I am AMAZED......

[Auntie]

.......at some of the things Christians profess to believe.:rolleyes:




....just a minor rant.:)

[dignitized]

auntie: sokay its one well shared!! :D

[Auntie]

Today at 01:15 PM Br. Max said this in Post #2 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667691#post667691)

auntie: sokay its one well shared!! :D





YES! I thought this would be something we could ALL agree on!:D

[waterwizard]

Today at 01:06 PM Auntie said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667679#post667679)

.......at some of the things Christians profess to believe.:rolleyes:




....just a minor rant.:)




You are so right.  And right now, I believe I'll have a sandwich.  :yum:

[Auntie]

Today at 01:27 PM waterwizard said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667714#post667714)

You are so right.  And right now, I believe I'll have a sandwich.  :yum:





Just look out for those killer tomatoes.:eek:

[jseek21]

I agree. Can we narrow the field down?

I see a major problem with the modern Christian church, as many others do. I will not share these problems yet, but would like to see what these beliefs are that amazing you all.

[Auntie]

Today at 01:43 PM jseek21 said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667746#post667746)

I agree. Can we narrow the field down?






Narrowing the field will cause us all to be in disagreement. As it stands now, everyone in this thread is in total agreement with each other. Even those who don't reply, but just read, will completely agree with the original post. How wonderful that we can ALL agree on something!

:P :angel:

[njtupmom]

I have often wanted to ask what bible have you been reading??!!! :eek:

 

[jseek21]

We are to be cobelligerents, not allies.
We have thrown out the unity and love that the Bible calls for so we can have a false sense of unity, a false unity. Not one based on truth and love, but based on compromise. Instead of resting on the absolutes given by Scripture we make our own absolute: the absolute that there is no absolute. This is not for which we are called!
We must have a Christian revolution. Love and untiy, yes. But let us understand that if we are to have it, we need to know what it is. We need what the reformation of the sixteenth centuary built on, that which derives from Scripture itself - that God is not only a God of love, but a God of holiness. He is a god with character. Everything is NOT equally right before god, and because of this we have absolutes and categories.
Here, then, us the basis for a revolution built on truth. We can, by God's grace, build again. To be a real revolutionary, you must become involved in a real revolution - a revolution in which you are pitted against everyone who has turned away from God and His propositional revelation to men - even against the user of god words. This is a revolution in which we may again hope to see good results, not only in individuals going to heaven, but in Christ who is lord becoming Lord of our culture - to give us , even in this fallen world, something of both truth and beauty.

The man who sacrifices truth for a false sense of unity tears apart the church from the inside

[Terri]

I agree with you jseek21.

The problem I run into is trying to figure out what to say to someone who may be at a different level of maturity.  You don't want to hurt their faith--even when you feel they are in error--WHAT DOES ONE DO?  :(

[Auntie]

Jseek,

The problem is, one man's truth is another man's state of deception, each basing their truth on scripture.

[Susan]

:P Blah, yeah. . .I agree with the OP, and there are probably people here who would think similar things about me :P

LOL, I think this is one topic on which we can agree ~.^ : none of us can agree on anything but the basics.

Nevertheless, I'm happy we do agree on the basics. -^.^-

Come to think of it, the differences will be one of the miracles of Heaven: that I will be able to sit and eat with people whom I have denounced the secondary and tertiary beliefs and practices of and who have denounced my secondary and tertiary beliefs and practices, as brothers and sisters. :angel: :hug:

[jseek21]

Today at 01:22 PM Terri said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667798#post667798)

I agree with you jseek21.

The problem I run into is trying to figure out what to say to someone who may be at a different level of maturity.  You don't want to hurt their faith--even when you feel they are in error--WHAT DOES ONE DO?  :(




One must answer the questions put forth with truth, even the truth that may be offending, in love. Paul says to preach the truth in and out of season. How can a young person become mature without hearing what will grow them. One must speak the truth in love. Truth will not hurt their faith; not speaking will.

Today at 01:27 PM Auntie said this in Post #12 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667810#post667810)

Jseek,

The problem is, one man's truth is another man's state of deception, each basing their truth on scripture.




True. However because there is an absolute there must be one side that is right and one side that is wrong. Thus one side is basing their ideas on scripture, while the latter is taking scripture out of context, changing its meaning, or missing the point altoghether.

[Auntie]

Today at 10:00 PM jseek21 said this in Post #14 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668539#post668539)



True. However because there is an absolute there must be one side that is right and one side that is wrong. Thus one side is basing their ideas on scripture, while the latter is taking scripture out of context, changing its meaning, or missing the point altoghether.




I mostly agree, except I think ALL good Bible believing churchs have at least SOME truth, some more than others. Isn't it strange how we always believe our truth is the correct truth, and the other guy is the one out in la la land somewhere.:)

[jseek21]

I do believe many churches have a semblence of truth. Because it is He who saves, He can even save a person who may not understand the jots and tittles. I merely state that there is an absolute truth; and yes, there are churches out there that teach everything right.

[Auntie]

Today at 10:21 PM jseek21 said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668578#post668578)

I merely state that there is an absolute truth; and yes, there are churches out there that teach everything right.




I would be very interested in knowing the names of theses churches that teach "everything right".

[Auntie]

Hello?

[Terri]

Today at 10:00 PM jseek21 said this in Post #14 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668539#post668539)

One must answer the questions put forth with truth, even the truth that may be offending, in love. Paul says to preach the truth in and out of season. How can a young person become mature without hearing what will grow them. One must speak the truth in love. Truth will not hurt their faith; not speaking will. 




Thanks jseek21--please pray that God will strengthen me and help me to know and to share His Truth in love.

[dignitized]

Jseek: I can say that I agree that there are churches that have majority shares in the Truth of God, but I'll be we disagree on what churches those are. so who is right?

[jseek21]

Yesterday at 10:25 PM Terri said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668694#post668694)

Thanks jseek21--please pray that God will strengthen me and help me to know and to share His Truth in love.




I shall.

[jseek21]

Today at 12:02 AM Br. Max said this in Post #20 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668848#post668848)

Jseek: I can say that I agree that there are churches that have majority shares in the Truth of God, but I'll be we disagree on what churches those are. so who is right?



You would have to seach God's Word for that. Not using your precepts, but practicing radical biblicalism: wrapping your views around God's Word, instead of as so many do, wrapping God's Word around their views. Could I give the names of some good churches: yes. Will I? No, because you must search God's Word for truth. You must be a Berean. But they do exist. There will never be a complete apostosy of the church. Thus we know that there are churches that teach complete truth. To find them you must use the refiners fire to the modern American church, burn away the chaff, and be left with what's real.

[sklippstein]

jseek.........the gift of discernment, something that I believe ALL christians should pray and seek for, would come in handy in sifting out the chaff.

[jseek21]

Today at 11:02 AM sklippstein said this in Post #23 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=669312#post669312)

jseek.........the gift of discernment, something that I believe ALL christians should pray and seek for, would come in handy in sifting out the chaff.



agreed.

[jseek21]

Yet we are all called to practice discernment in one form or another... we must be able to discern truth from a lie.

[dignitized]

Today at 12:49 PM jseek21 said this in Post #22 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=669289#post669289)

You would have to seach God's Word for that. Not using your precepts, but practicing radical biblicalism: wrapping your views around God's Word, instead of as so many do, wrapping God's Word around their views. Could I give the names of some good churches: yes. Will I? No, because you must search God's Word for truth. You must be a Berean. But they do exist. There will never be a complete apostosy of the church. Thus we know that there are churches that teach complete truth. To find them you must use the refiners fire to the modern American church, burn away the chaff, and be left with what's real.


I agree. We cannot bring what we believe to the Word and expect to find what God is proclaiming. I find it amazing that people can read: THIS IS MY BODY and come up with it was only a symbolic act because they refuse to accept what Christ Himself said. :( I’ll wager you are a fan of David Jeremiah. Am I right?

[seebs]

Today at 11:49 AM jseek21 said this in Post #22 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=669289#post669289)
But they do exist. There will never be a complete apostosy of the church. Thus we know that there are churches that teach complete truth. To find them you must use the refiners fire to the modern American church, burn away the chaff, and be left with what's real.


I don't think any church has *everything* right. I believe that every true belief is held somewhere, and every belief that affects salvation is probably right in most churches.

[Susan]

21st February 2003 at 08:26 PM Auntie said this in Post #17 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668588#post668588)

I would be very interested in knowing the names of theses churches that teach "everything right".




Heehee. . .I think you'll be a long time waiting, because the truth is that NO church has everything exactly right, just as no individual Christian has everything absolutely right. :cool:

Why would we need to "grow" as Christians if we had even the most minute truth right and absolutely nothing wrong? We could just sit and sour, much as those who think they have all truth do. :idea: 

If your church professes that it, nor any of its leaders, cannot ever be wrong on doctrinal minutiae (claiming personal infallibility on the smallest point of nonessential doctrine), run for the door as fast as you can, and encourage the person sitting next to you to do the same. . . ~.^

 :cool:

[Susan]

Yesterday at 08:12 PM seebs said this in Post #27 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=670540#post670540)

I don't think any church has *everything* right. I believe that every true belief is held somewhere, and every belief that affects salvation is probably right in most churches.




Yes, although sadly, since some focus on other things or causes ;;^.^;; ,you might have to read their doctrinal statements or whatnot.

