Can someone tell me the characteristics of a fundamentalist? [Archive]

View Full Version : Can someone tell me the characteristics of a fundamentalist?

Lady Bug

13th September 2007, 07:04 PM

kobuk

13th September 2007, 07:58 PM

greetings ladybug1980

It's was great to have the opportunity to read your thoughts on these matters that concerned you.

As a brother, i'm naturally loaded with advice. But you are bound to be flooded with advice right now and before you have the biblical discernment to sort it all out effectively. That's why perhaps the best advice i could give you right now is none, but rather direct you to very solid Fundamentalist Preachers who are also teachers who can instruct you and build you up in your new found faith as a new christian. Sermonaudio has many excellent mp3 audio sermons and also videos now too. These preachers edify and correct each other as well. Assuring as best we can, that only the best information is there for us to learn from.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/main.asp

Henry Mahan does a fine job presenting the basics. So does Ian Paisely and David Cloud.

kobuk

14th September 2007, 02:32 AM

Here is an excellent sermon from a true Fundamentalist to help you get your new spiritual life grounded in Yah's Word.

'On the Trail of His Sheep' by Henry Mahan.

http://media.sermonaudio.com/sermons101/12180603256.jpg
http://images.sa-media.com/images/btn_playvid2d.gif (http://www.sermonaudio.com/playvideo.asp?ID=12180603256&sourceID=mahan)
http://images.sa-media.com/images/white.gif
Play Video! (http://www.sermonaudio.com/playvideo.asp?ID=12180603256&sourceID=mahan) (True-Streaming) · 150kbps | 26 min.••• If you are behind a corporate firewall, try this alternate link (http://www.sermonaudio.com/playvideo.asp?ID=12180603256&sourceID=mahan&force80=true).
http://images.sa-media.com/images/gray2.gif
http://images.sa-media.com/images/white.gif
Download Video (http://video.sa-media.com/media/12180603256/12180603256.wmv) (30.2MB)

MatthewDiscipleofGod

14th September 2007, 06:52 AM

As this sticky says a fundamentalist is:

Fundamentalist: (Defined by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976)

A born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who
Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

We take the Bible literal. That doesn't mean when it says God will cover us with his featherss that he really has feathers. We do believe though the creation account is history and that evolution is not true. We believe when the Bible says homosexual actions are a sin that is really is a sin. I hope this helps.

neunown

14th September 2007, 06:58 AM

flaja

16th September 2007, 08:53 PM

The simplest answer is that a Christian fundamentalist is someone who adheres to the ideas that were expressed in a set of essays that was published in 1917. I cannot post a link on this forum yet, but go to Wikipedia's home page and put "the fundamentals" in the Wiki search engine.

Fundamentalism is not a denomination. There is no single fundamentalist church and there is no organization that represents every fundamentalist believer or which can officially determine what fundamentalist doctrine is and is not.

The basic fundamentalist beliefs are:

Inerrancy of Scripture.

Virgin birth of Jesus.

Christ provided a blood sacrifice through His death whereby He paid the penalty for sin for mankind; Christ paid the penalty so human individuals would not have to.

Christ was physically resurrected from the dead.

The miracles depicted in the Bible are supernatural events; they literally happened and cannot interpreted any other way.

The expectation that Christ will physically return to the earth and then reign over the earth as its king for 1,000 years.

Other fundamentalist beliefs:
Moses was the main, if not only, author of the the Penteteuch (the first 5 books of the Old Testament); they are not the result of the Documentary Hypothesis, that is a compilation of various documents that were written by various people over several centuries.

Fundamentalists tend to be isolationists; they refuse to engage in joint efforts with non-fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists also tend to not be politically active, but whether by belief or design, I cannot say. It may be that fundamentalists cannot be very politically active because they tend to clump in small groups that politicians don’t bother to court.

I haven’t read the actual essays, so I cannot comment directly on them. But, I would venture that fundamentalism in practice may be somewhat removed from the essays. Over the years fundamentalism has acquired additional beliefs that grew out of the original essays but which may not have been expressly addressed in them.

I get the impression that in popular culture fundamentalists, evangelicals and the Christian Right are all taken as the same thing. In actual practice, however, this couldn’t be farther from the truth. I tend to associate evangelicalism with Pentecostalism and I have serious doubts that they are in fact Christians.

But at the same time I don’t totally accept fundamentalism in either doctrine or practice. People tell me that I follow Baptist doctrine, but I consider myself to be non-denominational. I call myself a synthetic Christian because my personal beliefs are fundamentalism influenced by my knowledge of history and science (I have a bachelor’s degree in biology that came with 40 credit hours’ worth of history courses).

DerSchweik

22nd September 2007, 09:55 PM

Hello,
I am a new Christian of a few months but for many years I had aspired to become a Christian and had an avid interest in Christianity. I am inquiring to find out what is the definition of fundamentalist in relations to being a Christian and in terms of this message forum.

Good question ladybug.

Personally (and IMHO) I think both "conservative" and "fundamentalist" refer not to specific groups of people but to specific principles on which people base their opinions and actions.

In principle, "conservative" generally means someone who advocates conserving something, that is, keeping something they value as valuable.

In principle, "fundamentalist" generally refers to someone who tends to stick to, or revert to the fundamentals of something - in this case, our core beliefs.

In practice, there is no need for either where there is no challenge to either. It is the existence of challenge - to one's core values or one's core beliefs that prompts a need to conserve them or to revert to the fundamentals.

Challenges to one's values or core beliefs come in a variety of ways - change, heresy, untruth (lies), etc.

Conservatives tend to want to conserve what they value through periods of change or challenge. Some changes are good, and conservatives will adapt accordingly. Some changes can be viewed as bad and will prompt a "holding on" to things of value that are threatened by such change.

Fundamentalists tend to respond to challenges to their core beliefs by reverting back to the basics, back to the things they know, without question, are good, true, and right. What prompts such response are usually some form of liberalism, which seeks to implement "change for changes' sake." Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is not. When a group has wandered down a particular path, for however long a period of time, and they begin to believe they have "wandered too far off course," they revert to the fundamentals to get them back "on course." In the presence of persistent adverse challenge to go back, fundamentalism takes on the appearance of a "movement" as it seeks the fundamentals.

Consider a football team, once successful, but now on a "losing streak." To get back on a winning track, they tend to shed all the glitzy plays they picked up over the seasons and revert to the fundamentals: blocking, hitting, tackling, etc. - the very things that made them successful at first.

Verbose - my apologies. But, I hope it helps a little.

In Him.

Cash80

30th September 2007, 10:30 AM

As this sticky says a fundamentalist is:

We take the Bible literal. That doesn't mean when it says God will cover us with his featherss that he really has feathers. We do believe though the creation account is history and that evolution is not true. We believe when the Bible says homosexual actions are a sin that is really is a sin. I hope this helps.

Can you please, point me out to the biblical verses, which adress the inerrancy of the Bible?

Thanks.

Sam

MatthewDiscipleofGod

30th September 2007, 06:19 PM

Can you please, point me out to the biblical verses, which adress the inerrancy of the Bible?

