Taking a look at the Statement of Faith

[Free]

Greetings in the Lord, Free, and thanks for your trouble-shooting help.
I will answer your questions, numbering them for easier reference.

1. There are three clauses. What is self-contradictory? [["in the original autographs" and "a complete and final written revelation from God", because we do not have the originals--which would be the finals.

There isn't really a contradiction. We don't have the autographs, but we know with a high degree of certainty that what we have is pretty much what the autographs stated. Being complete also means that there are no other books, no additional written revelation from God.

3. What creed? It's a statement of faith. [[Yes, but IMU one which attempts to state God's minimum requirement, (which I attempt to do in the 5-point creed I will share if desired), whereas a SOF is broader and includes some secondary doctrines]]

But, there are secondary doctrines mentioned, as you pointed out in your OP, in points 4 and 6. Doesn't that prove it is just a SoF and not a creed?

4. I wouldn't say that "desire for heaven is the biblical reason for faith God," but what detail should be added, and why? These aren't meant to be exhaustive. [[heaven = salvation from hell, and mention of eternal love, joy and peace could be added]]

5. Why elaboration? (re the Holy Spirit) [[Because "filled and empowered" is too vague and could be clarified by citing Scripture teaching that the purpose of the HS is to teach GW, and the presence of the HS is manifested by the fruit of the Spirit summarized as love (cf. Rom. 5;5, Gal. 5:22-23, John 13:35).

6. Why the need for clarification if its biblical? [[ My comment refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but was this added by the poster? I did not discover the official CF SOF until later, and wish I had used that as the basis for my reply, but if 1Cor. 12:13 is what you have in mind, then it could be cited for clarity.]]

I have no idea what the person(s) had in mind. The verse I gave simply supported what I think they most likely were referring to.

The thing is, I've seen many statements of faith, for churches and other organizations, which are general statements and don't have any supporting verses.

 

[for_his_glory]

It is helpful that you posted that SOF, so we can compare it to my elaboration of the Christian creed, keeping in mind that the latter attempts to pare down the former so that in includes only content that is necessary to believe (the Gospel kerygma) at least implicitly in order to make a valid profession of faith.

1. This attempts to explain the Trinity, which is not requisite but rather can be learned following belief in the Gospel. The term "Creator" is implied but missing from my #1, so I will add it.
2. This attempts to explain Christ's birth and two natures, which like the Trinity is a complex doctrine that can be learned subsequent to believing the Gospel. The last sentence is good and essentially parallels what I say.
3. The HS is cited in my #5, because He indwells believers as the result of #3 & 4. Again, there is no need to explain the Trinity, but the description of His role is good.
4. This is true enough but rather watered down compared to my mention of misery and hell.
5. Like the Trinity, Biblical Inspiration is a secondary (didachaic) doctrine that does not need to be understood until after a person believes the NT Gospel, so it is not properly included in a creedal statement.
6. Ditto regarding the doctrine of the church.
7. This is relevant to the creed insofar as it expresses the reason salvation is needed: from what and to where.

Gotta go run some errands now, so TTYL.

Our learning begins the moment we are Spiritually born again and indwelled with the Holy Spirit as we continue to grow in the word of God. We are like babies at first just drinking in the milk of the word of God until we mature in understanding the word of God as we pray and ask the Holy Spirit to teach us all truths. The SOF gives us an outline of what faith is all about as we grow in the full knowledge of God.

 

[Groovy]

There isn't really a contradiction. We don't have the autographs, but we know with a high degree of certainty that what we have is pretty much what the autographs stated. Being complete also means that there are no other books, no additional written revelation from God.


But, there are secondary doctrines mentioned, as you pointed out in your OP, in points 4 and 6. Doesn't that prove it is just a SoF and not a creed?


I have no idea what the person(s) had in mind. The verse I gave simply supported what I think they most likely were referring to.

The thing is, I've seen many statements of faith, for churches and other organizations, which are general statements and don't have any supporting verses.

1. High degree and pretty much, yes; but the exact originals? Certainly not.
2. Secondary doctrines are typically included in a SOF, but not intentionally in a Creed.
3. IMO it is helpful and even necessary to discern the difference between the Creed or kerygma and a SOF for accurate interpretation of Scripture.
Ttyl

 

[Free]

1. High degree and pretty much, yes; but the exact originals? Certainly not.

Of course, but that doesn't mean there is a contradiction.

2. Secondary doctrines are typically included in a SOF, but not intentionally in a Creed.

Yes, which is why the SoF contains them.

3. IMO it is helpful and even necessary to discern the difference between the Creed or kerygma and a SOF for accurate interpretation of Scripture.
Ttyl

Okay, but this is a SoF, nothing more.