But I agree for the most part: unless a church is extremely liberal beyond belief (in which case it would deny the Substitutional Atonement or Resurrection, therefore cutting the very heart from the Gospel) or on the other hand ultra-fundamentalist beyond belief (to the extent of being cultic, like Fred Phelps's sect), you will most likely be able to find the basic doctrines of salvation no matter what the denomination (or non-denomination ~.^) name is.

I don't particularly believe today's problem is a lack of the Bible's truths being heard: it is a problem of them not being believed, for a myriad of alleged "reasons."

[undead]

[B]Today at 09:32 AM Susan said this in Post #28 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=670960#post670960)
If your church professes that it, nor any of its leaders, cannot ever be wrong on doctrinal minutiae (claiming personal infallibility on the smallest point of nonessential doctrine), run for the door as fast as you can, and encourage the person sitting next to you to do the same. . . ~.^


Unfortunately, nearly all churches maintain a doctrine of infallibility. You know this because if you disagree with the elders, they tell you to go elsewhere.

So I did.

[jseek21]

Where do you biblically base the concept that there has been a total loss of Truth?

Ephesians 1:9 says, "He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure that He planned in Him"

We know the mystery. Does everyone? No, as Paul says, "3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (2 timothy 4:3-4). In tese days false teachers have come into the church and distorted Truth. Yet we can be comforted for the fact that there will never be a total apostasy, but that God's Word will always be intact.

[Susan]

May I ask you, directly, what group are you promoting?

Thank you -^.^-

[jseek21]

"May I ask you, directly, what group are you promoting?"

By what do you mean? Are you asking what particular belief I hold, or where I work, or....

[Terri]

22nd February 2003 at 11:41 AM jseek21 said this in Post #21 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=669274#post669274)

I shall.



Thank you jseek21.  I appreciate it greatly!! :)

[Susan]

I'm asking you where you go on Sunday. :) (or Saturday if you're a Sabbatarian)

[jseek21]

No I am not a sabitarian. I go to a non-denominational church. However I must be careful in how I speak because I do not want to be pegged as a person who thinks his church is the only TRUE church. Much to the contrary. I believe that there are many Christian churches that teach what is needed for salvation, yet there are not many that teach His Word, beginning to end. I have found this through my own encounters with individuals. That said, the people in the former churches are saved, yet may not have correct teaching. Much as John writes in Revelations. John is writing to believers, thus we know these people are saved, yet he does chastise some of the churches for allowing unbiblical beliefs to seep in.

[jseek21]

I will shortly post a synopsis of my call to Christians and what I am promoting.

[jseek21]

What am I promoting? Here is what I am promoting: a Christian revolution. A change of the status quo. A revolution in which we are pitted against everyone who has turned away from God and His propositional revelation to men - even against the user of god words. This is a revolution in which we may again hope to see good results, not only in individuals going to heaven, but in Christ who is lord becoming Lord of our culture - to give us, even in this fallen world, something of both truth and beauty.
To be a revolution Christians must take three factors into account - the difference between being a cobelligerent and an ally, the preaching and practice of Truth even at a great cost to our Christian groups, and the observation of community within those Christian groups that stand under Scripture - then we will have the possible stirring of a fresh revolution.
We must be cobelligerents, not allies. We are not to be unified with people who do not teach Truth. We must not align ourselves with any camp that is not based on Scripture. We are an ally of no such camp. The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is different; it rests on the absolutes given to us in Scripture.
Secondly, we must take Truth seriously. We have theological seminaries that call themselves Christian yet no longer hold to the Scriptures! Many try to tone down the Truth, the Truth which God Himself has given to us. It is the greatest injustice to man! We must obey God rather than man. We must preach the Word in and out of season, and this is not a season for Truth! We must practice Truth even when it is costly! We must show a generation that believes the concept of Truth is unthinkable that we do take Truth seriously.
Thirdly, our Christian groups must be real communities. Communties which are built on ther individual Christian, and not on the function. With an orthodoxy of doctrine there must be an equal orthodoxy of community. Others must see beauty in our lives and in our human relationships. Unless people see in our churches not only the preaching and practice of Truth, but also the practice of love and beauty, they will not and should not listen.

Be a radical biblicalist instead of a neo-biblicalist, as so many are.

To articulate the distinction between radical biblicism and neo-biblicism is not easy. I shall attempt to clarify the distinction by discussing seven important points of contrast:

(1) The radical biblicist does not trust his own convictions when they are not clearly and confidently derived from the teaching of the Bible. He knows that his judgments about what is true or good are vulnerable to being skewed by his innate sinfulness. Consequently, his convictions can be tainted by his own sin and the sinful culture around him. Hence, the radical biblicist does not trust his convictions. If they are not directly derived from the Bible, they are not reliable.

This same mistrust is not a compelling factor in the neo-biblicist's thought. He basically trusts his convictions--independent and underived though they may be. If they are not explicitly derived from the Bible, he expects the Bible to confirm them eventually--if not by explicit teaching, then by underlying assumptions implicit in the Bible.

(2) The radical biblicist is never fully content with the present level of his understanding. He is always keenly aware that his current beliefs may need correction. The neo-biblicist, on the other hand, is basically content with his faith. He understands and believes what Christians ought to believe. He must strive to live his life consistently in the light of his beliefs, but what to believe is a finished work for him.

(3) Both approaches can agree that the biblical teachings are informed by and embody a uniquely true worldview. Ideally, an accurate grasp of the biblical text's meaning would result in a grasp of this TRUTH, this one uniquely true understanding of reality. But is the grasp of this TRUTH attainable? The neo-biblicist is skeptical: this TRUTH--though it exists--is fundamentally unattainable; no human being could ever grasp it in this lifetime. More importantly, it is a mistake to set for oneself the idealistic goal of grasping this TRUTH.

The radical biblicist, on the other hand, is idealistic. He embraces the ideal of biblical TRUTH. He aims all of his study at achieving a full understanding of the biblical text and, thereby, a full understanding of the TRUTH of God Himself.

The radical biblicist's idealism in this regard is not inconsistent with his self-mistrust described in point one above. His mistrust follows from his awareness of his inherent sinfulness. His idealism follows from his confidence in the Bible--not only in its authority and infallibility, but also in its accessibility and knowability.* He does not trust beliefs that have not been derived from biblical instruction, but he does trust those that have been. He is confident that, due to the work of God's Spirit and in spite of his sinfulness, the Bible's truth is ultimately accessible to him. And when he comes to understand the Bible, he can be confident that he knows the TRUTH. The neo-biblicist does not share this confidence.

(4) These two different approaches employ different criteria for judging an interpretation valid. The radical biblicist judges an interpretation valid only if it understands the biblical text to say exactly what its human author meant it to say. Similarly, a worldview is validly biblical only if it conforms exactly to that worldview the biblical authors held. The neo-biblicist employs a different, more permissive criterion. For him, an interpretation can be considered valid if it is logically possible and more or less plausible. (What constitutes a "plausible" interpretation is constantly changing. It is determined by unspoken rules created and enforced by the Christian community to which one belongs.)

(5) For the neo-biblicist, a "biblical" doctrine falls within a large, vaguely defined range; specifically, somewhere within the rather permissive boundaries established by the particular Christian tradition to which he belongs. For the radical biblicist, "biblical" does not designate a range of acceptability; it designates a precise pinpoint. Either one has achieved the uniquely true understanding of reality the biblical text embodies, or he has not. If he has not, then his understanding is not biblical to the extent that he has not. Whereas two mutually contradictory doctrines could both logically qualify as "biblical" according to the neo-biblicist's meaning of that term, according to the radical biblicist's use of the term, they could not.

(6) For radical biblicism, the fundamental task is to use reason and commonsense to grasp the meaning of the biblical text that its author intended. For neo-biblicism, the fundamental task is to interpret the Bible "in good faith"; that is, to interpret the Bible in accordance with rules of evidence and principles of reasoning and interpretation acceptable to the relevant Christian community. Whether through such means he grasps what the biblical author actually intended is not ultimately important to the neo-biblicist, for that is an idealistic, unattainable goal. It is enough that he has in good faith employed acceptable means to draw plausible conclusions from his encounter with the biblical text.

(7) A neo-biblicist establishes a doctrine as "biblical" in order to show that he has permission to hold it. A doctrine's being "biblical" does not require one to embrace it; it merely makes it permissible to embrace it if, on some other grounds, one wants to. The neo-biblicist, therefore, must find other grounds upon which to choose one "biblical" doctrine over another "biblical" doctrine when the two are mutually incompatible. Typically, he finds those other grounds in his own independent judgment. (See point one.) The radical biblicist, on the other hand, seeks to determine what doctrines are "biblical" in order to determine what doctrines must be believed. For him, a doctrine's being "biblical" is all the grounds one needs for embracing it. Not only that, being "biblical" also imposes an obligation to embrace the doctrine.


