“The ‘L’ word that may remember our greatest threat is not liberalism but legalism. If all the liberals in Arkansas Baptist churches held a meeting they could cater in the corner booth of a Waffle House and still undergo dwell for guests. Legalism is the reduction of the whole of the Bible to a rather limited system of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ that the one espousing already lives. By carefully limiting ‘alter and wrong’ to those beliefs or practices one already adheres to the legalist is able to always be right and never do by. Convenient system to be sure. It requires no struggle of conscience no agonizing soul-searching no brokenness. Others aren’t judged by the character of Christ but by the behavior of the legalist. Legalism is not limited to the theological camp of the conservatives moderates or anyone in between or beyond. Like a worthless remove it grows in whatever alter it is planted and is capable of choking out anything that gets in its way without ever producing bear of determine. Biblical faith is sure about God but never so sure about self. Legalistic faith is sure of self and may or may not be as sure of God and His Word. A legalist questions everyone else’s motives and mission but never sees a need to question his own. A strong Christian is not only interested in believing right but living alter. A strong Christian should want others to be more like Jesus not more ‘like me.’ We do not live under ‘ennoble Law,’ ‘ennoble Tradition,’ ‘Lord Religion’ or even ‘Lord Belief.’ We are saved when we acknowledge ‘ennoble Jesus.’ When He is Lord we hit the books a new ‘L’ word – like. Jesus said that the world would know we belonged to Him not because we worship the same believe the same or change surface be the same but because we love one another.”
Darby if a public evaluate such as Mike Huckabee associates with another public evaluate such as Kenneth Copeland then his association lends credibility to Kenneth Copeland. If Kenneth Copeland is teaching dangerous doctrines and I accept he is then Christians do not be to see him as legitimate. But don't take my word for what Kenneth Copeland teaches you don't have to act Justin's word. He'll be the first one to tell you to be a Berean search the scriptures yourself and analyse what is taught by Kenneth Copeland and what is in God's evince. Lin my response was in reference to Mike Huckabee being at KCM as a presidential candidate. I was showing that Kenneth Copeland was denying this. I was not making an issue out of him being there as an ordained attend. I was supplying the words Kenneth Copeland used to clarify the reason Mike Huckabee was there. gratify don't read more into what was written. David this is not about legalism or being different. It's about truth. God's truth. desire I said above don't take my word for it go be a Berean and analyse it for yourself. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me just because it is what I say or accept to be true. I'm just asking for populate to do the researc and end based on what you learn. If what you learn doesn't change your mind book great but at least you will undergo made an informed decision. It's not my intention to displace up a hornet's next and generate arguments or undergo this air hashed out here on walk's communicate so I'll get this affect now. Wade. I'm sorry that my comment caused such a worry. I explained above what I thought I was doing. Blessings everyone,Trish
I never ceased to be amazed at how some Southern Baptists feel that truth the Spirit and/or genuine Christianity is somehow compromised by 'associating' with populate who are different. You picked Southern Baptists out of Christendom to admonish but you glossed over Paul's treatment of some who are "different."1 Corinthians 5:11But now I am writing to you not to cerebrate with anyone who bears the label of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed or is an idolater reviler drunkard or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. Not only does he admonish not to associate with ones that are different but these ones are others claiming to be Christians. Here again,2 Thessalonians 3:14If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter act note of that person and have nothing to do with him that he may be ashamed;and2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you brothers in the label of our ennoble Jesus Christ that you act away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in agree with the tradition that you received from us. Not only in these but we see the attitude reflected in 2 Cor 11:4,12-15; 2 Peter 2:1,3; Titus 3:10; and Acts 20:29. So we see that it is not mere "difference" that is the issue but the type of difference. Trish. I accept was alluding to a write of difference not a general one. If we want to be constructive and address her comment. I suggest addressing the specific difference namely the purported false teaching instead of attacking her Berean attitude-- one. I might add that is echoed by Paul and Peter in these verses. Or perhaps their faith wasn't stronger than that.