Thanks.

Sam

As Norm Geisler puts it logically:

1. God is without error.

2. The Bible is the word of God.

3. Therefore the Bible cannot error.

If 1 and 2 are correct then 3 has to be correct. I take it you say God is without error, correct? Do you believe the Bible is the word of God? The Bible says it is.

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 scripture is given by God. Since God is without error then scripture he has given is without error. That is why it is good for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction. If scripture was with error it would end up being the other way around!

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

So here we see how Paul's words are considered the word of God.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Here we see the Bible is not of human origin. It is the product of the Holy Ghost who is God.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Here we see God's word is true. If it is in error it can not be true.

Many times Jesus asked "Have ye not read?". He obviously didn't think the scripture was riddled with errors. He treated it as something that has authority.

There are countless more verses I could bring up but I think this is a good foundation to start with.

rrguy

2nd October 2007, 12:06 AM

I kinda had the same question, but reading other post my question now is Sola Scriptura, but not necessarily sola fide?

thanks
Greg

crairdin

5th October 2007, 08:12 PM

As Norm Geisler puts it logically:

1. God is without error.

2. The Bible is the word of God.

3. Therefore the Bible cannot error.

If 1 and 2 are correct then 3 has to be correct. I take it you say God is without error, correct? Do you believe the Bible is the word of God? The Bible says it is.

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:

Remember two things: "Scripture" here is just a Greek word that means "writings". It doesn't carry with it the churchy, sanctified meaning that we've given our English word "scripture". Second, the writings that Paul is talking about is the Old Testament.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

So here we see how Paul's words are considered the word of God.I thought you said "the Bible is the word of God"? I would have thought that this verse meant that Paul gave the Thessalonians a Bible.

Search the Bible for the term "the word of God" and you'll find out what it means. Paul did preach it, and the Thessalonians received it. This verse does NOT say that Paul's words are the word of God, but rather that Paul delivered the word of God to the Thessalonians. If it says anything it says that God's words are the word of God.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.Old Testament prophecy, not our 66-book Bible.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Here we see God's word is true. If it is in error it can not be true.So we're back to saying the Bible is the word of God again? So Paul was passing out Bibles to the Thessalonians? I agree that the word of God is truth, don't get me wrong. And I agree that the word of God, powered by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, has sanctifying power. I just haven't seen yet where you've shown the equivalence of our Bible to "the word of God" as it is used in the Bible.

MatthewDiscipleofGod

5th October 2007, 10:47 PM

Well crairdin, you deny the truth. You deny that all of the Bible is the Word of God. I have made my case and you'll have to give an account to God some day. Take care.

crairdin

5th October 2007, 11:36 PM

You deny that all of the Bible is the Word of God. I have made my case and you'll have to give an account to God some day. Take care.
Somebody asked for the characteristics of a fundamentalist and I couldn't give a better example than this. When faced with facts from the Bible, a fundamentalist cuts and runs. I've seen it over and over. In fact, I list it among their defining characteristics. (Mr. Project, if you aren't a fundamentalist I apologize for tarring you with that brush. Not all cut-and-runners are fundamentalists but all fundamentalists are cut-and-runners.)

It's important to note that the word of God is infallible, inspired, and inerrant. I believe that to be true. What I refuse to do is use non-biblical terminology to describe the Bible, or use biblical terms inappropriately.

For example, I wouldn't call taking a bath "baptism". Even though I'm immersed at the time, I would be misusing a biblical term to use it in that way. Tonight I had a bowl of soup for supper. That wasn't "The Lord's Supper", it was just my supper.

Similarly, the Bible tells us clearly what the word of God is and what it is not. It never refers to itself as the word of God, though it often claims to be reporting the word of God (or the words of God). We can thus say, biblically, that the Bible as we know it contains the word (or words) of God. To claim otherwise is simply not to know the Bible. Period.

I believe that fundamentalists (to make this argument less personally about you) claim to hold the Bible in high esteem while misusing it. In so doing they end up with wacky problems of interpretation, such as having to believe that Paul distributed 66-book Bibles to the Thessalonians.

A fundamentalist would say that I deny that all of the Bible is the word of God, yet it is Paul himself who, in the Bible, tells us that not everything he wrote is from God. It is not I, but the Apostle Paul who denies that all of the Bible is the word of God.

The part you have right is that we all will give account, and we all are accountable only to our own Master, not to each other. I will be happy to stand by the words of the Bible on this subject on that Day.

Vambram

6th October 2007, 12:51 AM

Every word of Holy Scripture is inspired or “God-breathed” (Greek theopnuestos). Without impairing the intelligence, individuality, literary style, or personal feelings of the human authors, God supernaturally directed the writing of Scripture so that they recorded in perfect accuracy His comprehensive and infallible revelation to humankind. If God Himself had done the writing, the written Word would be no more accurate and authoritative than it is.
The inspiration of Scripture is attested by Old Testament writers and by hundreds of instances where the expression “thus says the LORD” or its equivalent is used in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ affirms the inspiration of the Old Testament. The Apostles bear the same testimony. By means of divine inspiration, the human writers of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures spoke with authority concerning the unknown past, wrote by divine guidance the historical portions, revealed the Law, wrote the devotional literature of the Bible, recorded contemporary prophetic messages, and prophesied the future. Inspiration extends equally to all Scripture, even unto those portions of Scripture that were not given by direct dictation from of God.
The Inspiration of the New Testament was also authenticated by Jesus Christ (John 16:12-15). The Apostles claimed inspiration for their portions of the New Testament. Paul quotes both Deuteronomy and Luke as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18 and compare Deut. 25:4 with Luke 10:7). Peter declares ALL of Paul’s Epistles to be Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Although the New Testament sometimes quotes the Old Testament loosely, in paraphrase, or interpretively, this is never done in a way to deny the authority or accuracy of the original text. The early apostolic church received the New Testament Scriptures as the inspired Word of God as they were written, though formal recognition of the entire canon came more slowly. Because the Scriptures are inspired, they are Authoritative and Inerrant in their ---Original Words--- as they were written in their ---Original Manuscripts--- by the human authors whom The LORD directed and inspired via the method of theopnuestos i.e., “God-breathed”. Because the Scriptures are inspired, they are authoritative and inerrant in their Original Words, and constitute the infallible revelation of God to humankind.

The following verses were found via the chain reference system in my study Bible, and these verses support the above statement of faith concerning the Inspiration of the Scriptures.