According to neo-biblicism, all we can require of other Christians is that they play by the rules--staying reasonably within the rather permissive boundaries of what qualifies as acceptable theological method. As long as one stays within the requisite parameters, one has considerable freedom to think, to reason, and to believe as he wants. The neo-biblicist's commitment to being "biblical" is easily compatible with a number of different, mutually exclusive conclusions with regard to what the Bible teaches.
Some rather absurd doctrines have been accepted as "biblical" in accordance with this approach. In the mid-1970s I read Sex for Christians by Lewis Smedes, a professor at Fuller Seminary. (It has been re-released under a new title.) Smedes arbitrarily--and rather inanely--defined sexual intimacy as the penetration of a woman's ****** by a man's *****. Accordingly, unless actual penetration is taking place, one is not committing what the Bible calls fornication. According to Smedes, therefore, the Bible does not forbid petting (a dated term for sexual foreplay) between a man and woman who are unmarried. Smedes--apparently desiring to be more circumspect than the Bible--cautioned his Christian readers to practice pre-marital sexual foreplay "responsibly." Their foreplay should not be casual or promiscuous; but done "responsibly," it is morally permissible.
We have waited two decades for some Christian leader--within or without Fuller Seminary--to express outrage at the immoral sexual ethics Smedes advocated. To date, there has not been heard a whisper. From all appearances, Smedes' sexual ethics were presented as "biblical" and widely accepted as such by the modern evangelical church.
How could the church accept a conclusion that pre-marital sexual foreplay is morally appropriate? The answer, I think, lies in neo-biblicism, which is increasingly the perspective of modern biblical Christianity. Smedes obligingly connected his sexual ethics, however loosely, with biblical texts. In accordance with neo-biblicism, then, they are entitled to be accepted as "biblical." Even though Smedes' ethical views are patently false, destructive, and contrary to everything the Bible actually teaches about sexual ethics, neo-biblicism could never disallow them. What matters is that Smedes is a card-carrying member of Bible-believing Christianity. As long as he has the appropriate credentials and plays by the (rather flexible) established rules, we must acknowledge his views as "biblical." We need not agree with them; but we must respect them and allow them a hearing.
As a radical biblicist, I find the neo-biblicist approach absurd. A biblical doctrine is not one that falls within certain acceptable parameters; it is one that conforms exactly to what the biblical authors themselves held to be true. A worldview is not biblical because he who espouses it has somehow connected it to biblical revelation; a worldview is biblical when it describes reality exactly as the biblical authors would describe it. "Biblical" does not define a range of options for us to choose among; it defines a specific and unique set of doctrines. Either our beliefs are right because they conform exactly to what the Bible teaches, or they are unbiblical and wrong.

This is the call: search for Truth.

[Job_38]

Good stuff.

Hey, who is that in your picture?

[dignitized]

Search for the truth? The Truth has never been lost. The Truth is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. :)

[jseek21]

The Truth is not only Jesus Christ and Him crucified, but all of what the Bible says. Right, there has not been a complete apostasy, just a small one.

[dignitized]

all other truths are subordinate and pale in the light of the everlasting truth of Christ Crucified.

[jseek21]

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All truths of Scripture are as important. You cannot accept Christ's ressurection and reject the trinity, or Paul's ministry, ect. and have everything be ok. This is why all of Scripture is on the same level of importance: because they tie toghether. If one falls, they all do. Now the Truth of Christ is the climax of Scripture, yet belief in Christ and rejection of all other parts of the Word is not a good thing. We are to bind ourselves with the Word.

[Job_38]

[b]Search for the truth? The Truth has never been lost. The Truth is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0>[\b]

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Where that is true, its not entirely true. The problem lies when a group (religion, cult, whatever) uses a banner of truth, using Christ and such, then we must accept them, if this is the manner in which we honor truth.

[Job_38]

Hey jseek, do you have any Shaffer I could *borrow*

[Job_38]

Thanks.

http://magnonel.guild.net/~schwern/talks/How_To_Be_Lazy/full_slides/star.gif

...i felt so wrong doing that.

[Michael0701]

Job_38,

Is that a marxist graphic/symbol?

[Job_38]

Its an inside joke.

[Susan]

Today at 04:26 PM jseek21 said this in Post #43 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680304#post680304)

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All truths of Scripture are as important. You cannot accept Christ's ressurection and reject the trinity, or Paul's ministry, ect. and have everything be ok. This is why all of Scripture is on the same level of importance: because they tie toghether. If one falls, they all do. Now the Truth of Christ is the climax of Scripture, yet belief in Christ and rejection of all other parts of the Word is not a good thing. We are to bind ourselves with the Word.




So jseek, you are saying that if someone is wrong on the timing of Creation, their view of eschatology, the proper manner of baptism, whether an action is sinful or not, what Bible version they use, what their political beliefs are, or something else of that nature, they cannot be saved or at least they cannot be effective as a Christian? I find that hard to believe.

Now, if someone is denying the Trinity or Paul's ministry, that is an entirely different matter (please note that someone who questions the interpretation of a verse in the letters of Paul is not necessarily throwing his entire ministry or God's Word through him into doubt) because the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible are primary beliefs.

I am sorry, but there IS a difference between primary error, (which DOES risk one's salvation) secondary error, (which may effect someone's effectiveness but is not something to consider someone a lesser or weaker Christian over) and tertiary error (which is something ALL of us suffer from, because we are not God and it is impossible for a human to know absolutely everything, be 100%&nbsp;righteous aside from Christ's imputed righteousness, and be perfect in everything)

(I would compare this difference to&nbsp;different piloting errors.

The equivalent of a primary error would be not refueling when needed or flying into a mountaintop or the ground. This kind of error is either fatal or very injurious, as it induces a crash.

The equivalent of a secondary error would be safely landing at the wrong airport or not&nbsp;filing the proper paperwork.&nbsp;It isn't fatal, and it causes no "real" injury,&nbsp;however it could be very embarrassing or&nbsp;quite an inconvenience.&nbsp;

The equivalent of a tertiary error would be failing to wash the outside of the&nbsp;plane often enough or not wearing a bomber jacket with the "proper" patches. This error is only "discerned" by&nbsp;someone who wants to&nbsp;make&nbsp;himself look "better," as it has no bearing on anything except&nbsp;appearance&nbsp;and most people would not even notice.)&nbsp;

[jseek21]

My dear you have pegged me wrong, yet do not be ashamed, you are one amongst many. If a person is saved yet does not understand Scripture they are still saved. That is the greatness of Christ, that it is nothing of us but all of Him.
Any error that risks one's salvation would throw out all other error, because this person has rejected the Scripture as a whole (i.e. you reject Christ you reject all of Scripture). When I say you cannot except Christ yet reject the Trinity and have everything be ok, I do not mean that you are not saved, but that you do have error, and that is not a good thing.
Using that same idea, a man who believes in Christ yet rejects every other part of Scripture is a-ok. This is not true. The Scripture, being God-breathed and infallible, is the same. Remember, it is He who has given us these Truths. How can we say it is ok to come to the Sizzler of Scripture and pick and choose as we please? Is not ALL of Scripture given by God and profitable for all things? Thus is it not all important?

And from this time forward let us use Scripture and Biblical Truths to examine these ideas, and not man-made examples such as planes.

[Job_38]

Today at 01:19 AM Susan said this in Post #50 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680396#post680396)


(I would compare this difference to&nbsp;different piloting errors.

The equivalent of a primary error would be not refueling when needed or flying into a mountaintop or the ground. This kind of error is either fatal or very injurious, as it induces a crash.

The equivalent of a secondary error would be safely landing at the wrong airport or not&nbsp;filing the proper paperwork.&nbsp;It isn't fatal, and it causes no "real" injury,&nbsp;however it could be very embarrassing or&nbsp;quite an inconvenience.&nbsp;

The equivalent of a tertiary error would be failing to wash the outside of the&nbsp;plane often enough or not wearing a bomber jacket with the "proper" patches. This error is only "discerned" by&nbsp;someone who wants to&nbsp;make&nbsp;himself look "better," as it has no bearing on anything except&nbsp;appearance&nbsp;and most people would not even notice.)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;



Well, you did explain what secondary beliefs are, but I am confused. Which point made by jseek was wrong and denied salvation?


&nbsp;

[dignitized]

Today at 07:26 PM jseek21 said this in Post #43 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680304#post680304)

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All truths of Scripture are as important. You cannot accept Christ's ressurection and reject the trinity, or Paul's ministry, ect. and have everything be ok. This is why all of Scripture is on the same level of importance: because they tie toghether. If one falls, they all do. Now the Truth of Christ is the climax of Scripture, yet belief in Christ and rejection of all other parts of the Word is not a good thing. We are to bind ourselves with the Word.



And what of the truths not recorded in Scripture? what of the volumes John speaks of which would exist if His every word and deed had been recorded?&nbsp; Yes the truth of scripture is important - but would the message of the Gospel be less for the bible never having been put to paper? Nope. :)

[Susan]

I would say that denying the resurrection of Christ or the Trinitarian nature of God is a major error on a primary issue, as would be saying that the Bible was not inspired in any way or is a mere legend.

Any of those denials would tear the heart from Christianity.

[jseek21]

Today at 06:46 PM Br. Max said this in Post #53 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680458#post680458)

And what of the truths not recorded in Scripture? what of the volumes John speaks of which would exist if His every word and deed had been recorded?&nbsp; Yes the truth of scripture is important - but would the message of the Gospel be less for the bible never having been put to paper? Nope. :)




the Truth in Scripture is the Truth. God has created the Gospel as His message to mankind.
You forget the first part of that verse "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

[Job_38]

True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us as absolutes which are sinful -- which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, Ch. 1)

God's Truth is everywhere. It is manifested in the creation (Rom 1:20) To deny the Truth found in Gods Word is to deny the Truth found in Creation. Just as the rain falls and the sun rises, Gods Truth stands firm and is always and forever true.