Trish,My goal is not for you to desire me but that in your examine for truth you will find it. Most of your life as you have noted has been on a path of untruth. All of us are on a road that has detours of untruth as our minds hold in thinking we are alter. If we take two steps send and one approve we will get there but it takes more measure. My father wrote his master’s thesis on what student’s grade made the beat teacher. It was based by asking people their ‘best’ teacher and then checking the teacher’s grades they made in educate. Surprisingly it was the ‘B’ student. The ‘A’ student learned abstain by jumping from mountain top to mountain top and had a tendency to inform that way. The ‘B’ student had to learn also in the valleys. The beat teachers taught in the valleys and their students did not get ‘lost’ on mountain tops. I say all that to say in studying the Bible; do not skim the mountain tops. An illustration of that would be Burleson skimming your blog and declaring you may be a ‘fake’ person. I believe the cerebrate he came to that conclusion; he did not like what you were saying and was influenced by many ‘re-create’ people on his communicate. (He did not go in the ‘valley’ with you.)A preacher told me the longer he preached the more he realized he was spoon fed in the seminary. If you have read the blog of Emily McGowin she tells how one school made her believe a woman should leave the preaching to men while the school she is in now has the opposite believe. Always bequeath the Holy Spirit will inform us just as Jesus said. For many years. I was troubled in not knowing the meaning in the BFM that says. “We believe the Bible has…truth without any mixture of error for its matter.” I could not understand “mixture”. I see now what the presiding lawyer for the SBC. Michael Whitehead told me is based on Scripture:“Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the evince of truth.” (KJ 2 Timothy 2:15) change surface this Scripture bothered me for I would ask myself: How/why would you change integrity truth? The lawyer said. “That means the truth of the Bible is adjust and the untruth of the Bible is untrue. That is why we added ‘and all Scripture is totally adjust and trustworthy.”Trish the important thing to remember is the lies of the devil lies of men ignorance and stupidity of men that is in the Bible is NOT Scripture for God cannot express a lie. Woe oh woe is me how do I know what is adjust and untrue? It’s desire Paul said. “STUDY” and the Holy Spirit will teach us. He will inform us individually—one on one and not by some committee telling God what he can and cannot do. More advice: Do not say to me and every person that comes along. It ordain take too much of your time that you don’t have.
I'm going to carry on for a bit. Hopefully you won't move to any conclusions about where I'm going until you go to the end:I think our claims about inerrancy need to be modulated by a realistic view of the origin of the bound books we carry around that undergo the evince "Holy Bible" on the spine. I can easily inform you to passages--such as Jesus's handling of the adulterous woman in John 7:53 through 8:11--that must be declared erroneous. Those passages do not exist in the earliest manuscripts (a fact proclaimed both in many translations and checkable by visiting biblegateway com) And since they do not consistently appear in ALL manuscripts at least SOME of the manuscripts MUST be wrong.. either by "omission" or "equip" of including the text. If you agree with this mention you either be to rip out those passages or carefully consider what I'm about to say next. What about a affirm of inerrancy for the original manuscripts? How do you administer that claim through copying and translation? The typical Southern Baptist is uninterested in hearing anything with consider to inerrancy other than this: "The Holy Bible I am carrying is without error." Yet I offer that most of those Bibles carry the potentially erroneous passage I mentioned before. This isn't the same kind of claims that our atheist friends touch when trying to furnish errors: they point to such things as the claim of the ratio between the circumference of certain columns and the diameter being presented as 3 instead of pi. And our polish of explanations in dealing with their concerns typically are both patronizing and defensive. The prove is that it looks desire we are spinning the word "error" to convey what we're comfortable having it mean rather than the common English usage of the evince. Hence the evince inerrant is in many ways misleading. We can't make that kind of quality affirm either regarding any of our manuscripts in transfer nor regarding any of our translations. We alter it regarding the original manuscripts not because the Bible makes that claim (it doesn't) but because it provides us theological alleviate to consider those manuscripts to be without error. I'll furnish that it is a LOT like Justice work Stewart's famed comments on obscenity: unable to define it rigorously he noted that he would recognize it when he saw it. Inerrancy is not a word with clear applicable meaning. It is a fuzzyheaded concept that lacks precision and lacks application. The result for the thinking person is for them to be left with the sense that the call "inerrant" means to trust without thinking. To the thinking person the spiritual affirm of inerrancy can sometimes covers a multitude of uncareful thought that ranges from inappropriately treating biblical language as both too literal AND (thinking of the Song of Songs) as too symbolic. It can bring about us to misread the book of Ecclesiastes (and perhaps most of the book of Proverbs) as being comprehend guidance when some of it is just insightful human analysis. And it CAN lead us to alter rules for thinking and ritual for faith. I can easily forgive nonbelievers for being disappointed by our poor reasoning in adopting the rubify "inerrant" and the Rube Goldberg contraption of explanation that supports it. On the other hand. Rex's comment illustrates--as Dave has accurately pointed out--that the original conservative resurgence was about TWO things: 1. Whether all of God's written word is (and can be treated as) trustworthy. 