According to the Scriptures

[cavell]

The Bible makes uncompromisingly clear to all mankind its claim to be the infallible, inerrant Word of the only true and living God. It denounces all other gods and scriptures as false, as well as the religions they represent. Of Jesus, God's Word declares, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (Jn 3:36). Peter told Jewish religious leaders (and was beaten, imprisoned, and killed for testifying to Christ's resurrection): "There is none other name...given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Such unequivocal statements cannot be misunderstood. Jews would not have been persecuted and killed had they presented Yahweh as just one more god to be added to the Roman Pantheon. Christians were considered an even greater threat because in obedience to Christ they preached the gospel everywhere and thereby "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6). Even they would not have been persecuted and killed had they presented Jesus Christ as merely one of many possible saviors. It was their firm proclamation of Christ's claim, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6), that threatened Caesar and aroused such vicious hatred. Today, however, to avoid the objectionable exclusivity of their faith, "Christians" often compromise and many ecumenically deny the biblical gospel.

Christianity is a biblical faith, and the Bible is not an "ecumenical" book. It makes no compromise with any of the world's religions. Those who support ecumenism to any extent, no matter how loudly they defend their orthodoxy, are not Bible-believing Christians. At worst they are deliberate frauds; at best they are confused into simultaneously professing two contradictory beliefs (syncretism). Which do they really believe? Speaking out of both sides of their mouths is a popular ploy today of both political and "Christian" leaders.

Anyone is free to invent any new religion-but not free to call it Christianity. That faith is founded upon facts: Scripture, history, and prophecy, all of which are a matter of clear record and none of which can be changed. These facts cannot honestly be denied.

[Svt4Him]

Are you trying to start a conversation or what's the purpose of this post?

[Cabal]

Christianity is a biblical faith, and the Bible is not an "ecumenical" book. It makes no compromise with any of the world's religions. Those who support ecumenism to any extent, no matter how loudly they defend their orthodoxy, are not Bible-believing Christians. At worst they are deliberate frauds; at best they are confused into simultaneously professing two contradictory beliefs (syncretism). Which do they really believe? Speaking out of both sides of their mouths is a popular ploy today of both political and "Christian" leaders.

I was under the impression that:

1. Ecumenism usually refers to reuniting the Christian denominations (and there isn't a single "right" one)
2. Most of the world religions usually have similar origins or principles

Regarding no. 1, didn't Jesus himself say:

"I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one" John 17:11

Regarding no. 2, as an example - while I do not believe are correct in how they go about producing them (self-effected rather than God-effected), some of the Buddhist tenets, like the noble eightfold path and the four noble truths, recognise that the cause of suffering is wrong desires and that certain acts are evil.

[cyberlizard]

i think before any headway is made, we have to ask ourselves what exactly do we mean by 'biblical innerancy'?

do we mean the bible has 'no factual errors' or do we mean something else..... ideas please.

Steve

[cavell]

Are you trying to start a conversation or what's the purpose of this post?
I understand that this is the non-denom forum. Meaning that we are Christians ........but we are not attached to any particular denonination, ....for whatever reason.

But we are Christians.

The O.P. is about the Christian Faith and the Christian Faith having its foundation in the scriptures. This makes it a unique faith and perhaps not quite so attached to the beliefs of denomination, as many would think.

Just my thoughts.

[cavell]

i think before any headway is made, we have to ask ourselves what exactly do we mean by 'biblical innerancy'?

do we mean the bible has 'no factual errors' or do we mean something else..... ideas please.

Steve
'biblical innerancy'

There is no such word as innerancy.......as I see it. And 'we' I am not sure who you are including.

In the O.P. I am talking about the non-denom position of this forum. We are not denominational, but we are Christians, and as Christians base our faith and beliefs upon the scriptures.