[seebs]

It's curious to me how much modern theology depends on a questionable translation in II Timothy.

[seebs]

Today at 08:09 PM jseek21 said this in Post #55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680508#post680508)

the Truth in Scripture is the Truth. God has created the Gospel as His message to mankind.
You forget the first part of that verse "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"


The word "is" was added by translators, but it's not obvious that it's the correct translation.

[Job_38]

Modern theology?

[Job_38]

How so? in response to thread 58

[seebs]

Today at 08:42 PM Job_38 said this in Post #59 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680584#post680584)

Modern theology?


Yes. In the last 150 years or so, the face of theology has been radically altered by people trying to change theology to protect it against undesired changes. Modern notions of word-for-word inerrancy are a human invention of the last hundred years or so; before that, everyone considered interpretation of Scripture to be a challenging task requiring study and knowledge. Most of this rests on the questionable translation of II Timothy 3:16 as saying that "all Scripture is ...", when it is quite likely that a more correct reading would be "All Scripture inspired by God is suitable...", meaning "whatever parts of this are inspired by God, are suitable for...". Similarly, the reinterpretation of Paul's reference to the Old Testament and early Gospels into "everything currently sold under the name Bible" changes things substantially.

These changes were introduced recently, and have done immense harm to the faith.

[Job_38]

Thats a pretty big assertion, anything to back it up with.

I agree that people are trying to rationalize theology and that has affected it.

[seebs]

Today at 08:52 PM Job_38 said this in Post #62 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680608#post680608)

Thats a pretty big assertion, anything to back it up with.

Er. It's a matter of well-documented historical fact? That would be a good starting point. Books have been written about the invention of literalism as a "solution" to difficult theological problems. I've asked a number of times, and no one has yet come up with a single example of anything dating back before, say, 1870, which assumes or asserts word-for-word inerrancy in the sense accepted by modern Fundamentalist groups.

http://cdsp.edu/~mgrau/courses/hsst2189/fundamentalism.htm

This is a course study on modern theology, pointing out the invention of word-for-word inerrancy in the late 19th century.

It's a modern invention developed in response to social changes; it is not rooted in the Bible, but in a desire for the Bible to be more convenient than it is.

[seebs]

Oh, I found a better source:

http://www.graceunknown.com/Apologia/Scientia/NaiveLiteralism.html

More history there.

[Job_38]

Ok. I am gonna print it, cause I don't have time to read it right now.

[Auntie]

Yesterday at 07:35 PM jseek21 said this in Post #51 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680424#post680424)


And from this time forward let us use Scripture and Biblical Truths to examine these ideas, and not man-made examples such as planes.




Whoa there, Jseek. People are free to choose their own posting styles, don't tell people how to think, please. I happen to like Susan's post, she seems to be following Jesus style very nicely.


par•a•ble \"par-e-bel\ n :
a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth

[seebs]

Today at 02:27 AM Auntie said this in Post #65 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681185#post681185)
Whoa there, Jseek. People are free to choose their own posting styles, don't tell people how to think, please. I happen to like Susan's post, she seems to be following Jesus style very nicely.

par•a•ble \"par-e-bel\ n :
a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth


Seconded! Her example was well-argued.

When Christ taught, He used parables. He didn't always use parables you could have found in the Old Testament; He used parables that His listeners could directly relate to and understand, because they were more effective ways to communicate.

I think Susan's example was well-chosen, and got her point across admirably.

[Auntie]

Today at 02:35 AM seebs said this in Post #66 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681188#post681188)

Seconded! Her example was well-argued.

When Christ taught, He used parables. He didn't always use parables you could have found in the Old Testament; He used parables that His listeners could directly relate to and understand, because they were more effective ways to communicate.

I think Susan's example was well-chosen, and got her point across admirably.




Amen, bro seebs.:) Susan did a great job.

[Job_38]

Seeing that she is not Christ, she should stick with what is concrete. What she said is right, but it did not even address the reality of what we are talking about.

[Auntie]

Today at 07:39 AM Job_38 said this in Post #68 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681370#post681370)

Seeing that she is not Christ, she should stick with what is concrete.




"She should"???? Who are you to tell anyone that???


I started this thread as something light, it was not meant to become a serious thread. And now that it is turning into attacks on another person, I think it should be closed. Jseek can start his own thread, if he is so inclined.




MODERATORS: Please close this thread, thank you.




:(

[jseek21]

Today at 01:27 AM Auntie said this in Post #65 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681185#post681185)

Whoa there, Jseek. People are free to choose their own posting styles, don't tell people how to think, please. I happen to like Susan's post, she seems to be following Jesus style very nicely.


par•a•ble \"par-e-bel\ n :
a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth




We do not have to speak in parables. Human wisdom is really no wisdom at all. We must compare all things to Scripture (Acts 17:10-15, deut 18.). We have been given God's Word and should use this to examine all things.
It is a pet peeve of mine when people are shown Scripture yet do not react to it but instead reply with emotions and human ideas, instead of Biblical Truth.
Use parables if you must.
But remember how Jesus used parables. Each parable was backed by Scripture.

[jseek21]

Today at 12:59 PM Auntie said this in Post #69 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682013#post682013)

"She should"???? Who are you to tell anyone that???


I started this thread as something light, it was not meant to become a serious thread. And now that it is turning into attacks on another person, I think it should be closed. Jseek can start his own thread, if he is so inclined.




MODERATORS: Please close this thread, thank you.




:(




I believe that Job was not saying that this person is not a Christian but she isn't Christ Himself, i.e. she isn't God. Anyone can say that it's true.

But I agree with what you say and respect your assertion, as you were the one who started this thread. I will open a cross thread to this, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37283

Please continue the serious conversation there to respect Aunties request.


-Dr. Jonathan Morgan

[Auntie]

Today at 02:03 PM jseek21 said this in Post #70 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682016#post682016)

We do not have to speak in parables. Human wisdom is really no wisdom at all. We must compare all things to Scripture (Acts 17:10-15, deut 18.). We have been given God's Word and should use this to examine all things.
It is a pet peeve of mine when people are shown Scripture yet do not react to it but instead reply with emotions and human ideas, instead of Biblical Truth.
Use parables if you must.
But remember how Jesus used parables. Each parable was backed by Scripture.




Jseek,

You are free to express your beliefs in whatever manner you wish, as long as you don't break any forum rules. Equally, the other members of this board are also free to do their own posting in the manner and style they choose. You may disagree with a poster's doctrines, but you may NOT instruct another member how to post their own thoughts, or what style they use to communicate the expression of their beliefs.:(

[Auntie]

Today at 02:14 PM jseek21 said this in Post #71 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682026#post682026)

I believe that Job was not saying that this person is not a Christian but she isn't Christ Himself, i.e. she isn't God.




His assertion was that Susan shouldn't use parables, as was yours.

We don't have to be "God" to use a parable as a method to communicate. Jesus is our teacher, and the fact that He used parables is enough for me. Jesus is well pleased when we follow his example of teaching.

[sklippstein]

Today at 03:39 PM Auntie said this in Post #73 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682063#post682063)

His assertion was that Susan shouldn't use parables, as was yours.

We don't have to be "God" to use a parable as a method to communicate. Jesus is our teacher, and the fact that He used parables is enough for me. Jesus is well pleased when we follow his example of teaching.



Amen Auntie :wave:

[Job_38]

Today at 08:39 PM Auntie said this in Post #73 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682063#post682063)

His assertion was that Susan shouldn't use parables, as was yours.

We don't have to be "God" to use a parable as a method to communicate. Jesus is our teacher, and the fact that He used parables is enough for me. Jesus is well pleased when we follow his example of teaching.




&nbsp;I agree, and its not false. But, we must also makes sure what we used is not violating scripture. Hers was not, but it had no basis within Gods Word. Thats all we mean.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;No offense.

[jseek21]

I never said we do not have the freedom to use parables, only that to make a true assertions a person must use a true source. As any english major knows, a research paper must be fully documented and sourced. Our source, as Christians, is the infalible Word of God. Thus if you are to fully show a belief to be true it should be in line with Biblical facts.
Also my assertion was proved true by that you did not even mention a response to the verses I gave. Spurgeon, Lewis, and Edwards must be rolling in their graves.

[Susan]

Hey, I didn't mean to get everyone mad at each other, sorry :sorry: and I certainly did not mean to demean the Bible as the true and inspired Word of God.

Now, I have other things to do than argue. Just remember, even slime can be impervious to flaming. http://www.tcowen.com/saschak/dw2/monsters/metal_slime.gif

Hopefully we can meet again on better terms sometime. :wave:

[Auntie]

Today at 04:20 PM jseek21 said this in Post #76 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682251#post682251)

Also my assertion was proved true by that you did not even mention a response to the verses I gave. Spurgeon, Lewis, and Edwards must be rolling in their graves.




Who is the "you" you are referring to? Me??

[jseek21]

Today at 03:32 PM Susan said this in Post #77 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682278#post682278)

Hey, I didn't mean to get everyone mad at each other, sorry :sorry: and I certainly did not mean to demean the Bible as the true and inspired Word of God.