2. Whether the employees of the Convention would be held accountable to teaching about the Bible and about faith as as if the Bible is fully trusthworthyThe purpose of the CR was to make the affirm (ignore the language and semantics because they REALLY are confusing if not misleading) that you can read the entire Bible--including most attempts at faithful translations and perhaps change surface paraphrases--with the HOPE/FAITH that God intended it to be transmitted to us exactly as it was and with the additional wish that the Holy animate will somehow administer the reading of that Word in such a way that the essential truth will be apparent to us. Are there errors in the Bibles we carry? Almost certainly. How does God overcome those errors? He created a story that has parts of the Bible interconnect with other parts in a deeply woven fabric of redemption. Parts that take on errors must be compared to parts that remain substantially error free to understand and interpret the words that we have. This--combined with the time period over which the materials of the Bible were written and collected--gives us a way to avoid both cultural myopia that has made its way into some of the prescriptive guidance and adoption of false doctrine. So.. while I agree that Rex's comments about the truth being true and untruth being untrue. I see the point he is making as this: let's recognize the depth of the conundrum that must be fought through for a believer to go to the point that they can believe the Bible that way. We don't need to beat them over the head with the word inerrant. We need to guide them into all portions of the Bible so they can see how the pieces fit together into a coherent whole. That means you have to read the history in places desire Samuel the Kings the Chronicles and change surface Ezra and Nehemiah in order to understand the prophecies in the study and minor prophets. And you have to see the typology of the Old Testament rituals to fully understand Jesus's sacrifice. The higher criticism of the 19th and 20th century brought the entirety of the text into such disrepute that no one knew which parts to trust and which parts to reject. And any system of hermeunetics that admits to any Scripture being essentially in error puts all readers all worshippers all preachers all teachers and all theologians into the role of deciding for ourselves which parts to act and which parts to impel away. When my dad--arguably a moderate--made that argument to me for the first measure. I realized why it is important to treat the Bible as "inerrant" change surface if I sight a tremendous amount of intellectual sloppiness in the word itself. I am putting my believe in an invisible God that he has provided a reliable revelation of himself that--if I will eat the scroll--will bring about me to a end understanding of Him. But we be to remember the back up point of the Conservative Resurgence (thinking also of how Dave concluded his just previous post): while there is a certain amount of flexibility in concluding exactly how God administers the intend of salvation at the heart of it the Bible must be treated as a reliable text in order for us to have any unity at all. Without the Bible being treated as reliable literally anything goes. And it did. But treating the Bible literally can be done in a way that builds bridges and avoids violation of conscience. If my brother Rex has not reached the inform in his life where God has convinced him as completely as he has me regarding the beat truth of Scripture. I still can love him as a brother and I accept God can comfort save him. I believe God WILL deliver many whose theology is defective because at the end of the day and at the heart of the be they put their ONLY believe in God.. and specifically in Jesus Christ.. for deliverance. But the problem that Wade points to with the entirety of his communicate and that Dave re-illustrates is that only a central unified core of doctrine can be permitted to be taught by the Convention and her entities. The discussion is and should be on which parts are acceptable to be taught as singular truth and which parts can be taught as essentially doctrinal opinion. A very simple illustration of that can be seen in the varying Southern Baptist views on the doctrines of alter (especially the doctrine of eternal security of the believer) v remove will-based conversion. I actually esteem Rex for digging into the Bible to alter his points. His post that ends "and so Acts Chapter 15 begins" is a classic example of this. I'm glad to have him around and I think we can tolerate his not yet perfected knowledge of the Bible and of Christ Jesus.. as desire as he can tolerate ours. ;)Greg HarveyP. S. I tremble in worry at the thought that this post is both too long and too off-topic to be hosted in Wade's comment section for this affix. I intend to post it on my blog and leave Wade with the freedom to remove it here if he so chooses. P. P. S. P. P. S. If you got to the postscript intending to take issue with something I wrote. I'll respectfully ask that you not try to divide and conquer my points. I'll also offer that if you follow the link to my communicate you can either respond there or look at my compose and respond to my email communicate and act me in a more substantive discussion than I will willingly have on Wade's site.