From the Book of Exodus
4:14-31; 17:8-16; 19:1-7; 20:1-17 Exodus 20:22-24:8; 25:1-31:18; 32:15-16; 34:1-28;
35:1-4, 30-31.
Most of the entire Book of Leviticus is described and indicated by Leviticus to be the Words of the dialogue of God to Moses and Aaron.
From the Book of Numbers
11:21-30; 22:35-23:16
From the Book of Deuteronomy
4:1-14, 44-49; 5:22-6:5; 10:1-11; 29:20-29; 31:23-26
From the Book of 2 Samuel
23:1-2, and 23:3-7
Job 6:8-10; 32:6-18 and 32:19-33:6
Psalms 68:7-11
From the Book of Isaiah
6:5-13; 8:1-20; 29:22-30:8; Isaiah 30:9-35:10; 59:21; Isaiah 39:5-66:24 (The Lord speaking His Word to His prophet).
From the Book of Jeremiah
1:4-10; 30:1-2; 36:1-32; 45:1-5; Jeremiah 46:1-51:58 (The Lord speaking His Word to His prophet). Jeremiah 51:59-64
From the Book of Ezekiel
1:1-3; 2:1-2; then Ezekiel 2:3-7:27 is an account of the Lord speaking His Word to His prophet. The rest of the Book of Ezekiel is filled with the Lord speaking His Word and His prophecies to His prophet.
The Book of Daniel has many accounts of the Lord speaking to the prophet Daniel with both words and prophetic visions.
Amos 3:1-8; Micah 3:1-8; Habakkuk 2:1-4; Zechariah 7:1-8

References from the New Testament:
From the Gospel of Matthew
2:1-6; 4:14-16; 5:17-43; 8:14-17; 10:5-14; 11:9-15; 12:1-21, vs. 38-42; 13:10-15, 34-35;
15:1-9; 16:1-4; 19:1-6; 21:1-5, vs. 9-16, vs. 41-44; 22:29-33; 24:4-15, vs. 37-39;
26:21-25, vs. 30-32, vs. 47-56; 27:3-10, vs. 33-35, vs. 45-47; 28:16-20
From the Gospel of Mark
1:1-3, vs. 40-44; 7:5-10; 9:11-13; 10:1-9; 11:15-18; 12:1-11, vs. 24-27, vs. 35-36;
13:5-14; 14:17-21, vs. 26-28; 15:24-28
From the Gospel of Luke
1:1-4, vs. 67-80; 3:1-8; 4:1-13, vs. 16-21; 6:1-5; 7:24-28; 18:31-34; 19:45-48; 20:17-18;
20:34-38, vs. 41-43; 21:20-22; 22:19-23, vs. 35-37; 23:26-31; 24:13-27, vs. 33-49;
From the Gospel of John
1:35-45; 2:13-17; 3:10-14; 4:30-38; 5:39-47; 6:30-45; 7:40-42; 8:12-18, vs. 39-41;
10:31-36; 12:12-15, vs. 34-41, vs. 46-50; 13:15-18; 14:1-10, vs. 23-24; 15:24-27;
16:12-15; 17:1-12, vs. 14-17; 19:23-24, vs. 28-30, vs. 31-37; 20:1-9, vs. 30-31; 21:24-25
From the Book of Acts
1:1-3, vs. 15-16, vs. 20; 2:14-21, vs. 25-35; 3:12-26; 4:23-26; 7:1-53; 8:26-35; 10:34-43;
13:13-33, vs. 40-49; 15:13-18; 17:1-4, vs. 10-11; 23:1-5; 24:10-14; 26:19-23; 28:21-28
From the Book of Romans
1:1-2, vs. 16-17; 2:23-24; 3:4-18; 4:3-17; 8:35-36; 9:1-9, vs. 12-17, vs. 20-33; 10:5-11;
10:15-21; 11:1-4, vs. 8-10, vs. 26-27; 12:19-21; 14:11; 15:3-12, vs. 15-21; 16:35-27
From the Book of First Corinthians
1:18-19, vs. 31; 2:4-13; 3:18-20; 7:1-12; 9:7-10, vs. 14-16; 10:1-11; 14:20-21; 15:1-4;
15:41-45, vs. 51-57
From the Book of Second Corinthians
4:8-14; 6:1-2, vs. 14-18; 8:13-15; 9:7-9; 13:2-10
From the Book of Galatians
1:10-20; 3:5-11, vs. 13-17, vs. 22; 4:22-30
From the Book of Ephesians
3:1-7; 4:7-8, vs. 11-17; 5:12-14, vs. 30-33
Colossians 2:1-7; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:14-17;
From the Book of Hebrews
1:1-3; 3:7-11; 4:1-12; 5:5-6; 6:13-15; 7:13-21; 8:1-5, vs. 8-12; 10:4-18, vs. 30;
Hebrews 11:1-40
1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:14-16
From the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the Apostle John
1:1, vs. 17-19; 14:1-13; 19:1-9; 21:1-5; 22:6-19

crairdin

6th October 2007, 02:18 AM

Vambram

6th October 2007, 02:27 AM

Ladybug: You're getting your answer in spades tonight.

This last is a cut-and-paste job that ignores all the points made in previous posts. Fundamentalists like their answers in black and white. The less thinking and the more spoon-fed the better.
LOL,
thats a wonderful way to dodge the post I made, and a wonderful way to simply assume that I am spoonfed what I believe when you do not know anything about me, and also thats a really classy way of avoiding to actually read the post, study the verses presented, and then come up with an adequate response in this sub-forum.

Also, I want you to know that post of mine is not a mere cut and paste job which can be found on any website. Instead, it is a post with explanations which I have typed out personally from my study Bible, along with my own thoughts and words added to it. Furthermore, the long, long, long list of passages of Scripture was also painstakingly searched out, checked, read, and verified by myself and then added to the file I have in my computer on a Microsoft Word document. However, you are incorrect to simply assume that my post is merely just a simple cut and paste post. Please, I ask that you attempt to learn a little bit about myself before you make any more erroneus assumptions about Vambram Thank you.

crairdin

6th October 2007, 02:34 AM

Once again you've missed the point of my post, which was a clever way of saying exactly what you just told me. Review my post and refute the points, don't just paste something someone else wrote and expect me to find your argument buried in another person's words.

Vambram

6th October 2007, 02:43 AM

Similarly, the Bible tells us clearly what the word of God is and what it is not. It never refers to itself as the word of God, though it often claims to be reporting the word of God (or the words of God). We can thus say, biblically, that the Bible as we know it contains the word (or words) of God. To claim otherwise is simply not to know the Bible. Period.