Now, I have other things to do than argue. Just remember, even slime can be impervious to flaming. http://www.tcowen.com/saschak/dw2/monsters/metal_slime.gif

Hopefully we can meet again on better terms sometime. :wave:




You did not Susan. I know you just wanted to use an example. It's the idea of human wisdom over Biblical Truth being discussed here, not your statement. God bless!

[Auntie]

Today at 04:20 PM jseek21 said this in Post #76 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682251#post682251)

Spurgeon, Lewis, and Edwards must be rolling in their graves.




As a result of this thread? I kind of doubt that.:rolleyes:

[jseek21]

No, as the result of the degeneration of Christian society from giving honest answers to honest questions and answering through Biblical truth to using man's precepts, ideals, and philosophies to answer questions of spiritualality.

[Auntie]

Today at 04:50 PM jseek21 said this in Post #81 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682318#post682318)

No, as the result of the degeneration of Christian society from giving honest answers to honest questions and answering through Biblical truth to using man's precepts, ideals, and philosophies to answer questions of spiritualality.




Look a little closer at this website, there is hardly a thread that doesn't include scripture references to answer questions pertaining to spiritual things. The Bible is our source, and the Holy Spirit teaches us, helping us to discern God's truth.

[seebs]

Today at 07:39 AM Job_38 said this in Post #68 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681370#post681370)

Seeing that she is not Christ, she should stick with what is concrete. What she said is right, but it did not even address the reality of what we are talking about.


I thought we were supposed to follow Christ's examples.

Christ didn't use parables because He had a special parable license, granted only to omniscient beings.

Christ used parables because analogies, allegory, and metaphor are *GOOD WAYS TO COMMUNICATE*.

[seebs]

Today at 04:20 PM jseek21 said this in Post #76 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682251#post682251)

I never said we do not have the freedom to use parables, only that to make a true assertions a person must use a true source. As any english major knows, a research paper must be fully documented and sourced. Our source, as Christians, is the infalible Word of God. Thus if you are to fully show a belief to be true it should be in line with Biblical facts.



Er. The Bible is *a* source of truth. The world exists, the world is real, and we can also learn about the truth from the world.

The Bible is clear on this; in II Peter 3:16, we are told that the unwary can wrest false beliefs from the Bible, and in Romans, Paul tells us that creation itself testifies to God's glory.

You can read the Bible, misunderstand it, and end up with a false belief. If you study the world and *do* understand it, you will find the truth.

The Bible serves as a good way to confirm and verify your understanding, but it isn't "the" source.

THE source is God. He gives us many things, the Bible among them, from which to learn.

As any English major knows, if you only use one source, your paper isn't worth writing. If someone argues from the Bible, and makes a subtle mistake, it may be very hard to find the error - but immediately obvious if you consider the claims in the light of what you know about the world around you.

The Bible, without other information, is just an object. The languages in which we read it, the definitions of words... All of those come from outside the Bible.

[Job_38]

You can also study and world get a false view. Most likely, you will.

So which sources for salvation do we attain from nature?

From what you said, I could get truth from something like say, The Book of Mormon, since the Bible is only one of many sources?

[jseek21]

Today at 04:15 PM Auntie said this in Post #82 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682375#post682375)

Look a little closer at this website, there is hardly a thread that doesn't include scripture references to answer questions pertaining to spiritual things. The Bible is our source, and the Holy Spirit teaches us, helping us to discern God's truth.



I am not speaking of a specific but an overall.

[jseek21]

Today at 04:52 PM Job_38 said this in Post #85 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682433#post682433)

You can also study and world get a false view. Most likely, you will.

So which sources for salvation do we attain from nature?

From what you said, I could get truth from something like say, The Book of Mormon, since the Bible is only one of many sources?




agreed.

[Susan]

I believe the Bible should be our prevailing authority, in other words, if observation/commentary/whatever contradicts the Bible, go with the Bible.

However, one must also understand that the Bible is a book that takes learning to understand. "Well, I just believe what it says" leads to just as much error, or even more error, than trying to find out what it means.

For instance, an entire doctrine which many people consider erroneous was based on this approach to 3 John 2 KJV, which reads "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." Someone believed that it was a promise of prosperity from God to all Christians. The meaning of the verse, however, was/is entirely different. It was a greeting from John to Gaius, and a greeting commonly used in the day among Christians: much like someone signing off a letter with "Be blessed" or "Praying for you" in this time.

My point is that God gave us His Word to follow: but He also gave us history and context for His Word, languages for it to be printed in, and an abilty to understand it in part. Above all He gave us His Word so that we would know Him and please Him: NOT so we could denounce others or so we could have "all of the answers."

[Susan]

The following is more of "man's wisdom" but it may help you understand why us poor, unenlightened souls are not recieving many of the arguments presented.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[jseek21]

Today at 05:11 PM Susan said this in Post #88 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682461#post682461)

I believe the Bible should be our prevailing authority, in other words, if observation/commentary/whatever contradicts the Bible, go with the Bible.

However, one must also understand that the Bible is a book that takes learning to understand. "Well, I just believe what it says" leads to just as much error, or even more error, than trying to find out what it means.

For instance, an entire doctrine which many people consider erroneous was based on this approach to 3 John 2 KJV, which reads "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." Someone believed that it was a promise of prosperity from God to all Christians. The meaning of the verse, however, was/is entirely different. It was a greeting from John to Gaius, and a greeting commonly used in the day among Christians: much like someone signing off a letter with "Be blessed" or "Praying for you" in this time.

My point is that God gave us His Word to follow: but He also gave us history and context for His Word, languages for it to be printed in, and an abilty to understand it in part. Above all He gave us His Word so that we would know Him and please Him: NOT so we could denounce others or so we could have "all of the answers."




Susan, your point is well made, and I even agree with the part that we have to take the Bible into account of history and context. Yet that is not of which I speak. It is not the Truth of His Word that hharms people, but the precepts they bring to it when they read it. That is how we get such ideas as the prosperity idea. As for understanding, the understanding that we use to understand the Bible is not of us but of God. Unregenerate man cannot understand the truth of Scripture. thus that understanding is not of us but is of God. It is when man tries to use his own wisdom that we find falsehood.

[Susan]

"Unregenerate man cannot understand the truth of Scripture." That is exactly true, jseek, however all of us here, as far as I know (only God really knows), are NOT unregenerate.

[jseek21]

True, yet while we have been regenerated and have been given Godly wisdom, in our sin we at times reject the true understanding and wisdom He has given us for our own. It, if nothing else, is one of the roots of sin. That man, in defiance to God's Will, tries it on His own and fails. This is how, even through saved men, we have dangerous false teachings enter into the Church. This is why a preacher must rely on God's Truth and not that man's personal thoughts and presuppositions.

[Auntie]

Today at 05:52 PM Job_38 said this in Post #85 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682433#post682433)


From what you said, I could get truth from something like say, The Book of Mormon, since the Bible is only one of many sources?





Job, you don't learn anything from reading the Book of Mormon? Think about it, doesn't the Book of Mormon reveal the truth of the Bible? Isn't it a confirmation of Biblical scripture?


Matthew 24:11

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."



And similarly, you might listen to the news and hear talk of war. Jesus said, "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."


We read and study the world around us, we ponder the things we see and hear. And then we compare what we have learned from the world, to what we read in the Bible. I think it is amazing the way so much of the Bible lines up with what is going on in the world today.

[Auntie]

Today at 05:29 PM seebs said this in Post #83 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682401#post682401)


Christ used parables because analogies, allegory, and metaphor are *GOOD WAYS TO COMMUNICATE*.




I get this stuff confused, seebs. Can you give me an example of each one? For example, was Susan using a parable or an analogy? And when Jseek said: "Spurgeon, Lewis, and Edwards must be rolling in their graves.", is that a metaphor?:confused:

[seebs]

Yesterday at 05:52 PM Job_38 said this in Post #85 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682433#post682433)

You can also study and world get a false view. Most likely, you will.

Given that there's 30,000 denominations of Christians out there, most of them "Bible believers", that's true of the Bible too - and the Bible even warns us of this! 2 Peter 3:16.


So which sources for salvation do we attain from nature?


The only *source* of salvation is God. Not nature, not the Bible, not *anything* but God.

However, Romans tells us that God is *evident* from nature.


From what you said, I could get truth from something like say, The Book of Mormon, since the Bible is only one of many sources?


Nice straw man!

The claim that there is more than one source of true information is not the same as the claim that every source of information provides truth, nor is it similar.

Anyway, for all I know, there *are* true things in the Book of Mormon, although I'd be inclined to call that "coincidence".

Still... Dictionaries, for one. Language. The experience of love. Aesthetics. Joy. None of these are "part of the Bible"; they're parts of the world, that make it possible for the Bible's message to mean anything to us.

[seebs]

Yesterday at 10:46 PM Auntie said this in Post #94 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682919#post682919)

I get this stuff confused, seebs. Can you give me an example of each one? For example, was Susan using a parable or an analogy? And when Jseek said: "Spurgeon, Lewis, and Edwards must be rolling in their graves.", is that a metaphor?:confused:


Heh.

Parable: A story which is almost certainly not factual, but expresses something about the people involved. The story is clearly just for teaching. The characters and situations are possible, but are not necessarily factual.

Allegory: A story in which things stand for other things. Most often, fairly *different* things; for instance, many people feel that Gandalf's resurrection, in LotR, is an allegory for Christ's resurrection. Some parables have allegories; the prodigal son's father is probably an allegory for God.