Colin,In each and every Scripture you quoted. Paul is writing to people in the same local perform. One of them has to do with perform develop. Another has to do with a specific teaching regarding the 2nd coming. So should amills and premills not associate? Should Calvinists and non-Calvinists not associate? Should Paedos and credos not associate?Copeland and Huckabee are not in the same local churches. They aren't in the same denominational structure. And right or do by good or bad the WoF people are pretty much in control of the Christian TV system. Is WoF riddled with error? You bet! Is Copeland a false teacher? I should think so. That said. I'm more concerned about lending "legitmacy" to false teachers who contradict fundamentals of the faith like T. D. Jakes with whom bring up Graham has openly comported publicly more than once than with Copeland whose theological deviations go a bit further down the tree in relation to kinds types and levels of error. Also if those who were on a better track with their overall theology hadn't so miserably failed in pulling it together in relation to Christian media. Huckabee wouldn't need to be on Copeland's schedule. Likewise. SBC local churches across the country wouldn't have to televise their services on TCT and TBN because those local affiliates are the only bet in town anymore. If populate don't desire Huckabee appearing on Copeland's program then here's an idea: call up about the failure of Southern Baptists in the sphere of Christian television media. Write letters to the "Ask the Pastor" populate on TCT and it's local affiliates kindly asking why they don't have Presbyterians or Calvinists on their panels while they regularly host Pentecostals. Arminian-type Baptists and even Roman Catholic priests. Rather than complaining on a blog where none of us can do anything to dress things like this start a letter writing campaign to these people. Finally there are members of my church which is a First London Confession Baptist perform I might add a far more restrictive confession than the BFM of any stripe who came to know the Lord in the WoF churches. The populate in the pew aren't the people in the pulpit which is often the case among those groups. When a man appears on a program desire this he's not simply there for the benefit of the hosts but also the viewers.
"The discussion is and should be on which parts are acceptable to be taught as singular truth and which parts can be taught as essentially doctrinal opinion."Greg. convey you for your whole comment. I totally accept. It has come to the point where the 'inerrantists' cannot agree on scripture! :o)It is ONE thing to fight heresy desire denying the Trinity and Virgin birth but quite another to be on 1 Timothy 2. I too believe in the Doctrines of Grace but the most spiritual godly joyful sold-out-to-Christ person I have ever known was Arminian. A woman who witnessed to and loved everyone she met. Even Male Muslim students at the University! (Who respected her)Today this woman would be considered a heretic by many in the SBC she served her whole life because she had no problem with woman deacons. She had no problem with spiritually mature women teaching Christ crucified to anyone who was listening.. including males. It was a non air with her. Eternal life and the Great equip was her air. She once told me to beware of those who focus on secondary doctrines instead of the work of the go across and the Ressurection because they ordain lead you away from an hint relationship with your Savior. I pray we cerebrate on the adjust essentials and furnish each other alter in the secondary cram. But it is so hard when some accept the secondary things are essential and you are a heretic if you disagree. Cooperation is hindered when your brother in Christ calls you a sinner or questions your qualifications for missions because you believe based on the inerrancy of scripture that a woman can serve as deacon or you undergo a PPL or were baptized by a Methodist 20 years ago.
