tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post1677394522653521365..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The Meaning of Fideism, the Preservation of Scripture, and King James OnlyKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18075104860541054542018-03-30T18:28:09.680-07:002018-03-30T18:28:09.680-07:00Bill,
"Preservation is a biblical doctrine&q...Bill,<br /><br />"Preservation is a biblical doctrine"<br /><br />It depends how you see preservation. The root word is "preserve" and every time it is used in the bible (29 times) it always in context to uphold, sustain, to keep, to save from decay (Genesis 19:32 / 45:5, Deuteronomy 6:24, Psalm 32:7, Proverbs 4:6 / 14:3, etc.).<br /><br />The most direct implication to the scriptures is Psalm 12:7, "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."<br /><br />The context is in v6, the words of the Lord, therefore by faith I believe those words are upheld, sustained and kept from decay in the Holy King James Bible.<br /><br />That is not blind faith, but rather biblical faith. I believed, like so many that I know, that the King James Bible is given by inspiration (that is what the bible teaches) before I knew anything about its preservation.<br /><br />If that is not true, then where are all the words of God found?<br /><br />George<br /><br /><br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23485758610395306622018-03-30T07:16:00.552-07:002018-03-30T07:16:00.552-07:00Brother Brandenburg,
This is your blog, and I do ...Brother Brandenburg,<br /><br />This is your blog, and I do not mean to interfere, but you may want to discuss the objectivity of normal Textual Criticism and the subjectivity of Eclectic Textual Criticism. In the comments on Sharper Iron, and other places, there is no distinctions being made between these methodologies.<br /> Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04407932936189262291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2913413952960573482018-03-30T06:02:04.707-07:002018-03-30T06:02:04.707-07:00Autopisticism (Fideism) accepts the Bible as the i...Autopisticism (Fideism) accepts the Bible as the inspired, preserved Words of God by faith without any other evidence to that reality. Therefore, faith initially begins with a blind leap in ignorance into the Word of God (into the Light). Faith increases and opens the eyes of the person who is blind and ignorant as he begins to read, study, understand, and know what he first simply accepts by faith as the Words of God (Romans 10:17). Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04407932936189262291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55908737238614025472018-03-29T17:51:05.310-07:002018-03-29T17:51:05.310-07:00George,
I don't think that a blind leap into t...George,<br />I don't think that a blind leap into the light is an excellent Biblical insight. Faith isn't blind. Faith isn't a blind leap, neither. Heb. 11:1 is excellent Biblical insight, and it doesn't define nor describe faith in those terms.<br /><br />Preservation is a Bible doctrine. You need it. I need it. The Bible teaches it and that alone makes it essential. It must be believed. Preservation is a corollary to Inspiration.<br /><br />Can you take a criticism? Your position on Inspiration and Preservation (which is also nill), isn't faith. It appears something more of a blind leap.<br />Bill Hardeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15552819877860565186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80849358676270037072018-03-29T07:05:13.707-07:002018-03-29T07:05:13.707-07:00"I see evangelicals and fundamentalists asser..."I see evangelicals and fundamentalists assert inspiration and canonization but not preservation."<br /><br />You do not need preservation if you understand "all scripture is given by inspiration". I do not need to know what was, but what is. It is obviously implied and reasonable to understand that if the body of Christ believes today that the very words of God are found in the Holy King James Bible, then it is also true that throughout previous generations God preserved his words, for if it were not true then the Holy Ghost was not present in the body of Christ in the past. That would be shear nonsense and about as dumb as it gets!<br /><br />The Holy King James Bible which is inspired did not fall down from heaven, but rather "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" in the past is made apparent by the present (the biblical teaching of the inspiration of God). If you cannot know for sure today, you will never know looking in the past! That has proven itself over and over and over again by the fact that after 200+ translations, not one of them is believed to be inspired scripture! And who is the author of confusion?<br /><br />Therefore, it is inspiration and not preservation that must be believed. It must be this way, "For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him".<br /><br />GeorgeThe Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26762906436969918632018-03-29T06:42:59.007-07:002018-03-29T06:42:59.007-07:00"Real faith (Fideism) is not a blind leap int..."Real faith (Fideism) is not a blind leap into the darkness. Real faith is a blind leap into the light!"