Analogy: Comparison. Susan's example was an analogy; she didn't tell "the story of the three pilots", she just used examples.

Metaphor: Things like "Get thee behind me, Satan" would be metaphors; Christ isn't actually saying that Peter is Satan, He's saying that Peter has attributes similar to Satan's in a particular context.

"Rolling in graves" is a figure of speech.

[seebs]

Yesterday at 09:24 PM jseek21 said this in Post #92 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682781#post682781)

True, yet while we have been regenerated and have been given Godly wisdom, in our sin we at times reject the true understanding and wisdom He has given us for our own. It, if nothing else, is one of the roots of sin. That man, in defiance to God's Will, tries it on His own and fails. This is how, even through saved men, we have dangerous false teachings enter into the Church. This is why a preacher must rely on God's Truth and not that man's personal thoughts and presuppositions.


And yet, the idea of word-for-word inerrancy is itself a man-made idea.

[Auntie]

Today at 12:42 AM seebs said this in Post #96 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683090#post683090)

Heh.

Parable: A story which is almost certainly not factual, but expresses something about the people involved. The story is clearly just for teaching. The characters and situations are possible, but are not necessarily factual.

Allegory: A story in which things stand for other things. Most often, fairly *different* things; for instance, many people feel that Gandalf's resurrection, in LotR, is an allegory for Christ's resurrection. Some parables have allegories; the prodigal son's father is probably an allegory for God.

Analogy: Comparison. Susan's example was an analogy; she didn't tell "the story of the three pilots", she just used examples.

Metaphor: Things like "Get thee behind me, Satan" would be metaphors; Christ isn't actually saying that Peter is Satan, He's saying that Peter has attributes similar to Satan's in a particular context.

"Rolling in graves" is a figure of speech.




Thanks seebs.:) I love this kind of stuff, especially allegories. Language and communication is most interesting.

[jseek21]

Yesterday at 09:36 PM Auntie said this in Post #93 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682906#post682906)

Job, you don't learn anything from reading the Book of Mormon? Think about it, doesn't the Book of Mormon reveal the truth of the Bible? Isn't it a confirmation of Biblical scripture?



No.

http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/biologist_looks.htm

http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/comparisons.htm

http://www.concernedchristians.org/library/scripturereference.html

http://www.concernedchristians.org/teachings_lds.html






And similarly, you might listen to the news and hear talk of war. Jesus said, "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."


We read and study the world around us, we ponder the things we see and hear. And then we compare what we have learned from the world, to what we read in the Bible. I think it is amazing the way so much of the Bible lines up with what is going on in the world today. [/B]



How can you compare an absolute Truth to the synthetic changing world around us? We can look to the Bible and find answers and help for our modern world and daily lives, but not vice versa. When you try and mold the Bible to our world it is a very dangerous thing; it is possibly the root of heresy, because our world is ever-changing, always giving space for new sin. Yet the Bible is absolute and unchanging throughout history. It is God's Word. Yet you can mold our world to the Bible, but we do not have to, because God already has.

[Job_38]

Today at 04:36 AM Auntie said this in Post #93 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682906#post682906)

Job, you don't learn anything from reading the Book of Mormon? Think about it, doesn't the Book of Mormon reveal the truth of the Bible? Isn't it a confirmation of Biblical scripture?


[b]Matthew 24:11

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."






No, No I do not. You just showed why we cannot take other "truths" to learn from. Thanks.

&nbsp;

[Auntie]

Today at 01:01 PM Job_38 said this in Post #100 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683788#post683788)

No, No I do not. You just showed why we cannot take other "truths" to learn from. Thanks.

&nbsp;





So you don't believe the Bible when it says we will have false prophets and false teachers in the world?? That seems odd to me.:scratch:

[seebs]

Today at 01:01 PM Job_38 said this in Post #100 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683788#post683788)

No, No I do not. You just showed why we cannot take other "truths" to learn from. Thanks.



I don't think you got her point; if, studying the Book of Mormon, you find yourself convinced that it's false, then it's confirmation of the Bible.

However, your straw man is still ludicrous; the holy texts of another religion are hardly the only things in the world other than the Bible. How about a basic algebra text? Good source for truth, or understanding? How about personal experience?

[jseek21]

Today at 01:23 PM seebs said this in Post #102 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683905#post683905)

I don't think you got her point; if, studying the Book of Mormon, you find yourself convinced that it's false, then it's confirmation of the Bible.

However, your straw man is still ludicrous; the holy texts of another religion are hardly the only things in the world other than the Bible. How about a basic algebra text? Good source for truth, or understanding? How about personal experience?




Does Math, Science, and personal experience override the Word of God?

Remember, big difference between "truth" and "Truth." When we speak of Truth we speak of absolute, nonchanging, infallible spiritual Truth. While truth can be subjective, Truth is not.

[jseek21]

The Bible warns us of false teachers. Thus we can see the Book of Mormon and say, "false teachings." Yet it is not the Book of Mormon that teaches us to watch out for their own false teachings, but the absolute of the Bible which warns us. You're using circular logic here. It is the Bible which speaks to the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormon that speaks to the Bible.

[seebs]

Today at 02:41 PM jseek21 said this in Post #103 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683930#post683930)

Does Math, Science, and personal experience override the Word of God?

Does Matthew override Luke?

If you find that mathematics is conflicting with your understanding of the Word of God, your understanding of either mathematics or the Word of God is incorrect.


Remember, big difference between "truth" and "Truth." When we speak of Truth we speak of absolute, nonchanging, infallible spiritual Truth. While truth can be subjective, Truth is not.


I don't buy the distinction. Truth is not subjective. Whether 2+2 is 4 is not subject to culture or context; it's just an implication of the definitions of the concepts involved.

I don't think science overrides the truth of the Bible. I do think that people who study the Bible in ignorance of science may come to false beliefs about what the Bible really says.

[Auntie]

Today at 02:23 PM seebs said this in Post #102 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683905#post683905)

I don't think you got her point; if, studying the Book of Mormon, you find yourself convinced that it's false, then it's confirmation of the Bible.





Exactly, thank you seebs.:) As an analogy: If my mother says, "Don't touch that stove! It's hot and you'll get burned!" And I proceed to touch the stove anyway, AND get a bad burn, then what did the stove teach me? The stove taught me that mom was right!:) The stove confirmed and verified the truth of my mother's words.

[Job_38]

Then you better clarify better.

But would you be able to discern the BoM if you never read the Bible?

Personal experiences can bring you to knowing God. BUT, if I am traveling a long road, I should know more about than the man who just reads the map? But that isn't so, because the map is based on hundreds of people that have traveled it over and over.

But, I cannot know the road fully if I only read the map. I must experience it.

The same with God. I can learn stuff about God if I am walking in the desert and feel God. But I cannot fully know unless I also study His Word. The same is vice versa. I must make true the verse: For me to live is Christ.

[Job_38]

Today at 08:46 PM seebs said this in Post #105 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683939#post683939)



I don't think science overrides the truth of the Bible. I do think that people who study the Bible in ignorance of science may come to false beliefs about what the Bible really says.



&nbsp;I partially agree. You need to also live in Gods creation to know Him, but you cannot learn from the naturaul world all of what God wants us too.

Romans 1 speaks on this issue. It talks about people knowing God, but they did not recognize Him as God.

[Auntie]

Today at 03:17 PM Job_38 said this in Post #107 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683974#post683974)


Personal experiences can bring you to knowing God. BUT, if I am traveling a long road, I should know more about than the man who just reads the map? But that isn't so, because the map is based on hundreds of people that have traveled it over and over.

But, I cannot know the road fully if I only read the map. I must experience it.




You have reminded me of a funny thing that happened to me.:) I was dating a guy(my husband) who was an expert with horses. I didn't know anything about horses, so I bought some books on "everything you ever wanted to know about horses". I read, studied and memorized until I could quote most of the books. I then *knew* most everything about horses. Then he asked me, "Do you know how to ride horses?". I said sure, I know how to ride.:) Ha! He put me on a fast Quarter horse, and we went riding. My horse stopped in a ditch to drink water, and he refused to move, so I gave him some quick swift kicks. He took off at a wide open run, and wouldn't stop for anything! I was in big trouble, I'd lost the reins, and was terrified. My soon to be husband caught up with my runaway horse, and managed to stop him. He said to me: "You told me you knew how to ride!!" I said "I read all the books about it, so I was SURE I knew how to ride!":D :D

So yes, LIFE is the great teacher. A man can have a Seminary degree, but only when he spends his days at the hospital, praying with people who are dying, does he ever really learn what he has read about.

[Job_38]

Amen. Without either, we are useless.

[jseek21]

Today at 01:46 PM seebs said this in Post #105 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683939#post683939)

Does Matthew override Luke?

If you find that mathematics is conflicting with your understanding of the Word of God, your understanding of either mathematics or the Word of God is incorrect.



I don't buy the distinction. Truth is not subjective. Whether 2+2 is 4 is not subject to culture or context; it's just an implication of the definitions of the concepts involved.

I don't think science overrides the truth of the Bible. I do think that people who study the Bible in ignorance of science may come to false beliefs about what the Bible really says.



recently in my city a parent sued her child's school because they gave her child a well deserved "F" in mathematics. The parent won the suit. In our culture, everything is subjective. thus there are two types of truths: truth being subjective, and the Truth being objective.