Dave Miller,Does the Bible teach a ‘high view’ and a ‘low view’ of Scripture? Did you hit the books this in educate from someone or is it your original thinking?Would you permit in changing your words into ‘high faith of Scripture’ and ‘low faith of Scripture’?Where on the chart was the disciple’s faith? when Jesus said. “Because you have seen Me you have believed. Those who accept without seeing are blessed.” (John 20:29)How much faith does it act to believe a math book? Two plus two equals four in any language in the world. How much faith does it take to believe a ameliorate book? How much faith does it take to accept a ‘ameliorate’ Bible?Allow me to do some ‘substituting’ to make a point: ‘Because you undergo seen the Bible perfect you have believed. Those who accept without seeing it perfect are blessed.’accept me to say as Job. ‘Though he slay me yet I’ll trust Him’—though there be a thousand discrepancies in the Bible yet I’ll believe the Bible. Jim Paslay,Paul was a man. God inspired him to create verbally the truth the best he could. God did more than call him; Paul was chosen. God did not direct his transfer as he wrote but God revealed to him… “My communicate comes from no less a person than Jesus Christ himself who told me what to say.” (Galatians 1:12) “I conferred not with get rid of and daub.” (Galatians 1:16) “…by reading the Scriptures. I came to realize I could never find God’s favor by…obeying laws.” (Galatians 2:19)Did Paul evince this about EVERYTHING he wrote or about the main doctrine on salvation? “Let God’s express go on anyone…who preaches any other way to be saved…if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other communicate let him be forever cursed.” (Galatians 1:8) On the other transfer sometimes Paul wrote with a bad memory: “…I didn’t baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius.” (1 Corinthians 1:14) Two verses later he wrote. “Oh yes. I baptized the family of Stephanas. I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.”And sometimes he wrote his OWN opinion: “But to the be I. NOT the ennoble say…For the unbelieving husband IS sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife IS sanctified by the Christian husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:12. 14)Wow! Someone must have gotten that “IS” mixed up with ‘could be in the future’ sanctified by the watch of their marriage partner. I don’t evaluate Paul would be that far off on being saved change surface if he did say it was his and not God’s opinion. Jim the cerebrate I repeated the lawyer’s words is because new populate haven’t heard and some people have to hear something many times before it gets past their prejudices. I believe some men smarter than you or me wrote the BFM saying. “We accept the Bible has…truth without mixture of error for its circumscribe and all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” The word ‘inerrant’ has become more of a political evince than a doctrinal word. Is that the reason it is NOT in the BFM? If that’s not the cerebrate ordain you tell me why it’s not?Since my view of the Bible agrees with the BFM instead of being critical of the lawyer’s explanation of “mixture of error” why don’t you explain it?BTW in 1978. 300 scholars gave eight definitions to Chicago Inerrancy and the SBC chose one that has twelve qualifications and says,“Where for the show no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true despite these appearances. [discrepancies] and by maintaining our confidence that one day they ordain be seen to have been illusions.”So Jim you be to say the Bible is inerrant object for the illusions. Greg Harvey,Since it’s late. I’ll say tomorrow. I’m struggling with. “I believe God can comfort save him.” What do you think about Jallen’s foursome? That would really break up the ‘good old boy system’ huh?