 

[Groovy]

Of course, but that doesn't mean there is a contradiction.


Yes, which is why the SoF contains them.


Okay, but this is a SoF, nothing more.

Yes, but it means there may be a contradiction, but in that regard let me run this train of thought by you:

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (IS 55:10f, 1PT 1:10-12, HB 11:2-12:2).

This topic will conclude by considering the claim of contradictions in the Bible.

Apparent Contradiction Possible Resolution
MK 9:40 person not against is for person is a secret disciple
MT 12:30 person not with is against person is a Pharisee who views Jesus as blasphemous

JM 2:24 justified by faith with works faith produces fruit (v. 14-19)
RM 3:28 justified by faith apart from law faith is followed by fruit (GL 5:6, EPH 2:10)

LK 23:46 last words were “Father, into…” Jesus said both, but witnesses heard or remembered
JN 19:30 last words were “It is finished.” only one.

MK 10:46 a blind man There were two, but MK witness saw or remembered
MT 20:30 two blind men only one.

2SM 24:1 Lord incited David God allowed Satan to incite David.
1CHR 21:1 Satan incited David

GN 2:17 die on day sin is committed “die” refers to spiritual death or separation from God
GN 5:5 lived 930 years before dying

GN 7:2-3 seven pairs of clean animals the latter does not specify how many twos
GN 7:8-9 by twos

GN 20:11-12 Sarah is Abraham’s half sister law was not given until time of Moses
LV 20:17 brother should not marry sister

1KG 15:14 Asa did not remove high places Asa removed some but not all of them
2CHR 14:2-3 Asa removed the high places

JN 20:22 disciples received the Holy Spirit received is not necessarily filling
ACTS 2:1-4 disciples were filled by the H.S.

MT 5:44 love your enemies the latter speaks of not being pleased
MT 7:1 the Lord hated Esau

Questions & Conclusions:

Is the Bible verbally inspired? Extant versions contain God’s Word and Christians believe the POS is inspired.
Is the Bible literally true? Yes, in literal passages, & metaphorically true in allegorical parables & poems.
Is the Bible sufficiently inerrant? Yes, or else there is no hope for salvation, but it must be interpreted >>>>sufficiently correctly by fallible folks. (cf. HB 1:1-2, 2TM 3:16-17)

 

[MisterE]

2. This attempts to explain Christ's birth and two natures, which like the Trinity is a complex doctrine that can be learned subsequent to believing the Gospel. The last sentence is good and essentially parallels what I say.

I see Jesus' two natures as false. Jesus had a divine nature (he is God) but his human composition was like Jesus was in his Christophanes as he appeared in the OT. Jesus did not have two natures as if he were two people. The Second Person (note the singular) of the Trinity is God the Son (singular). Christ chose to put aside some of his divine attributes so he could FUNCTION as a human. He took on human flesh, but not human consciousness, or a human will, or human intelligence. Jesus, I don't know how else to explain him, without using analogies. The incarnation is real, and Jesus was indeed flesh, and functioned as a human, but he was always God as far as his soul is concerned. If you want to respond, please don't do so with sarcasm.

 

[Free]

I see Jesus' two natures as false. Jesus had a divine nature (he is God) but his human composition was like Jesus was in his Christophanes as he appeared in the OT. Jesus did not have two natures as if he were two people. The Second Person (note the singular) of the Trinity is God the Son (singular). Christ chose to put aside some of his divine attributes so he could FUNCTION as a human. He took on human flesh, but not human consciousness, or a human will, or human intelligence. Jesus, I don't know how else to explain him, without using analogies. The incarnation is real, and Jesus was indeed flesh, and functioned as a human, but he was always God as far as his soul is concerned. If you want to respond, please don't do so with sarcasm.

I think the only truly biblical understanding of Jesus is two natures in one person. To say what you have is to have Jesus not fully human, and is somewhere between the age-old heresies of Apollinarianism and Monophysitism, perhaps even Adoptionism.

Luk 22:41 And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed,
Luk 22:42 saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (ESV)

If Jesus didn't have a human will, then that would mean the God the Son's will could be different than God the Father's, and that is highly problematic. As God, the Son's will would always have been, and will always be, in perfect harmony with the Father's.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Just as being "in the form of God" means he was God in nature, that is, truly and fully God, the same must be said about Jesus being in "the form of a servant," "in human form." If the latter means he wasn't actually truly and full human, then we cannot say that he is truly and fully God.

It also becomes problematic for his saving work. How could he have been a substitute for humanity if he wasn't truly and fully human? How could he be our advocate before the Father if he wasn't truly human, as it means he wouldn't have truly felt the full force of temptation and so could not sympathize with us in our weaknesses?

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (ESV)

There are a number of issues that arise.