I have not missed the point of your post, so do not assume that I have, Crairdin. I was responding to this part of your own words, and showing you from the scriptures just how incorrect your beliefs are about the original manuscripts of the Scriptures.
Now, I don't suppose you care to take the time to actually look up some of those passages of scriptures, and attempt to refute what the Bible says about itself in those verses?

crairdin

6th October 2007, 02:52 AM

OK I'm only going to do this for you once.
Without impairing the intelligence, individuality, literary style, or personal feelings of the human authors, God supernaturally directed the writing of Scripture so that they recorded in perfect accuracy His comprehensive and infallible revelation to humankind.
Where is that in the Bible? It's not in the verses below.
If God Himself had done the writing, the written Word would be no more accurate and authoritative than it is.Where is that in the Bible?
The inspiration of Scripture is attested by Old Testament writers and by hundreds of instances where the expression “thus says the LORD” or its equivalent is used in the Old Testament. This is a vacuous argument. The Old Testament also says "Moses said" many times. Are we to conclude that the entire OT consists of the words of Moses on the basis of a few times when it claims to record his words? Similarly can we not just as logically conclude that the OT writer used "thus saith the Lord" to identify where the writer's words stopped and the Lord's words began?
Jesus Christ affirms the inspiration of the Old Testament. The Apostles bear the same testimony.I believe Jesus affirmed the authority of the OT, but I need you to point out which verses below are Christ affirming its inspiration (using the definition of inspiration you gave in the sentence first quoted above).
By means of divine inspiration, the human writers of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures spoke with authority concerning the unknown past, wrote by divine guidance the historical portions, revealed the Law, wrote the devotional literature of the Bible, recorded contemporary prophetic messages, and prophesied the future. This is an accurate statement of a human belief about the Bible but this isn't from the Bible.
Inspiration extends equally to all Scripture, even unto those portions of Scripture that were not given by direct dictation from of God.I thought God didn't dictate, according to the definition of inspiration above. Furthermore this concept simply isn't in the Bible. It's an idea we bring to our study of the Bible, not one that arises out of it.
The Inspiration of the New Testament was also authenticated by Jesus Christ (John 16:12-15).
That's not what those verses say.
The Apostles claimed inspiration for their portions of the New Testament.Where?
Paul quotes both Deuteronomy and Luke as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18 and compare Deut. 25:4 with Luke 10:7).Paul and Luke both quote Deuteronomy.
Peter declares ALL of Paul’s Epistles to be Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). And they were scripture ("writings") by definition because they were all written down.
Although the New Testament sometimes quotes the Old Testament loosely, in paraphrase, or interpretively, this is never done in a way to deny the authority or accuracy of the original text.Agreed.
The early apostolic church received the New Testament Scriptures as the inspired Word of God as they were written, though formal recognition of the entire canon came more slowly. With this point we're outside of the range of biblical authority. We're talking about more human ideas about the Bible. What the early church did or didn't do isn't really the subject of this discussion. I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with this point.
Because the Scriptures are inspired, they are Authoritative and Inerrant in their ---Original Words--- as they were written in their ---Original Manuscripts--- by the human authors whom The LORD directed and inspired via the method of theopnuestos i.e., “God-breathed”. Because the Scriptures are inspired, they are authoritative and inerrant in their Original Words, and constitute the infallible revelation of God to humankind. This statement begs the question.

Hope this helps clarify my sarcasm. :-)

Let me add one question: Where does the Bible claim that the entire Bible is the word of God? (Using those words, not "God-breathed" or "true".)

Vambram

6th October 2007, 03:02 AM

OK I'm only going to do this for you once.

Oh, wowowowwow, i should be soooooo honored that he actually decided to honor me with a legit post, ROFL

Anyways, its obvious that you cannot see the truth of the Bible when it is very clearly presented in the verses of the passages of Scripture. Due to the relatively fast reply of your response to my post, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you did not really take the time to read more than a few verses which was presented.
Oh well, perhaps on another discussion, or maybe further into this one, I can hope for a better response more adequately suited to a debate. :)

crairdin

6th October 2007, 03:12 AM

I was working on my answer while you were composing your previous question. I posted my sarcastic remark then started in on addressing your post point-by-point. That's why it was so fast.

I read a few of the verses but you're not responding to the points I raise so they're for the most part irrelevant. You didn't answer my final question, which is the crux of the whole discussion. You're not reading my messages so it seems pointless for me to reply verse-by-verse to your copy-and-paste xref dump. I replied sentence-by-sentence to your post but you don't want to address any of that. Frankly I don't know what more you expect.

Vambram

6th October 2007, 03:22 AM

Well, someone as intelligent as you appear to be should be able to clearly understand and recognise that the sentences and definition of what you quoted in my long post are human attempts to quantify and to understand what we see as to what the Scriptures actually do teach about itself.
I know you are smart enough to understand that, my brother, and yet you appear to seem to want to pick apart my post and try to attempt to weaken it with straw-man type remarks at man-made definitions of what is clearly understood about the Bible if one were to simply take the time to think about all that we see written in the word of God about the written word of God.

I have read your posts, and my responses remain the same. Without any iota of doubt at all in my heart and mind, I believe it is incorrect to define the written word of God as you appear to be doing so.
Because of all of the many passages of Scriptures in which the written word of God talks about itself, or in which the writers of the Scriptures teach about the written word of God, then therefore, my convictions and beliefs about the original manuscripts of the Scriptures shall not change.

:groupray:

crairdin

6th October 2007, 10:51 AM

Because of all of the many passages of Scriptures in which the written word of God talks about itself, or in which the writers of the Scriptures teach about the written word of God, then therefore, my convictions and beliefs about the original manuscripts of the Scriptures shall not change.

I appreciate your willingness to just set our differences aside and acknowledge our brotherhood in Christ. As you've summed up your position, let me sum up mine.

You refer to the "written word of God" yet if you search the Bible you'll find that the "word of God" is never written nor read. It is proclaimed (1 Sam 9:27), inquired of (2 Sam 16:23), invalidated (Mt 15:6), listened to (Luke 5:1), compared to other things (Luke 8:11), spoke (Acts 4:31), spread and received (1 Th 2:13), taught (Acts 18:11), sent forth (1 Cor 14:36), peddled (2 Cor 2:17), and preached (Col 1:25).

The word of God comes to people (1K 12:22), it sanctifies (1Tim 4:5), it judges (Heb 4:12), it creates (2 Peter 3:5), it abides in believers (1 John 2:14), and it is used as a title for a person (Rev 19:13).

When the Bible uses the phrase "the word of God" it is referring to the message God gives us, not the book that contains the message. If you read the verses above and plug in "the Bible" in place of the "word of God" you get nonsense, such as people who have Bibles inside of them or apostles handing out Bibles. But if you plug in the idea of "the message from God" every passage makes perfect sense.

So it is not my big ol' Scofield Bible that I wield like a two-edged sword, but rather the message of the Gospel that is sharper than any two-edged sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

The Bible may in fact be inspired, inerrant, and infallible but not because it is the "written word of God". It never makes that claim about itself. If we truly believe the Bible with the intensity that you and I both claim, then we shouldn't say things about it that it doesn't say about itself. (Nor should we diminish the things it does say.)

Thanks for the discussion. Hope this clarifies my position.

Vambram

6th October 2007, 11:50 AM

I am glad that you clarified your position, my brother, but without any doubt at all in my heart and mind, I still strongly disagree with some of your beliefs and conclusions.

You refer to the "written word of God" yet if you search the Bible you'll find that the "word of God" is never written nor read.

You and I both agree that the Ten Commandments are the written word of GOD, correct? Do you deny that the words of GOD to Moses which GOD commanded Moses to write down were not the written word of GOD? The Pentateuch is literally filled with examples after examples of the words Jehovah GOD spoke to Moses and in which Moses wrote down those words as commanded by GOD Himself. Therefore, those original manuscripts written by Moses were indeed the divinely inspired, inerrant and written word of GOD
Also, In many other large passages of Scripture, we see that what the Old Testament prophets recorded in written form the actual words of GOD Himself and these prophets wrote down HIS words in written form.
Surely, you can see this, and surely you don't expect people to believe that those books were not written down and subsequently read. So, therefore, how you can possibly say that the word of GOD was not written down and read simply just boggles my mind. It makes me want to scratch my head, and blink asking myself if you are really being serious about that.

