Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Who Changed?

Here I am again--apologizing for our not posting anything new for many months now! Family, work, church, kid's sports, potty training, etc... have contributed to this most recent silence. I don't know that an apology is needed--these are far more important than any blog. Oh well, this is a short one but I have been chewing on it for a while now.

Here is what Pastor Jack Schaap, First Baptist Church of Hammond, and Hyles Anderson College believes regarding the Holy Scriptures in 2008:

is the Word of God. We believe in the King James Version of the Bible."

SCRIPTURES — "We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."


Here is what James Gray had to say in 1909 regarding inspiration in The Fundamentals Volume 2 Chapter 1:

"Let it be stated further in this defnitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record — the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it."

One question begs asking--who changed their belief on the Holy Scriptures? Stay tuned for more to come...



Anonymous said...

I think they saw how out of hand their defense of the KJV had become. First Baptist Church Fundamentalism has always been about reaction. When the Bible we used was under attack and being replaced, we responded with crazy notions, rather than letting the Word of God defend itself. By the way, the original Sword of the Lord statement of faith, talked about inspiration in reference to the original manuscripts. Interesting that is the same language that got Pensacola Christian so upset with BJU.

PT Barnum said...

I dare say that the FBCH doctrinal statement once included that inspiration and perfection were only in the original manuscripts. They clamor over people changing on silly cultural issues and then change on something as major as their belief on the Holy Scriptures? I am convinced that Schaap is just looking for another issue/fight so he can seem like Hyles/Rice. What a straw man! Thanks for your comment!

PT Barnum

Rhonda in Chile said...

Please forgive my ignorance. Who is James Gray?

Thank you

PT Barnum said...

Feel free to google him but he was an early fundamentalist leader who wrote on the inspiration of Scripture in The Fundamentals. He was a close associate of DL Moody and was one of the seven editors of the first Scofield Reference Bible in the early 1900's. The Torrey Gray Auditorium at MBI in Chicago is named in honor of him. He was dean and later president of Moody Bible Institute.

Anonymous said...

SCHAAP A ROPE (to the tune of Skip a Rope)

Oh, listen to the Preacher while he prays,
Now ain't it kinda funny what the Preacher says,

Schaap a rope.

HACer’s hate the Liberals and their NIV,
They rant and they rave about their KJV,
You know it‘s the best thing since the slice of bread,
At least those are the words that Jack Hyles once said.

Cheat on your spouse, man don’t be a fool,
Forget what they said about a Golden Rule?
He never minded rules because he had to win,
And it was up to him how he preached against sin.

He could cover up because he had all the tools,
And he taught it to the boys at the Pastor’s School.
They could scream and yell like all the rest
Because they had all learned it from the very Best.

Schaap a rope, Schaap a rope

Just listen to the Preacher boys while they pray,
It's NOT really funny, what the Preacher boys say,

Schaap a rope, Schaap a rope.

Anonymous said...

The KJV is no more the inspired word of God than any other version of the Bible. The Bible's writers were inspired, not the Bible itself--that is why it contradicts itself and forgets sometimes what its words said in earlier places--and even that is in doubt-that is unless you are Bill Grady, since he appears to know everything-where did he get his education, hmmm? Oh that's right- HAC! Dont go against HAC or ask any questions or they will throw you out, they did me, and I grew up there and my parents were staff and my dad was a deacon--HAC and FBC are a joke actually a capital JOKE--always have been, always will be! This just further proves it!

PT Barnum said...


I agree that the KJV is no more the "inspired Word of God" than some of the other versions. I completely disagree with your conclusion that the writers were "inspired" and not the Word itself. I also would love to go through some of the "contradictions" that you have found--lets make this educational for everyone. Post one at a time and we will address them. I agree that HAC is a joke but there are MANY theologians who studied at real universities that hold to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Happy New Year!


Anonymous said...

facts are that if the words were actually inspired by God, and if God is all powerful and such(although the Bible never actually says this) then why did God use anybody besides himself to write it?? And why was the Bible written in at least 4 languages, some 47 different dialects and by some 400+ different individuals over a 2000 year+ time period. Most theologians that have studied at real universities DO NOT hold to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, they hold to the inspiration of the writers as does the Catholic Church itself. Here is one point that you fail to realize. "In the Beginning was the word" and "I am the alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" The beginning of what? This states pretty undenaibly that God did not exist at one time and then all of a sudden did, hence a "beginning" which according to the average Baptist--God always was-but yet this idea makes him finite, not infinite. Dont give out stuff that you cant back up--yes I went to HAC and I graduated from HBHS in 1982--so your not gonna tell me anything that I cant refute or argue about. Once you get into it and look for yourself you will find out that the things that they taught you at Hyles and the things that you continue to learn At CHBC in Indianapolis are not necessarily fact or even correct, not even close.

Anonymous said...

