Compass College and Seminary

Ekklesian said:
The consensus here is that kjvo-ism is a cult.
Click to expand...
When I said this, I wasn't trying to speak for the board. This is my impression from the discussions I've read. I probably should have prefaced it with, "Judging from the things I've read, it seems..."

So it puzzles me that any here are happy to see another IFB brand school. And the tone of the initial responses seemed to predicate my impression. I was especially puzzled by being piled on for three statements, in which I did NOT attack anyone.


And...
ALAYMAN said:
I’ve said it before, but your style of communication is clunky, putting it politely.
Click to expand...
...I'm still outsider here. Evidently I don't think like the majority of you. I don't mean that we don't have some of the same opinions. I mean that we just come to each others statements with vastly disparate presuppositions and we arrive at conflicting impressions of what the other is saying.

I can say I don't believe that the founders are launching another boat for the sole reason that the workers are few and the other schools need help, (why? are all the other schools full? No, it's because the other schools "compromise" and aren't "pure" in doctrine), and still allow that they think that's what they're doing. Just like I can say I believe they're kjvo, and still allow that he doesn't think so.

Honestly, I thought that you all would read their statement of faith and just be done with them...especially after the way Allen Domelle's laughable criticism of FBC, Hammond was treated.

Edited to add: And I hate that I ran someone you like off the board. I wasn't trying to. And my limited responses were a way of not overly engaging him. In fact, that was going to be my last response to him. I'm getting the feeling you'd rather I left (which is okay)--I mean--it was obvious when I first joined, LOL, but I thought that would go away eventually. Anyway, I promised an answer to the TR question.
 
Last edited:
Ekklesian said:
When I said this, I wasn't trying to speak for the board. This is my impression from the discussions I've read. I probably should have prefaced it with, "Judging from the things I've read, it seems..."

So it puzzles me that any here are happy to see another IFB brand school. And the tone of the initial responses seemed to predicate my impression. I was especially puzzled by being piled on for three statements, in which I did NOT attack anyone.


And...

...I'm still outsider here. Evidently I don't think like the majority of you. I don't mean that we don't have some of the same opinions. I mean that we just come to each others statements with vastly disparate presuppositions and we arrive at conflicting impressions of what the other is saying.

I can say I don't believe that the founders are launching another boat for the sole reason that the workers are few and the other schools need help, (why? are all the other schools full? No, it's because the other schools "compromise" and aren't "pure" in doctrine), and still allow that they think that's what they're doing. Just like I can say I believe they're kjvo, and still allow that he doesn't think so.

Honestly, I thought that you all would read their statement of faith and just be done with them...especially after the way Allen Domelle's laughable criticism of FBC, Hammond was treated.

Edited to add: And I hate that I ran someone you like off the board. I wasn't trying to. And my limited responses were a way of not overly engaging him. In fact, that was going to be my last response to him. I'm getting the feeling you'd rather I left (which is okay)--I mean--it was obvious when I first joined, LOL, but I thought that would go away eventually. Anyway, I promised an answer to the TR question.
Click to expand...
I have a degree of contempt for people like Domelle, but respect (even when occasionally disagreeing) with folk like Tom Brennan or our recent guest from Compass College.

And nobody is asking you to leave, just use a little more grace and tact.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Do you believe in Biblical preservation of any kind and if so what’s your theory on how it works?
Click to expand...

The preservation of the Bible is an existential fact. There it is.

However, there's no doctrine, properly exegeted from the Bible, that would point to the Textus Receptus as being particularly favoured by God over other text families. If scholars and theologians want to make a case for the TR on critical grounds, have at it, but it doesn't belong in a statement of faith.
 
you and i have had our conflicts ekklesian... . ..but i don;t believe in holding grudges.. ..even if things could not be clearly resolved..... and personally i would be very disappointed if you left the forum..... .. the forum would be a very boring place if everybody was all the same and never disagreed on anything.... . besides... you and i agree on far more issues and topics than we ever disagree on....

i have been on all the various versions of the fff for almost 20 years... literally grew here.... and yet even now there are times i feel like an outsider.... i live in a place and in a culture that is totally different than the mainland usa..... and i know little to nothing about fundamental baptist colleges - ... have never been a member of an ifb church..... but i was saved through the bus ministry of an ifb church when i was 8... and the family i adopted a few years later is former ifb.. my adopted dad even went to hyles anderson college for a while in the mid 1970s.... . so i hold fundamental baptists in high regard - and probably have a lot more in common with them and their beliefs than i do with the churches i have been, and still am, a member of.... .

admittedly i did not read or study the opening posts of this thread much... just skimmed over it briefly.. and have not followed it due to being too busy..... .. but what i saw made me believe i would agree with kmlengels beliefs and stands far more than i would disagree.... and i hope he will stay here too... and continue to contribute with news about his college ...his stands.. and beliefs.... even if we find in the future that we don;t agree on everything..... . .
 