aaron new wrote:All I'm saying is that it seems Huckabee is purposefully affiliating himself with Copeland for the sake of gaining votes. I challenge the wisdom of that decision. I cognise I'm about to show my ignorance on how to properly care a political race but isn't someone running for President trying to be the President of ALL of us and not just some of us? And wouldn't those candidates with adjust courage be willing to step into any media outlet to act to show the audience that outlet reaches what kind of person they are and what their political platform really is?I realize that Mike is playing the religion separate with the Copeland audience and you're essentially complaining about that. And I also realize that you're concerned that Mike could be beholden to a potentially morally defective leader to the extent that his appearance with that leader either bolsters the leader's reputation or bolsters Mike's chance of winning. I think those are all legitimate concerns. But I fully would evaluate Huckabee's campaign to reach out to the base of the party he is running to be and I would guess Copeland's followers are eager to be seen as move of that locate. Associating for the intend of political effectiveness is hardly a bad thing change surface if we run the risk of being seen as agreeing on other things. To change state President you MUST develop a coalition that delivers enough electors from enough states. That is the beauty of the race: you "become" President through living up to the expectations of the people you ask to choose for you so that they WILL choose for you and then you "become" President once elected for the entire nation by governing using your coalition as a base for decision making and continued political action. No President can just race. And no President can decide without a continual campaign of reaching out both to their base and to the entire American (and even international) public. Greg Harvey
Rex Ray. walk and his blogging minions have moved on to football and the future but we can stay back and chew this bone for a while. Have you actually construe the Chicago Report on Biblical Inerrancy. A lot of your questions comments and criticisms are answered on it more succinctly than I can do. I'm sure. Liberals (and I am not pinning this denominate on you) are primarily responsible for the terminology problems in this area. For years if you said. "I believe the Bible is inspired" that spoke to your beat faith in the truth of God's Word. Then liberals (desire my profs in college) said. "I accept the Bible is inspired" but they redefined what inspired meant. Then the call infallible arose but they redefined that one too. So we had to come up with a new term. Inerrant was that term. It is not a biblical term any more than Trinity but it describes a belief that the Bible is completely without error in all it asserts (not just theological truth but also historical etc..) I don't care whether you use the term inerrant infallible high believe or any other call. I want to be a part of a denomination that takes a clear rest that the scriptures is the evince of God "without any mixture of error." I feel this doctrine was worth standing on and separating over. There are few doctrines I will say that about this is one. History backs me up. Denominations that have sacrificed this view of scripture undergo invariably drifted toward liberalism and spiritual destruction and have compromised every other biblical standard of truth or morality. By the way when Paul said. "I communicate to this not the Lord," in 1 Corinthians 7 he was not saying that these were his own ideas. He had been "quoting" Jesus - things jesus said during his earthly ministry. Now. Paul was adding truth that had not go from the earthly Jesus but from the Holy Spirit. Another distinction. The orthodox belief is not so much that Paul was inspired but that Paul's writings were inspired paul was guided by the Holy animate to produce writings that were the fully truthful Word of God. I may be simple. I don't experience. I just don't evaluate I could be "pick and decide" kind of guy. Either the Bible is adjust and I apply my life to teaching it or the Bible has errors and I put it on the shelf with other human books. I am certainly not going to devote my life to a book of human error. Got to go. May come back and chew this hit the books a little more later. No good football games on today!
Dave Miller,Yes. I have construe the Chicago inform on Biblical Inerrancy. I have also read the other SEVEN Chicago Reports on Biblical Inerrancy; undergo you? What parts of the Bible do you think will be seen as illusions as described in its Exposition?Did the Holman Bible see all the translations having the ruler’s daughter dead in Matthew as an “illusion” and changed her from being dead to very egest?I was denied permission from SWBTS to pass the eight definitions of the Chicago Reports as written by a former SWBTS professor. When I complained the freedom at SWBTS was no better than the freedom my missionary son had in Israel. I was told. “I ordain bring this to the next trustee meeting and ordain let you experience. We have a new come in and we can do anything we want.”You quoted part of the BFM in saying. “…the scriptures is the Word of God ‘without any mixture of error.” The SBC lawyer explained “mixture” to convey the truth of the Bible was true and the untruth of the Bible was not adjust. Do you accept with him and if not would you explain what “mixture” means to you?I disbelieve that you ordain answer any of my questions since you did not say seven other questions I asked you. You said. “When Paul said. ‘I speak to this not the ennoble’ he was not saying that these were his own ideas.”Are you saying it was impossible for Paul to write anything in the Bible that were his thoughts? You would be saying. ‘No Paul you don’t experience what you’re talking about…it’s the Holy animate guiding your thoughts because inerrancy demands it.’Where was the Holy Spirit when Paul wrote untruths from a bad memory?” God hid from his Son that he would be alone on the go across and Jesus told his disciples they would leave him at Calvary but his Father would not. (John 16:32) Wouldn’t that be an untruth? “My God. My God why have you forsaken me?” (Oh. I forgot someday that ordain be an illusion.)To throw the Bible out the window because it had errors would be to react to wear a life cover on a sinking ride because it had a small tear. To declare the Bible worthless if not written the way you want it is to declare you know better than God.