When the Bible uses the phrase "the word of God" it is referring to the message God gives us, not the book that contains the message. If you read the verses above and plug in "the Bible" in place of the "word of God" you get nonsense, such as people who have Bibles inside of them or apostles handing out Bibles. But if you plug in the idea of "the message from God" every passage makes perfect sense.

There is some good sense to what you are saying, but at the same time, I see some problems as well. For instance, if the "word of God" is only supposed to be the message GOD gives us, and thus incumbent to be only what we can remember as to what that message actually is as we proclaim it, then that idea of yours forgets entire passages in Psalms such as Psalms 119, and also Psalms 19 as well where the psalmists refers to the written word of GOD.
One more thing before I conclude my post, and await your response, to which I am sure I will reply back to as well. In 2 Timothy 2:14-15 and also in 2 Timothy 3:14-17 it is very clear and obvious that the Apostle Paul is not merely talking about the message of the word of GOD but that instead, Paul is also speaking to Timothy about the actual written word of GOD as well.

:groupray:

crairdin

6th October 2007, 01:35 PM

You and I both agree that the Ten Commandments are the written word of GOD, correct? Do you deny that the words of GOD to Moses which GOD commanded Moses to write down were not the written word of GOD? The Pentateuch is literally filled with examples after examples of the words Jehovah GOD spoke to Moses and in which Moses wrote down those words as commanded by GOD Himself. Therefore, those original manuscripts written by Moses were indeed the divinely inspired, inerrant and written word of GOD. Also, In many other large passages of Scripture, we see that what the Old Testament prophets recorded in written form the actual words of GOD Himself and these prophets wrote down HIS words in written form.I agree that Moses and the other OT writers often wrote down the words of God. Will you agree that there were some words that Moses wrote that were not the words of God? That is, Moses is writing down an account of something then he gets to a part where he writes, "And God said,..." and that's where the words of God start. Before that we have the words of Moses. This is why I would say that the Bible contains the words of God. I agree with you that that statement is self-evident.

Surely, you can see this, and surely you don't expect people to believe that those books were not written down and subsequently read. So, therefore, how you can possibly say that the word of GOD was not written down and read simply just boggles my mind. It makes me want to scratch my head, and blink asking myself if you are really being serious about that.There's a difference here, and it's an important one. When I say the "word of God was not written and not read" I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm stating what the Bible says. I was serious when I encouraged you to do the research yourself: You won't find a passage that says "word of God" and refers to it being written or read.

When the Bible says "word of God" it's talking about what God has to say. It's not talking about itself. Because the Bible doesn't refer to itself as "the word of God" I can't in good conscience as a Bible-believing Christian use the phrase "word of God" to refer to the Bible. I frankly think it would be disrespectful to do so.

I point out again that I agree that the message that God gave to Moses and the prophets was written down and subsequently read. In that form, the Bible calls it "the Law" and "the Prophets", not "the word of God".
There is some good sense to what you are saying, but at the same time, I see some problems as well. For instance, if the "word of God" is only supposed to be the message GOD gives us, and thus incumbent to be only what we can remember as to what that message actually is as we proclaim it, then that idea of yours forgets entire passages in Psalms such as Psalms 119, and also Psalms 19 as well where the psalmists refers to the written word of GOD.Where in Psalm 119 does it say that the "word" that David refers to is the Bible? First of all, David didn't have even all of the Old Testament to refer to. Second, he makes statements like "How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your word." If "your word" is the Bible (or the portion of the OT scriptures they had at the time) then virtually no young man in Israel could follow this verse, because virtually no one had access to the OT writings. If we understand "your word" to be those instructions and promises given by God, then its more likely that someone reading Psalm 119 shortly after it was written would find it completely understandable. That is, the way a young man can keep is way pure is by living according to God's precepts -- not by reading a book that a) hasn't been written yet and b) he doesn't have a copy of (nor even a copy of the portion that they had by that time been written).

With respect to Psalm 19 it is completely consistent with my point of view and doesn't refer to our written Bible. It refers to God's law, statutes, precepts, commands, etc.

One more thing before I conclude my post, and await your response, to which I am sure I will reply back to as well. In 2 Timothy 2:14-15 and also in 2 Timothy 3:14-17 it is very clear and obvious that the Apostle Paul is not merely talking about the message of the word of GOD but that instead, Paul is also speaking to Timothy about the actual written word of GOD as well. 2 Tim 2:14-15: The "word of truth" isn't clearly and obviously the Bible -- it's that message that Paul wants Timothy to declare.

2 Tim 3:14-17: This passage talks about writings ("scripture") obviously referring to what we would call the Old Testament. It doesn't refer to them as the word of God, but as the writings.

2 Tim 3 actually makes my point. When Paul had the opportunity to refer to the OT writings as "the word of God" he called them simply, "the writings". Again, the Bible doesn't refer to itself as "the word of God".

We have seen, however, in your first point above, that the Bible does contain the very words of God. However, when given the opportunity it refers to itself as "the law", "the prophets", "the writings", etc. but not "the word of God."

Here's an interesting passage because it uses lots of this terminology:
[John 10:34] Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? [35] If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—"

This is very interesting. Jesus refers to the Old Testament writings as "the Law" and affirms that "the scripture (lit. "writings") cannot be broken". But he uses the phrase "word of God" to refer to the message that came to the people of Israel, not to "the Law" or "the Scripture".

I want to close by making the point that it is because of my strong belief in the Bible that I choose to use biblical terminology to refer to these things. I'm discouraged that people who claim to hold the Bible in higher regard than I do insist on using non-biblical terminology.

Vambram

6th October 2007, 01:51 PM

:doh:

Just because the phrase, "the written word of God" is not necessarily found perhaps in the Scriptures, you appear to be unable to see what so many others very clearly and easily understand.
The statues, the commandments, the word of truth, etc, the Scriptures, etc, etc, etc that the various writers of the books of the Bible refer to very often indeed ARE REALLY words that have been written down and preserved in written form.

I do not believe that you, my brother, are indeed making progress with this discussion. I firmly believe that you are making this one long debate over nothing more then semantics, and quibbling over mere semantics. Either that, or pehaps just possibly there is a honest difference of opinion about the real definitions of the terms in question?

:groupray:

crairdin

6th October 2007, 02:34 PM

Just because the phrase, "the written word of God" is not necessarily found perhaps in the Scriptures, you appear to be unable to see what so many others very clearly and easily understand.
I've been one of those people. I left them when I found them to be like you: Unable to discuss the details of what they believe. Every time I press you closer to what the Bible actually says, you step back and make general and vague comments.

With respect to your statement that I am unable to see what others do, let me remind you that I have agreed that the very words of God are recorded in many places in the Bible. My "thesis point" is that the Bible does not use the phrase "word of God" to refer to itself, yet many Christians insist on using that phrase.