<br /><br />That is an EXCELLENT biblical insight. Well said.<br /><br />GeorgeThe Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12264476150849127012018-03-28T18:20:14.883-07:002018-03-28T18:20:14.883-07:00Conservative evangelicals and historic fundamental...Conservative evangelicals and historic fundamentalists have no problem standing on the Scriptures alone for their apologetic on the inspiration of the Holy Bible. They got the doctrine of inspiration down pat. Inspiration is recognized, received, yea even canonized. But where may we find their doctrine of preservation? It is virtually non-existent. Many (dare I say all) modern evangelical/fundamental Systematic Theology textbooks contain next to nothing. Differing from systematic theology but nonetheless systematic in their theology, The historic confessions recognizes the preservation of Scriptures. <br /><br />The Westminster COF, 1646: "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;" [The online edition that I saw cited Matt. 5:18]<br /><br />The Savoy Declaration, 1658: "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 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;"<br /><br />The Second London Baptist COF, 1689: "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;" [the online edition that I saw cited 11 Bible verses as evidence for this paragraph].<br /><br />the Bible itself in a pervasive manner discloses both of its inspiration and preservation. <br /><br />What value is there of inspiration if it isn't kept pure in all ages?<br /><br />I am guessing the influence of rationalism has taken hold of myriads of Biblical scholars (so much so as to see virtually nothing about preservation in many Systematic Theology textbooks). And the depravity of man has rendered his reasoning (apart from God's grace) incapable of sufficiently constructing his beliefs on anything objective.<br /><br />When I first heard of fideism, I was a Roman Catholic high-school student trying to learn about apologetics. Fideism was described to me as "faith in faith" and I was taught that this view leads to futility. Of course, now, as a Christian, I realize that faith is all we have. I still bristle at the term so I prefer presuppositionalism or Scripturalism.<br /><br />The canonicity of the Scriptures (also) is a matter of faith. The finest Biblical scholars have no problem ascribing to faith the matter of canonization (ex. F.F. Bruce, M. H. Franzmann, H.N. Ribberbos, Carson-Moo-Mooris "it was not so much that the church selected the canon as that the canon selected itself" (in their famous An Intro. to the N.T.); Richard Gaffin).<br /><br />I see evangelicals and fundamentalists assert inspiration and canonization but not preservation. What good are inspiration and canonization without preservation? This is what makes TSKT valuable. It is a Biblical theology of the doctrine of preservation. The men of God explains what the Bible teaches about its own preservation. Folks need to read it, not because of what men say, but because it clearly delineates what the Bible says, and we should be interested in what the Bible says - more than what others say about it.Bill Hardeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15552819877860565186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59727172732938995042018-03-28T11:36:54.483-07:002018-03-28T11:36:54.483-07:00Terry,
I'm not sure what your beliefs are on ...Terry,<br /><br />I'm not sure what your beliefs are on this subject, but I'm guessing that you don't agree with Wallace on this issue. At least he's honest about what he believes though.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-4092501927722027712018-03-28T11:36:13.260-07:002018-03-28T11:36:13.260-07:00Thanks Lance.Thanks Lance.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-89731804433864202332018-03-28T10:39:00.176-07:002018-03-28T10:39:00.176-07:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os31IEVTDJo&t=...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os31IEVTDJo&t=962sTerry Basham, IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15354045499775379475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-71610247902431201622018-03-28T05:34:37.648-07:002018-03-28T05:34:37.648-07:00Presuppositionalists (Reform Theologians) do not l...Presuppositionalists (Reform Theologians) do not like your (and my) definition of Fideism, which is a dictionary definition of the word. They give Fideism a philosophical definition. <br /><br />There has been an historic antagonism against the Word of God and against Fideism since the fall of Satan and the corruption of humanity. Fideism is the understanding that the only way to objectively know and understand eternity and spiritual realities is through faith. The only way Fideism can possibly be objective is through God’s inerrant and inspired Words preserved by Him down through the centuries. Apart from God’s preserved inspired Words, faith in anything spiritual is reduced to ambiguous guess work and pontificating postulations – Theory-ology! <br /><br />Real faith (Fideism) is not a blind leap into the darkness. Real faith is a blind leap into the light! Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04407932936189262291noreply@blogger.com