The Bible does not tell us how (or what textual family) is the preserved one.

I like the United Bible Society's approach. They provide footnotes (critical apparatus) for all of the mss support for the variants.
 
I grew up in a IFB church that Tarheel Baptist knows of. The preacher there believed the KJV was the inspired word of God. He would put a question to his congregation often. Is the KJV the inspired word of God or does the KJV contain the inspired word of God? He would always say the KJV is the inspired word of God.
 
Would he say the NIV is the inspired Word of God?

How about the NKJV?
 
4everfsu said:
I grew up in a IFB church that Tarheel Baptist knows of. The preacher there believed the KJV was the inspired word of God. He would put a question to his congregation often. Is the KJV the inspired word of God or does the KJV contain the inspired word of God? He would always say the KJV is the inspired word of God.
Click to expand...
I would say the very same thing. Jesus quoted from the Septuagint so this alone tells me that a translation is authoritative and inspired as are the "originals."

I would say the same thing regarding modern versions but would continue to side with those who say the majority text is superior and to be preferred over the Alexandrian texts. If anyone has an objection to this, I would probably think them as "Anti-KJV" and would be curious as to why.
 
It is technically incorrect to say the doctrine of inspiration extends to translations.
 
Ransom said:
The preservation of the Bible is an existential fact. There it is.

However, there's no doctrine, properly exegeted from the Bible, that would point to the Textus Receptus as being particularly favoured by God over other text families. If scholars and theologians want to make a case for the TR on critical grounds, have at it, but it doesn't belong in a statement of faith.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with this claim. I do think it fair to make critical arguments as to why manuscript families are more or less plausible.
 
ALAYMAN said:
It is technically incorrect to say the doctrine of inspiration extends to translations.
Click to expand...
Theologians technically speak of derivative inspiration when it comes to translations.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Citation please.
Click to expand...
From The Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy

Article X​

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

This is the standard position of contemporary evangelicals and fundamentalists regarding the doctrine of inspiration.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Citation please.
Click to expand...
Rather, it must simply be maintained that the original documents have primal or chief authority, and that copies and translations have derivative inspiration and, thus, authority. That is, they derive their inspiration and authority from the original documents. Any appeal, then, to a copy or a translation of Scripture is authoritative because it assumes that the portion appealed to reflects the original text. Obviously, if such were not the case, the appeal would be devoid of authority. McCune, Systematic Theology, vol 1 p 97
 
FSSL said:
Rather, it must simply be maintained that the original documents have primal or chief authority, and that copies and translations have derivative inspiration and, thus, authority. That is, they derive their inspiration and authority from the original documents. Any appeal, then, to a copy or a translation of Scripture is authoritative because it assumes that the portion appealed to reflects the original text. Obviously, if such were not the case, the appeal would be devoid of authority. McCune, Systematic Theology, vol 1 p 97
Click to expand...

Apologies in advance for side railing the discussion, but this jaunt down the versions and “derivative inspiration” discussion (which I gave up studying long ago) led me to some nostalgic material from our beloved Doc Cassidy….

Link
 
ALAYMAN said:
Citation please.
Click to expand...

We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

--The Translators to the Reader, Authorized Version (1611)​
 
ALAYMAN said:
Apologies in advance for side railing the discussion, but this jaunt down the versions and “derivative inspiration” discussion (which I gave up studying long ago) led me to some nostalgic material from our beloved Doc Cassidy….

Link
Click to expand...
Cassidy, God rest his soul, lost me with all of the "others don't have personal standards stuff" over and over again.

I'm sure the article plays well with the IFBX crowd, but hardly supports a well rounded theology on inspiration. There should be an emphasis on the concept of authority and inspiration. Scripture is authoritative because it has the quality of inspiration.
 
FSSL said:
Would he say the NIV is the inspired Word of God?

How about the NKJV?
Click to expand...

When it came to versions of the bible, if they did not dot the i or cross the t like us when it come to the KJV being the inspired word of God then they were not ones to fellowship with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top