With respect to what other people clearly and easily understand, I just happened to be looking something up in the New Bible Dictionary from Inter Varsity Press so I turned to their article on "WORD" and found exactly what I've been saying: "...used 394 times of a divine communication which comes from God to men in the form of commandment, prophecy, warning or encouragement.... It is used as a synonym for the law (tôrâ) of God in Ps 119, where alone its reference is to a written rather than a spoken message." This affirms your interpretation of the use of the word "word" in Ps 119, but also confirms my understanding that the use of the word "word" in the OT doesn't refer to the written OT (except in Ps 119, which I admit I don't see). Regarding the NT, the dictionary has a similar description.

My point simply is that I'm not alone in holding this opinion. The use of the phrase "word of God" to refer to the Bible has become so ingrained in some Christians that they simply can't be told otherwise.

The statues, the commandments, the word of truth, etc, the Scriptures, etc, etc, etc that the various writers of the books of the Bible refer to very often indeed ARE REALLY words that have been written down and preserved in written form. I agree with this statement. If you think I don't, then you're either not reading what I'm writing or I haven't said it enough: The Bible does not use the phrase "the word of God" to refer to itself. In fact, it doesn't use that phrase to refer to anything that is written down. I agree that the very words of God were often written down and recorded in the Bible. But while that message that was recorded and written was the word of God, that doesn't change the fact that the Bible never refers to itself or any written document as "the word of God".

Not sure how I can say that more clearly, nor how I can make this point more clearly: You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the Bible. To me this is like someone saying "The Messiah was actually Seth, the son of Adam. When we read the gospels we are reading the story of Seth Christ. Seth is preparing a place for us in heaven, and Seth will come again. Seth is the only son of God." You and I could turn to almost any passage in the gospels and point out that Christ's name was "Jesus" (or at least that's how we've translated the Greek translation of his Hebrew name) and in no case is Jesus ever called Seth. To call Jesus Seth is to use unbiblical terminology to refer to Christ.

Similarly, the Bible never refers to itself as "the word of God". To use "the word of God" synonymously with "the Bible" is a human invention and misunderstanding. It is as unbiblical as praying in the name of Seth and trusting Seth for salvation.

In both cases we've taken a term that appears in the Bible ("Seth" and "word of God"), terms that have very specific meanings (the son of Adam and the message delivered to us by God), and applying them to the wrong thing. It's like if we called baptism "tithing" or called worship "atonement".

I'm frankly baffled why Bible-believing Christians continue in this abuse of scripture.

I do not believe that you, my brother, are indeed making progress with this discussion. I firmly believe that you are making this one long debate over nothing more then semantics, and quibbling over mere [I]semantics. Either that, or pehaps just possibly there is a honest difference of opinion about the real definitions of the terms in question?I agree that this is about semantics (the meanings of words). In fact, instead of dismissing the debate because it's "mere semantics" I would say that the whole purpose of the debate is to resolve the semantic issues that we've been discussing from the beginning: That is, what is the meaning of the phrase "the word of God" as it is used in the Bible?

Vambram

6th October 2007, 05:01 PM

I've been one of those people. I left them when I found them to be like you: Unable to discuss the details of what they believe. Every time I press you closer to what the Bible actually says, you step back and make general and vague comments.

It is not my fault if your beliefs and your understanding causes you to think that my comments are vague, and generalized. I have given a honest detailed discussion so far, and instead you appear to want to brush it off as being without detail and being vague, instead.
Also, I was not brushing off your viewpoints and beliefs as merely a difference of semantics. Clearly, I put in my post that we need to make sure that we are using the same definitions for words and terms, rather then simply just quibble about semantics.

However, I shall try again, and give even more details since the first attempt was apperantly not good enough for you.
The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed, that it is a divine product, and, because it is divine, the original documents are inerrant. The copies of those documents are not inspired. We have copies of inspired documents.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/2Tim/2Tim_3.htm#given) says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul who wrote this epistle was obviously referring to the entirety of the Old Testament as being inspired. Crairdin, as you know, the word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase, since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/2Pet/2Pet_1.htm#the), "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human will. Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, I can easily see that the Old Testament Scriptures are full of statements and phrases claiming to be the Word of God which are then written down and recorded by the original writers of the original manuscripts of the written word of God.
I believe that the Old Testament assumes and speaks from the perspective of divine inspiration. I see that the Old Testament is repeatedly spoken of as being inspired via the numerous references cited above in my previous posts on this thread, but what about the New Testament? Are the New Testament books inspired as well?
The Christian church has always considered the New Testament documents to be inspired. Though in the early church there were some debates on which New Testament books to include in the Bible, God worked through the Christian church to recognize those inspired works. Therefore we now have 27 inspired books for the New Testament.
In 1 Corinthians 14:37 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_14.htm#And) Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." In 2 Peter 3:16 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/2Pet/2Pet_3.htm#As) Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Also, Jesus said in John 14:26 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/John/john_14.htm#Jesus), "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." Truly, do I believe that this means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them.
So, therefore, Crairdin, I really do understand and can see that Jesus promised direction from the Holy Spirit, that Paul considered what he wrote to be the commands of God, and that Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. In addition, since the Christian Church recognizes the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired, and since I do see internal claims of inspiration in the New Testament, I do conclude that inspiration applies to the New Testament documents as well.

Also, let us look in the prefaces of well established translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek manuscripts to see what the scholars whom translated the preserved copies of the written word of God believed about the doctrine of the inspiration of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures.
In the NKJV, the following statement is made:
In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture; and in the inerrancy of the original autographs, i.e., the original manuscripts of Scriptures.

In the preface of the NIV, the following statement is found:
From the beginning of the project, the Committee on Bible Translation held to certain goals for the New International Version: that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use. The Committee also sought to preserve some measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English.
In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being.
In the prefaces of other well established and very well accepted translations, such as the ESV, the KJV, and the NASB, one can find similar statements from the translators concerning their beliefs in the inspiration of the original manuscripts of the written word of God.

Finally, brother Crairdin, may I direct you to the following website where you can read a very detailed study written by James M. Gray who was the Dean of the Moody Bible Institue.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund20.htm?200729

The title of this study written by James M. Gray is The Inspiration of the Bible -- Definition, Extent, and Proof

:groupray:

crairdin

7th October 2007, 05:16 PM

I'd like to start by saying we should begin to think about how we're going to wrap this up. I don't think either of us is interested in carrying out this conversation through eternity. I'd like to begin the process of ending by reminding us both of the question we are trying to answer. My response to your points below will be driven toward that point.

This started because someone asked to show where the Bible claims to be inerrant. In response, someone gave the outline of an argument that said "the Bible is the word of God". I asked to be shown where the Bible calls itself the "word of God" and that led down this path. So let's remember the question we're answering is, "Is it correct to call the Bible 'the word of God'?" With that in mind I'm not going to respond to points that don't move us toward an answer to that question.