[Nadiine]

The Bible makes uncompromisingly clear to all mankind its claim to be the infallible, inerrant Word of the only true and living God. It denounces all other gods and scriptures as false, as well as the religions they represent. Of Jesus, God's Word declares, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (Jn 3:36). Peter told Jewish religious leaders (and was beaten, imprisoned, and killed for testifying to Christ's resurrection): "There is none other name...given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Such unequivocal statements cannot be misunderstood. Jews would not have been persecuted and killed had they presented Yahweh as just one more god to be added to the Roman Pantheon. Christians were considered an even greater threat because in obedience to Christ they preached the gospel everywhere and thereby "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6). Even they would not have been persecuted and killed had they presented Jesus Christ as merely one of many possible saviors. It was their firm proclamation of Christ's claim, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6), that threatened Caesar and aroused such vicious hatred. Today, however, to avoid the objectionable exclusivity of their faith, "Christians" often compromise and many ecumenically deny the biblical gospel.

Christianity is a biblical faith, and the Bible is not an "ecumenical" book. It makes no compromise with any of the world's religions. Those who support ecumenism to any extent, no matter how loudly they defend their orthodoxy, are not Bible-believing Christians. At worst they are deliberate frauds; at best they are confused into simultaneously professing two contradictory beliefs (syncretism). Which do they really believe? Speaking out of both sides of their mouths is a popular ploy today of both political and "Christian" leaders.

Anyone is free to invent any new religion-but not free to call it Christianity. That faith is founded upon facts: Scripture, history, and prophecy, all of which are a matter of clear record and none of which can be changed. These facts cannot honestly be denied.
:thumbsup:
Absolutely right. The Bible's claims are unequivocal - they make exclusive, emphatic statements not only of itself (as the "scriptures") but also of God.
What we have today are people dismantling the "handbook" "Guide" of Christianity to create a new religion for themselves and call it the same thing.
(I call it hijacking a religion).

But the same people do this with other religions - they do it with Eastern religions. Today, you have "gay" Muslims.. imagine that. They don't much care if they dismantle & manipulate the sacred scriptures of that religion!
They just yank out what they like, discard the stuff that makes them DO anything or give up anything they like to do - or what restricts what they want, then call themselves that.
I call that an imposter, not an adherant/beleiver of the true religion as per it's holy book.

This is the result of a culture that embraces relative/subjective truth tho. Since truth isn't absolute (ie. what the BOOK SAYS ONE IS), then they can just pull out what 'truth's they like, scrap the ones they dislike or don't believe, then call that "Christianity".

The problem is, if the book is true, they're living and promoting a LIE [deception] and seeking to change/redefine the CORRECT original. (which is the case in Christianity).

As far as ecumenicalism - yes, true again. The Bible says that ALL other gods (which are not gods at all) are FALSE. There is no God besides YHWY. None before or after Him. So why would Christians be uniting and joining in that front to say we're all serving "God" in different religions? I believe they wouldn't be if they read or believed the Bible: God's truth to man.

[Nadiine]

'biblical innerancy'

There is no such word as innerancy.......as I see it. And 'we' I am not sure who you are including.

In the O.P. I am talking about the non-denom position of this forum. We are not denominational, but we are Christians, and as Christians base our faith and beliefs upon the scriptures.
Actually Christian denominations also base their beliefs upon the scriptures. They just understand some of them differently in minor doctrines - or worship differently.
ie. Baptists & Pentecostals worship the same God and believe the bible as God's truth to us... but you'll find Pentecostals exercising the gifts openly - and having more 'lively' church services where Baptists don't believe the gifts (tongues, healing) are still operative today and have much more conservative worship forms.

These are just diversities that don't CHANGE the Christian faith any - the diversity is in MINOR doctrine that doesn't alter the foundation of what Christianity IS by definition.

[cyberlizard]

however innerancy is spelled (and it is recognised this way by microsoft), please can someone explain what is really meant by biblical innerancy.

the only claim i have seen in academic circles is innerancy in the original autographs and they do not exist. So the argument is useless and can never be proven.

So what is biblical innerancy as I know for sure the bible contains mistakes and can easily prove it... so biblical innerancy must be something other than lack of errors. so what is it?


Steve

[BigNorsk]

To understand the issue of inerrancy, I would point people to the Chicago statement of biblical inerrancy. It's available on several places online one such place is http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Marv