The textus receptus from which we get our Bible is a 14th century work by the Dutch Catholic Scholar Erasmus. And he picked through an earlier 6 different manuscripts that were the product of an earlier Byzantine manuscript that included parts of the Bible, but not all of it--so even this is not the original texts. Even Frederick Von Nolan, who spent the better part of 30 years trying to trace the Bible back to both apostolic and pre-apostolic times could not do so. The furthest he could even come close to tracing it was the mid 3rd century-which is not suprising since the original texts were not a written document, and nothing was even put down in writing until at least the 3rd century. ANYBODY ANYWHERE that claims to have seen, touched or dealt with the original texts or anybody who claims this fact in the last 2000 years is lying and cannot be trusted. The facts are that most Biblical scholars both protestant and catholic, hold to the idea of preservation and not inspiration of the scriptures. In other words the message has been inspired and the ideas have been preserved, but there is no historical fact or no scholar that holds to the inspiration of the words themselves either in the original(which doesnt exist and never did)or in the translated texts, unless they are of course a KJV nut. If they hold to the inspiration by God of any words then you have to beleive that Giod is a plaigarist-since the Bible is made up of many dofferent schools of thought, not all being christian as you know it. The Beattitudes in Matthew 4-6 is actually a direct plaigarism of Buddhist doctrine, and almost word for word in some instances and Buddha lived some 600 years before Christ-so that disproves your assumption that the words are inspired right there. Unless you of course agree that God is a plaigarist, which I doubt that you do.

Matthew Paul Turner said...

hey matthew, have you read churched? I think you might like it. :)

PT Barnum said...

anonymous: "Most theologians that have studied at real universities DO NOT hold to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, they hold to the inspiration of the writers as does the Catholic Church itself."

PT Barnum: After reading this part of your very astute comment I had to laugh. I have no idea what kind of college or university you deem as "real" but maybe you could help me separate which ones I should view as such. Here is a list of universities--which ones do you consider to be "real"?

University of Cambridge
Covenant Theological Seminary
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fuller Theological Seminary
University of Northern Iowa
Reformed Theological Seminary
University of Chicago
Regent College
University of Michigan
Bethel Seminary
Baylor University
Talbot School of Theology
Wheaton College
University of Munich
University of Oregon
Northwestern University
Westminster Theological Seminary
Dallas Theological Seminary

I could go on but this ought to be entertaining enough as it is.

PT Barnum

PT Barnum said...


No I have not read your book yet but it is on my short list for sure! I imagine I will get quite a kick out of it and I may even contact you since it will no doubt bring my childhood memories bubbling up! I am looking forward to reading it soon.


Anonymous said...

Here is CH Dodd's criticism on what "inspiration" means:

The theory which is commonly described as that of "verbal inspiration" is fairly precise. It maintains that the entire corpus of Scripture consists of writings every word of which (presumably in the original autographs, forever inaccessible to us) was directly "dictated" by the Deity...They consequently convey absolute truth with no trace of error or relativity... No attempt will be made here to formulate an alternative definition of inspiration..That I believe to be a false method. There is indeed no question about the original implications of the term: for primitive religious thought the "inspired" person was under the control of a supernatural influence which inhibited the use of his normal faculties

Here is the Roman Catholic's official stand on the inspiration:

the Roman Catholic apologetic for the inspiration of scripture first considers the scriptures as a merely historical source, and then it attempts to derive the divinity of Jesus from the information contained therein, illuminated by the tradition of the Catholic Church and by what they consider to be common knowledge about human nature. After offering evidence that Jesus is indeed God, they argue that his Biblical promise to establish a church that will never perish cannot be empty, and that promise, they believe, implies an infallible teaching authority vested in the church. They conclude that this authoritative Church teaches that the Bible's own doctrine of inspiration is in fact the correct one.
The Church Fathers often referred to writings other than the documents that formed or would form the biblical canon as "inspired

--Still not seeing a confirmation of the "actual inpired words" as you beleive.--

Here is the evangelical veiwpoint:

The Evangelical position has been criticized as being circular by non-Christians and as well as Christians such as Catholic and Orthodox authors, who accept the doctrine but reject the Protestant arguments in favor of it. These critics claim that the Bible can only be used to prove doctrines of biblical inspiration if the doctrine is assumed to begin with

According to this you must "assume" it to be "inspired"--you do know what happens when you "assume", correct? You dont even want me to go on and explain Cambridge University's take on inspiration--since they are actually in favor of preservation, not inspiration as I have said. I would probally agree with you that the Torah and parts of the OT were inspired and maybe even actually written by God himself--but the majority of what we know as the Bible is not, the original may have been, but we dont have the originals, what we actually have is a copy of a copy of a translation of many other translations of many documents leading up to what we now call the Bible(which BTW, may or may not be all of it or any of it)So that is the reason why many or I should say most Bible scholars at most of the schools that you have listed beleive in preservation, not inspiration. For instance the name Jehovah or Jesus(Gee-zues) are not even correct, since Hebrew has no J in it's alphabet, the name is actaully Yeshua, not Jesus and Yehuhushua, not Jehovah--so how can we have an inspired text, if it is not even translated correctly? The Textus Receptus has more than 4800 obvious errors in the original, and who knows how many more besides this obvious one after being translated to English.

頭昏 said...

幽默並不是諷刺,它或許帶有溫和的嘲諷,卻不傷人,它可能是以別人,也可以用自己為對象。 ..................................................

Yadav Rakesh said...

We found that your company is leading web designing and website Development Company in your city. We appreciate your creativity and portfolio of website designing. We also come to know you are doing well in search engine optimization inAhemadabad. Here we are Ahmedabad based company #1 Vinayak InfoSoft – dealing in website designing in ahmedabad, web development in ahmedabad and search engine optimization in ahmedabad.Once again thanks for sharing our view (comment) on your blog with all internet user. We wish best luck for your bright future.user. We wish best luck for your bright future."
Ahmedabad Web Designing