So for example you claim that my beliefs about this question cause me to believe that your responses have been vague when I press for detail. Since that doesn't move us closer to resolution I'm not going to deal with it. Not that I don't have an opinion on that topic; just that I want this to eventually end.

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed, that it is a divine product, and, because it is divine, the original documents are inerrant. The copies of those documents are not inspired. We have copies of inspired documents.The inspiration of the Bible is not the question we are seeking to answer. The question is: Can we call the Bible "the word of God"?

Furthermore, I can easily see that the Old Testament Scriptures are full of statements and phrases claiming to be the Word of God which are then written down and recorded by the original writers of the original manuscripts of the written word of God.I agree with this point. God spoke, and the authors of the various OT books recorded his words. They recorded many things, among them, the words of God. I don't have a problem calling those passages "the word of God", and I have said that several times in this discussion. It is this fact that leads me to eventually conclude that the Bible contains the word of God. It is hard to argue that it does not, and that's not what I've been doing.

What I do not accept is the argument that because the OT in various places says "Thus saith the Lord" that we conclude that the entire OT was dictated by God. There may be other arguments that can be used to make that point, but this is not one of them. This can be shown by the observation I made in an earlier post: There are many places in the OT where it says, "Moses said." Despite this, nobody argues that the OT is "the word of Moses" or that it was dictated by Moses. My point is that the efficacy of this particular argument is questionable.

Furthermore, if we are to believe that the entire OT was dictated by God, then one wonders why "thus saith the Lord" is even necessary. Wouldn't it be "and the Lord continued thus"? Why point out where the Lord is speaking unless he's not speaking the words before? Again, there may be a case to be made for the OT being dictated by God, but this particular argument is not the way to do it.

Are the New Testament books inspired as well? This is not the question under consideration. The question is: Is it biblical to call the New Testament "the word of God".

1 Corinthians 14:37 Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment."Of course Paul speaks of the subject matter of this section of First Corinthians, not everything he ever wrote. But setting that aside for a second, let's turn back to 1 Corinthians 7:12, where Paul was very careful to point out that what he was about to say was not from God, but rather just from Paul. Why mention that if everything he wrote was being dictated by God? Because it wasn't. In fact if you look through chapter 7 and elsewhere in Paul's writings you find places where he clearly appears to be giving his own advice as a person with experience and wisdom.

Back to chapter 14, take a look at verse 36. Paul asks if the "word of God" originated with the Corinthians, or if they were the only ones to whom it came. If when we say "word of God" we mean "Bible", then Paul is asking them if the Bible originated with the Corinthians. Obviously it couldn't have, since he wasn't done writing it yet and probably had no idea there'd ever be such a thing. So why would Paul ask them about the Bible?

The obvious answer is that Paul had a different definition for the phrase "the word of God" than modern fundamentalists/Christians do. Paul understood "the word of God" to mean "the message of the Gospel". Note that in verse 34 he refers to "the Law". Here he had a perfect opportunity to refer to the OT scriptures as "the word of God" -- after all he's going to use that phrase two verses later -- but instead he uses the correct phrase "the Law".

My point throughout this discussion has been this: When the Bible uses the phrase "the word of God" it is not referring to itself. This is not to say that the Bible is not infallible, inerrant, or inspired. Only that the phrase "the word of God" does not refer to the Bible, but rather the message that God has for his creation. This is consistently true throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."This is not related to the point of our discussion but I'll point out that I agree that Paul's writings are "scripture" by definition, because the word "scripture" means "writings", nothing more. Because Paul wrote things down, he was writing scripture. So, these people distorted Paul's writings and all the other writings. I agree.

Also, Jesus said in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." Truly, do I believe that this means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them. Again, this is off-topic, but I'll point out that I agree that the Holy Spirit led Jesus' disciples to a) remember what he had said and teach it to others, and b) write down what he had said for future generations. This doesn't affect the answer to the question we're addressing, but I want you to know I agree with it.

In the NKJV, the following statement is made:
In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture; and in the inerrancy of the original autographs, i.e., the original manuscripts of Scriptures.Whether or not the Bible can be accurately called "the word of God" does not have anything to do with inspiration. I hope I've made that point by now.

In the preface of the NIV, the following statement is found:
In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. Since I don't believe the translators of any version of the Bible were infallible, I don't have a problem allowing them to make this error without necessarily invalidating the results of their work.

*****

I believe I've addressed each point in your message that pertains to the original question, and I don't believe you've answered that question in this or any of your messages. Note that it's not just that I don't agree with you, it's that you aren't answering the question. That's why we're spending so much time on this: From the beginning the topic has been "is it right to call the Bible the 'word of God?'" and throughout this thread you've been trying to prove that the Bible is inspired. Those are two different questions. That's why I keep saying you're not addressing my points. I've been trying to get you to show me a verse where the Bible calls itself "the word of God" and you've been showing me verses that demonstrate that all or portions of the Bible are divinely inspired.

Just to make it clear, you're not going to find a verse where the Bible calls itself "the word of God". I know that. I'm not asking for your help to find that verse, but rather I'm stating it as a rhetorical question.

I believe I'm out of things to say. Barring an outright insult or a gross misstatement that I can't let pass without comment, I'm ready to be done.

Vambram

7th October 2007, 06:16 PM

You have made your point. Your post is well done, and very intelligent. However, I still disagree with your conclusions, my brother in Christ and if you choose to believe that there is a legitimate difference between the phrase "the written word of God" as compared to all of the rest of the words and phrases that the writers in the Bible used to describe God's words, commandments, laws, prophecies, promises, covenants, and the God-breathed inspired Scriptures --or literally-- writings, then no matter how often or how long this discussion continues, I doubt that you will change your mind.
I do thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent answers, my brother. But after all of my years and years of studies concerning this topic about the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testament, I am not swayed by your very well written and reasonable explanations. Oh, I could indeed take the time to refute your reasonable explanations, my brother, but as suggested, the debate would become probably circular in nature with neither side of the discussion willing to budge from their position.

Thank you for the discussion, and for your point of view. I am sure that any further topics of debate the both of us become involved in shall be as equally polite, civil, and respectful as what you and I have enjoyed here.

:groupray: :amen: :thumbsup:

Cash80

12th October 2007, 03:03 PM

I kinda had the same question, but reading other post my question now is Sola Scriptura, but not necessarily sola fide?

thanks
Greg

A quick question, what is the difference between Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide?

And Project86, thanks for you explanation.

crairdin

12th October 2007, 08:02 PM

A quick question, what is the difference between Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide?

Sola Scriptura = By the scriptures alone. The Bible is our only authoritative source of Christian doctrine.

Sola Fide = By faith alone. Justification is by faith alone and not a result of any works.

There's more:

Sola Gratia = By grace alone. Salvation is a result of God's unmerited favor towards humans, not a result of any merit they might have.

Solus Christus = By Christ alone. There is salvation in no one else. Christ is the only mediator between God and humankind.

Soli Deo Gloria = All glory to God alone. All glory belongs to God; humans aren't worthy of any.

