread for years now because their pastors have only used textual, topical, and word studies as a basis for their preaching..."


  © Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by 2008

Back to TOP