The Truth does not change.
truth does.

[jseek21]

yet is it not the Word of God that gives us the knowledge that the road is there and how to travel it? I have been camping a few times and without my map would never had known where the primitive roads are, where shelter is, water, ect. Experience is a learning apparatus, but does not take the place of His Word. Without his Word we could not handle the experiences.

[seebs]

Yesterday at 04:15 PM jseek21 said this in Post #111 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684047#post684047)
recently in my city a parent sued her child's school because they gave her child a well deserved "F" in mathematics. The parent won the suit. In our culture, everything is subjective. thus there are two types of truths: truth being subjective, and the Truth being objective.

The Truth does not change.
truth does.


No, people just miscall things "truth" which aren't.

[seebs]

Yesterday at 04:18 PM jseek21 said this in Post #112 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684048#post684048)

yet is it not the Word of God that gives us the knowledge that the road is there and how to travel it? I have been camping a few times and without my map would never had known where the primitive roads are, where shelter is, water, ect. Experience is a learning apparatus, but does not take the place of His Word. Without his Word we could not handle the experiences.


It would be much, much, harder, certainly. People used to travel without roads or maps; it can be done, if you have a good guide. I understand God's available.

[Job_38]

Today at 06:07 AM seebs said this in Post #113 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684689#post684689)

No, people just miscall things "truth" which aren't.




&nbsp;His point (I am guessing) was that people percieve the obvious truth as something they can change to fit their beliefs.

&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a folly. This is a folly because, just as the rock will be there whether I think it is or not, the Truth of God will always be.



It would be much, much, harder, certainly. People used to travel without roads or maps; it can be done, if you have a good guide. I understand God's available.

&nbsp;Yes. Abso-freaking-lutely. And God has given us a guide and we call it the Bible.

&nbsp;

[Texas Lynn]

28th February 2003 at 02:46 AM seebs said this in Post #60 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680594#post680594)

Yes. In the last 150 years or so, the face of theology has been radically altered by people trying to change theology to protect it against undesired changes. Modern notions of word-for-word inerrancy are a human invention of the last hundred years or so; before that, everyone considered interpretation of Scripture to be a challenging task requiring study and knowledge. Most of this rests on the questionable translation of II Timothy 3:16 as saying that "all Scripture is ...", when it is quite likely that a more correct reading would be "All Scripture inspired by God is suitable...", meaning "whatever parts of this are inspired by God, are suitable for...". Similarly, the reinterpretation of Paul's reference to the Old Testament and early Gospels into "everything currently sold under the name Bible" changes things substantially.

These changes were introduced recently, and have done immense harm to the faith.



I agree.&nbsp; Changes in the relationship between the individual and society came about as the result of The Enlightenment which resulted in changes in the role of religion in society.&nbsp; Many Christians, for instance George Washington, were taken aback by excesses of enlightenment ideas such as Thomas Paine's deism or atheism, whichever you'd label it.&nbsp; In the 1820s-1830s, a movement to end the state churches in some of the states here (disestablishmentarianism) was ultimately successful (ironically some such as Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family have actually proposed we go back to an established (government-supported) church [hopefully his, apparently]).&nbsp;

Fundamentalism in American Protestantism is as seebs said rather new.&nbsp; The Catholic vision has always been that church authorities determine the meaning of the Bible and Protestantism arose in part due to opposition to that.&nbsp; Fundamentalism as expressed in Biblical literacism and legalism CLAIMS to honor the authority of the Bible but they neglect to say "as we interpret it".&nbsp;

I found an interesting exchange in John Killinger's Ten Things I Learned Wrong in a Conservative Church during a meeting he described with Jerry Falwell (Killinger is a liberal Baptist who was formerly fundamentalist).&nbsp; Killinger asked the Sage of Lynchburg "You must know that in the Fourth Gospel [John] Jesus' cleansing of the Temple comes very early, in the second chapter, and is seen as a grand act by which Jesus commences his ministry.&nbsp; In the other Gospels, the synoptics, the same act is set at the end of Jesus' ministry, in the last week of his life.&nbsp; If the Bible is literally true and God insired every word of it, as you claim, how do you account for this discrepancy?&nbsp; Was God being forgetful when he dictated the Fourth Gospel?"&nbsp; Falwell declined to answer.

[jseek21]

Today at 02:16 AM Texas Lynn said this in Post #116 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684889#post684889)


I found an interesting exchange in John Killinger's Ten Things I Learned Wrong in a Conservative Church during a meeting he described with Jerry Falwell (Killinger is a liberal Baptist who was formerly fundamentalist).&nbsp; Killinger asked the Sage of Lynchburg "You must know that in the Fourth Gospel [John] Jesus' cleansing of the Temple comes very early, in the second chapter, and is seen as a grand act by which Jesus commences his ministry.&nbsp; In the other Gospels, the synoptics, the same act is set at the end of Jesus' ministry, in the last week of his life.&nbsp; If the Bible is literally true and God insired every word of it, as you claim, how do you account for this discrepancy?&nbsp; Was God being forgetful when he dictated the Fourth Gospel?"&nbsp; Falwell declined to answer.




Luke, for example, was a stickler to chronology and methodology. Most of the Gospels follow the timeline of Jesus's life. John however does not. John instead tells all the important things in no particular order. John's mission was not to keep things in a timeline, but to instead tell the people of who Jesus was.

[jseek21]

When I say Christianity is true I mean it is true to total reality -- the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the objective existence of the personal-infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth -- Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually -- and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is -- brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, Ch. 1)

[seebs]

Today at 12:24 AM Job_38 said this in Post #115 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684727#post684727)
It would be much, much, harder, certainly. People used to travel without roads or maps; it can be done, if you have a good guide. I understand God's available.

&nbsp;Yes. Abso-freaking-lutely. And God has given us a guide and we call it the Bible.
[/B]


No, the Bible is a roadmap. God's a guide. The map is still useless without the guide, but the guide can lead you where you need to go without the map.

People were saved before "the Bible" existed. Billions of people have been saved even though there were parts of the Bible they never saw.

People who were guided by God made notes; that's the Bible. God's still out there, though, and you can always ask Him for advice.

[jseek21]

does inerrancy really matter?


http://www.antithesis.com/features/inerrancy.html

[jseek21]

OBJECTION 1
Inerrancy is not important
It is quibbling about insignificant details. What really matters is a person's relationship to Jesus Christ.

ANSWER
A person's relationship to Jesus Christ is of the highest importance. No Christian would ever want to dispute that. But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshiping a Christ of your own imagination. Moreover, you have this problem. A relationship to Jesus is not merely a question of believing on him as one's Savior. He is also your Lord, and this means he is the one who is to instruct you as to how you should live and what you should believe. How can he do that apart from an inerrant Scripture? If you sit in judgment on Scripture, Jesus is not really exercising his Lordship in your life. He is merely giving advice which you consider yourself free to disobey, believe or judge in error. You are actually the lord of your own life.

OBJECTION 2
Inerrancy is not Biblical
The Bible does not say it is inerrant. It only says it is inspired.

ANSWER
This is like saying that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. True, the Bible does not contain the word "trinity," and nowhere does it say in so many words, "There are three persons in the one God — God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit." But the Trinity is still clearly and emphatically taught. The Bible teaches that there is one God. It also teaches that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct from the Father and from each other and yet that each is divine. Our doctrine of the Trinity is merely a logical and consistent way of stating these two truths. It is the same with the doctrine of inerrancy. The word "inerrancy" does not occur in Scripture, nor does Scripture say, "The Bible is without error in all it affirms." Yet the doctrine of inerrancy is there. It is a necessary and obvious conclusion based on two other truths that Scripture does declare clearly. First, the Bible is God's Word. That is, the very words of Scripture are the words of God. Second, God is a God of truth and therefore speaks truthfully. If those statements are true, the only possible conclusion is that the Bible is inerrant in everything it teaches.

OBJECTION 4
Inerrancy is refuted by modern scholarship.
It may have been possible to believe in inerrancy in a less knowledgeable or sophisticated age, but we know today that this view is impossible.

ANSWER
What argument has persuaded you that the Bible has errors in it and is therefore not totally true? Are there real, provable errors? Or are you just adopting the skeptical mind set of our contemporary unbelieving world? One class of supposed errors is miracles. "The Bible must be making a mistake when it says that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, because dead men don't rise," some say.. "The iron could not float, the sun could not stand still." The issue here is not error but faith in God or lack of it. Just because you have not seen a resurrection does not mean that resurrections never occur. In fact, if God repeated miracles too often, they would cease to be miracles and would lose their evidential value. The real issue is whether or not there is a God such as the Bible depicts. If there is, then no miracle is beyond possibility. Besides, if you accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which you should, the other miracles are easy.

A second class of supposed errors has to do with moral issues. In Joshua the Jewish people are commanded by God to kill the Canaanites. Some regard this as an error, because on the basis of their own outlook "the killing of innocent people is morally wrong." This forgets two important points. First, the Canaanites were far from innocent. Second, God is the Lord of life. He gave life and has the right to take it away. The only error here is the error of assuming you or other fallen human beings have the right to pronounce on the rightness or wrongness of God's decrees or actions.