These are said to be characteristic of Luther's complaints against the Catholic church and the fundamentals of the reformation..

SpiritMeadow

14th October 2007, 03:59 PM

crairdin

14th October 2007, 04:31 PM

I guess I'm missing something here. Has anyone proved the "inerrency of the bible"? I've seen absolutely nothing but bible verses quoted. It would seem to be axiomatic that one cannot prove the truth of the bible by citing to it ? Isn't that like high school logic?

While it seems obviously true that to assert a statement is true on the basis that it claims to be true is a logical fallacy, the situation here is actually an appeal to authority, not begging the question.

In other words, if I make a statement that global temperatures are rising but not as a result of human activity, then claim as my proof that everything I've ever written about this subject agrees with me, I would be guilty of some kind of circular reasoning. However, if I cite an authoritative source that backs my claim, like NASA or NOAA data, then I could still be wrong (if my source is wrong) but I'm not begging the question by assuming the truth of my hypothesis.

In the case of the Bible, we (or I should say, many of us) believe the Bible to be our only authoritative source of the words of God himself. So when the Bible teaches us that God is truth and that he cannot err, then we're not just claiming the Bible is true because it claims to be true, but rather we're appealing to the Bible as the only authoritative source of information on the subject.

That said, it's interesting to ask the question: Do we believe the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible because it claims those attributes for itself, or are these assumptions that we bring to our study of the Bible from outside? That is, is the Bible innately inspired, inerrant, and infallible or is it the case that we've all agreed to treat it that way for the purpose of establishing doctrine and settling our differences?

Furthermore, it's important to distinguish the difference between the original manuscripts, of which we only have copies, and the subsequent copies and translations that have been made. Do we make the same claim of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility for the copies and translations as we do the originals? And if not, then what are the practical implications of this decision?

Do we believe a) that God cares about us having an accurate copy and/or translation of the books of the Bible and b) that God, being willing to give us an accurate copy or translation, is sufficiently powerful to protect the copying and translation process in order to put an accurate copy or translation in our hands?

And if he is both willing and able, what do we believe about the variety of Bible translations available to us in English and other widely spoken languages? Are all translations equally protected by God or are some better than others? If they vary in degrees of approval by God, then how do we know which one(s) he prefers? How has he communicated that, and to whom has he communicated it? How can we validate our answer to that question authoritatively?

Is it possible that God doesn't care that much about communicating to us through the words of prophets and law-givers from centuries ago that are no longer relevant, and that in our desire for black-and-white answers we've elevated the Bible to an ungodly level and ignored the ways that God is trying to communicate with us today?

These are complex questions that I believe are ignored by most people in their desire to have simple answers to what are by nature complex philosophical and theological questions.

I guess this isn't an answer to your question. It's either an expansion of it or a declaration that it's irrelevant. Or both. :-)

SpiritMeadow

15th October 2007, 01:02 PM

While it seems obviously true that to assert a statement is true on the basis that it claims to be true is a logical fallacy, the situation here is actually an appeal to authority, not begging the question.

In other words, if I make a statement that global temperatures are rising but not as a result of human activity, then claim as my proof that everything I've ever written about this subject agrees with me, I would be guilty of some kind of circular reasoning. However, if I cite an authoritative source that backs my claim, like NASA or NOAA data, then I could still be wrong (if my source is wrong) but I'm not begging the question by assuming the truth of my hypothesis.

In the case of the Bible, we (or I should say, many of us) believe the Bible to be our only authoritative source of the words of God himself. So when the Bible teaches us that God is truth and that he cannot err, then we're not just claiming the Bible is true because it claims to be true, but rather we're appealing to the Bible as the only authoritative source of information on the subject.

That said, it's interesting to ask the question: Do we believe the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible because it claims those attributes for itself, or are these assumptions that we bring to our study of the Bible from outside? That is, is the Bible innately inspired, inerrant, and infallible or is it the case that we've all agreed to treat it that way for the purpose of establishing doctrine and settling our differences?

Furthermore, it's important to distinguish the difference between the original manuscripts, of which we only have copies, and the subsequent copies and translations that have been made. Do we make the same claim of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility for the copies and translations as we do the originals? And if not, then what are the practical implications of this decision?

Do we believe a) that God cares about us having an accurate copy and/or translation of the books of the Bible and b) that God, being willing to give us an accurate copy or translation, is sufficiently powerful to protect the copying and translation process in order to put an accurate copy or translation in our hands?

And if he is both willing and able, what do we believe about the variety of Bible translations available to us in English and other widely spoken languages? Are all translations equally protected by God or are some better than others? If they vary in degrees of approval by God, then how do we know which one(s) he prefers? How has he communicated that, and to whom has he communicated it? How can we validate our answer to that question authoritatively?

Is it possible that God doesn't care that much about communicating to us through the words of prophets and law-givers from centuries ago that are no longer relevant, and that in our desire for black-and-white answers we've elevated the Bible to an ungodly level and ignored the ways that God is trying to communicate with us today?

These are complex questions that I believe are ignored by most people in their desire to have simple answers to what are by nature complex philosophical and theological questions.

I guess this isn't an answer to your question. It's either an expansion of it or a declaration that it's irrelevant. Or both. :-)
lol...my post denoted a certain sarcasm. I'm not sure I follow your logic. All I know is that fundies can never prove the bible is the unerrent word of God. They believe it is, and thats fine, I don't care if you believe in green pigs, but prove it they cannot. Yet their entire faith depends on its being true...sad to me.

Albion

16th October 2007, 10:20 AM

lol...my post denoted a certain sarcasm. I'm not sure I follow your logic. All I know is that fundies can never prove the bible is the unerrent word of God. They believe it is, and thats fine, I don't care if you believe in green pigs, but prove it they cannot. Yet their entire faith depends on its being true...sad to me.

Sad, huh?

Well, let's look more seriously at this issue, leaving the usual posturing and sloganeering behind.

The Bible has proved its reliability repeatedly against skeptics who said that what it speaks of is impossible. And if we take the Bible as reliable, we obviously get with that what it says of itself, right? In verse after verse, scripture speaks of itself in the highest of terms. It's called pure, the way to life, as gold, and much more. It says that it is inspired by God. So what do you take those characterizations to mean--that it is false or halfbaked? That God didn't get it right? To me, that doesn't make sense.

The only basis for your contention comes because you carefully include the word "prove."

You say that the Bible can't be proved. There is much in life that is real, my friend, and cannot be proven in a scientific way. We cannot, for example, prove life after death or the existence of God, for all of that. But we can deal in probabilities.

So if one demands absolute proof, he is required to be an atheist or at least an agnostic. Is that your POV?

If it is not this, but you say you are some kind of a Christian, just not a "fundie," how do YOU prove any of the religious propositions you hold to? You can't prove any of them either.

So we come down to this--what is the most probable of the many religious choices we have before us? Would 1) a reliable and time-tested set of writings, thought to be divinely inspired, count? Or would 2) some human's theory, i.e. Tradition, custom, theology, Patristics, etc. be better? I am inclined towards the former, God instead of human speculation about God.