The most significant class of supposed errors are apparent contradictions within the Bible. Examples would be the length of time Israel is said to have been in bondage in Egypt (Genesis 15:13 says it was 400 years, while Exodus 12:41 says it was 430 years) or the number of angels reported as being at Christ's tomb following the Resurrection (John 20:12 mentions two, Matthew 28:2 only one). These are divergent ways of reporting the events, of course. But they are not contradictory. The difference in the number of years the Jews are said to have been in Egypt may be the result of one writer starting from a different point than the other or of one giving an exact figure while the other is rounding the number off. So far as the angels are concerned, if there were the two John reports, there was certainly one, as Matthew says. People who deny inerrancy try to give the impression that the discovery of problems like these has led them to abandon the inerrancy position. But these problems are not new. They have been known down through the centuries, and reasonable answers have been given to them. So far as evidence goes, we have more evidence for a high view of the Bible today than in earlier times. Discoveries from the Dead Sea, Summeria, Nag Hammadi, and now more recently from Ebla in Syria, provide more support than ever for the position that evangelicals have long held.

[seebs]

Could you be more specific about where the Bible says that every word in the book we call "the Bible" is "God's word"?

The only things I could think of would be 2 Timothy 3:16, which only says that if we add the word "is" to it (it's not there in the original), or John. No, wait... John says the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, not that it became paper and sat on our bookshelves.

Seems to me the Bible is pretty clear that the "Word" is not the same as the "words".

[jseek21]

The Word became flesh... The meaning of this is the Word which God has given us (that being the Bible) became flesh... the promises and writings of the Saviour have become reality, in the flesh. Not only the Word of old, but the entire Word of God, that being the Bible.

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" (Matt. 24:35).

The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Word until everything is accomplished" (Matt. 5:18).



One text in which the Bible speaks about itself is 2 Timothy 3:16. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." In the Authorized (King James) Version the words "God-breathed" are rendered "given by inspiration of God." In the Revised Standard Version the words are "inspired by God." But these do not have quite the right idea. The English words "inspired" or "inspiration" have come down to us from the Latin Vulgate through the translation of Wycliffe - they suggest men somehow being given extra insight - but the idea is actually what the New International Version fortunately suggests, namely, that the Scriptures are the direct result of the breathing-out of God. The difference is important. In the one case, the translation suggests that the Bible is composed of human words written by men, whom God has perhaps somehow "inspired." In the other case, the stress is on the fact that the Bible is God's Word and therefore is characterized by his truthfulness and authority.

One of the great Bible scholars of an earlier generation, B. B. Warfield, has written of this verse:

The Greek term has ... nothing to say of inspiring: it speaks only of a "spiring" or "spiration". What it says of Scripture is, not that it is "breathed into by God" or that it is the product of the Divine "inbreathing" into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God .... When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture, or "all scripture" is the product of the divine breath, "is God breathed, " he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically divine operation.

Next to this verse from 2 Timothy may be placed a double series of passages, collected by Warfield, that show as clearly as can be done that the New Testament writers identified the Bible which they possessed with the living voice of God. In one of these sets of passages the Scriptures are spoken of as if they were God (Matt. 19:4, 5; Heb. 3:7; Acts 4:24, 25; 13:34, 35). In the other God is spoken of as if he were the Scriptures (Gal. 3:8; Rom. 9:17). This shows that the biblical writers identified the two. Moreover, the mixture of the Scriptures and God is made so casually that we can only conclude that the unique and divine character of the sacred books was by no means an invented or abstract idea of the writers, but rather a basic, almost unquestioned assumption which was inevitably expressed whenever they taught or wrote. Warfield said, "The two sets of passages, together, thus show an absolute identification, in the minds of these writers, of 'Scripture' with the speaking God."

Several verses show that the teaching of the New Testament about the Old Testament applies for the New Testament writings too. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul writes of the gospel which he preached, saying, "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." Similarly, in 2 Peter 3:15, 16 Peter writes in a way which puts Paul's letters in the same category as the Old Testament books: "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Of course, the New Testament does not speak of itself with the same frequency and in exactly the same way as it speaks of the Old Testament, for not all the New Testament writers knew of the other New Testament books. The New Testament books were not collected to make an authoritative volume during the lifetime of the writers. Nevertheless, when the New Testament writers do speak of their writings they do so in the same terms Jews used for the Old Testament.

In 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, "Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The word translated "carried along" is used by Luke in the second chapter of Acts to describe the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. He says it was like the "blowing" of a violent wind (Acts 2:2). Again he uses the word to describe the effect of the great wind that ultimately destroyed the ship that was taking Paul to Rome. He says that the ship was caught by the storm and so was "driven along" (Acts 27:15, 17). Clearly, Luke wished to say that the ship was at the mercy of the storm. It did not cease to be a ship, but it did cease to have control over its course and destination. In the same way, Peter teaches that the writers of the Bible were borne along in their writing to produce the words which God intended to be recorded. They wrote as men, but as men moved by the Holy Spirit. The result was an inerrant revelation.

All these verses indicate that the authors of Scripture considered the Bible as a whole and in its individual parts to have come from God. The Bible does not contain men's words about God, but God's words about man and to man. Because the Bible has its source in God, because it is the Word of God and not the words of mere men, the biblical writers everywhere regard the Scriptures as being an absolute and infallible authority. To hear the Bible is to hear God. To obey the Bible is to obey God. To disobey it is to rebel against him.

[jseek21]

Jesus affirmed inerrancy.
Jesus appealed to the Bible as an infallible authority. When tempted by the devil in the wilderness, Jesus replied three times by quotations from Deuteronomy (Matt. 4: 1-11). He replied to the question of the Sadducees about the heavenly status of marriage and the reality of the resurrection, first, by a rebuke that they did not know the Scriptures, and second, by a direct quotation from Exodus 3:6 - "In the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive" (Luke 20:37, 38). On many occasions Jesus appealed to Scripture in support of his actions - in defense of the cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15-17), in explanation of his submission to the cross (Matt. 26:53, 54).

Jesus also saw his life as a fulfillment of Scripture and consciously submitted to it. He began his ministry with a quotation from Isaiah 61:1, 2. "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18, 19). He taught that this prophecy was fulfilled in his ministry. Again, he said that he had not come "to abolish the Law or Prophets" but to "fulfill them" (Matt. 5:17). He foretold the scattering of the disciples on the night of his arrest because, he said, "It is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered' " (Mark 14:27, a quotation from Zechariah 13:7). He told the religious leaders of his day, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5:39). Even after the Resurrection he chided the disciples for being "foolish . . . and . . . slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and enter his glory?" Then we are told, "Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27).

These passages and others show us that Jesus regarded the Old Testament highly and constantly submitted to it, as to an authoritative revelation. He taught that the Bible bore witness to him. Because it is the very Word of God, Jesus assumed its total reliability even to the smallest point of grammar.

Until relatively modern times the church has believed in inerrancy.
This argument is not of as great weight as arguments 1 and 2, for the church has no special guarantee of being right. In fact, the church has often erred. But it is still of some weight, for we would be arrogant indeed to think that we automatically know better than all the Christians who have gone before us and can therefore disregard their testimony. What did earlier believers think?

Irenaeus, who lived and wrote in Lyons, France, in the early years of the second century, said that we should be:

Most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the word of God and His Spirit.

Cyril of Jerusalem , who lived in the fourth century, argued:

We must not deliver anything whatsoever, without the sacred Scriptures, nor let ourselves be misled by mere probability, or by marshalling of arguments. For this salvation of ours by faith is ... by proof from the sacred Scriptures.

In a letter to Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, Augustine said:

I have learned to hold the Scriptures alone inerrant.

In his "Preface to the Treatise on the Trinity" he wrote:

Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture. When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain.

Again, in what is perhaps his most famous letter to Jerome (number 82), Augustine wrote of the Scriptures:

I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all ... (Therefore) if I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.

Luther wrote of the Old Testament:

I beg and faithfully warn every pious Christian not to stumble at the simplicity of the language and stories that will often meet him there. He should not doubt that, however simple they may seem, these are the very words, works, judgments, and deeds of the high majesty, power, and wisdom of God.

In another place the great Reformer says:

The Scriptures, although they also were written by men, are not of men nor from men, but from God.

In his Table Talk he declared:

We must make a great difference between God's Word and the word of man. A man's word is a little sound, that flies into the air, and soon vanishes; but the Word of God is greater than heaven and earth, yea, greater than death and hell, for it forms part of the power of God, and endures everlastingly.

John Calvin, the Genevan reformer, wrote similarly:

This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others that we know that God has spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Low and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit .... We owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.

The same is true of more recent writers. J. Gresham Machen wrote that the Bible is:

Not partly true and Partly false, but all true, the blessed, holy Word of God.

Francis Schaeffer says:

The Bible is without mistake because it is God's inspired Word and ... God cannot lie or contradict himself.

J. I. Packer has written:

Only truth can be authoritative; only an inerrant Bible can be used ... in the way that God means Scripture to be used. ... Its text is word for word God-given; its message is an organic unity, the infallible Word of an infallible God, a web of revealed truths centered upon Christ.

He writes of our only proper approach to Scripture:

The only right attitude for us is to confess that our works are vile and our wisdom foolishness, and to receive with thankfulness the flawless righteousness and the perfect Scriptures which God in mercy gives us. Anything else is a conceited affront to divine grace. And evangelical theology is bound to oppose the attitude which undervalues the gift of Scripture and presumes to correct the inerrant Word of God.


God's character demands