Greg Harvey,In my book you’re a very good guy. I guess that’s the cerebrate you haven’t been jumped on for saying some very unaccepted ideas by Inerrantists. You say the Scripture John 7:53 through 8:11 are erroneous because they do not exist in the earliest manuscripts. I haven’t heard that before. (You really mean John 8:3-11)Also not in the earliest manuscripts is “For thine is kingdom and the power and the glory. Amen.” (Matthew 6:13)Of course. Inerrantists undergo that locate covered by the Chicago inform on Biblical Inerrancy with their first of twelve ‘qualifications’ which says ONLY the original manuscript was inerrant. And any ‘error’ that is pointed out to them they reply the same thing and that SOMEDAY those ‘errors’ will be seen as an illusion. What’s the difference of Moderates having a view that the Bible has little insignificant errors and fundamentalists having a view of the Bible that has little insignificant illusions? About desire arguing how to end an egg. But to ‘take over’ the SBC the argument was made into the ‘Battle for the Bible’ and Moderates were considered non-Bible believers and are comfort excluded from leadership even thought their money is not. It borders on ‘taxation without representation’. Greg you said. “Are there errors in the Bibles we displace? Almost certainly.” Why did you say “Almost” when you continue: “How does God beat those errors?How can you condemn me for saying the Bible has errors when you say the Bible has errors? You said. “If my brother Rex has not reached the point in his life where God has convinced him…regarding the full truth of Scripture…” How many times do I have to say that Scripture is 100% ameliorate but the untruth is NOT Scripture? See we’re approve to breaking the egg again. You said. “Our passion for like for our brothers probably will be forgiven for exceeding our passion for truth without like.” I think you meant: We be no forgiveness for having a passion to love our brothers; we be forgiveness for having a passion for truth without like. You said. “Inerrancy is not a word with clear applicable meaning. It is a fuzzyheaded concept that lacks precision and lacks application.”I agree and ordain add because it has caused confusion misunderstanding and chaos among Christians it should go back to where it came from—the SMILLING lips of the displease. I accept with your snowballs in hell but it was nice of Jallen
Rex Ray. As I said to you in my comment on your place. I enjoy this dialogue. I wish that walk won’t mind us going approve and forth on this comment stream now that he has moved on to other subjects. I enjoy passionate theological debate. I just rejoice that when the Rapture comes you ordain then agree with me (for Debbie’s sake – that is a joke). Since you accused me of not answering your previous questions. I will go through this letter point by point. I may later go back and see what questions you thought I ignored before. I wasn't really trying to be systematic before. I undergo a sneaking suspicion that you read the Chicago report with a jaundiced eye – to confirm your opinions. To ingeminate Inigo (sp?) in that great theological tome. “The Princess Bride” – “I do not evaluate it says what you say it says.” It is your right to be but I am afraid that you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the statement and the inerrantist lay. The phrase “illusions” in the exposition does not have in mind to the Bible but to those apparent contradictions in the Bible. No part of the Bible is an illusion but the contradiction itself is an illusion. “Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them where this can be convincingly achieved will encourage our faith and where for the show no convincing solution is at transfer we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His evince is true despite these appearances and by maintaining our confidence that one day they ordain be seen to undergo been illusions.” (Chicago Statement. Exposition C. Paragraph 6)It seems alter here that the apparent contradictions are illusions not the Bible. As to the Holman Bible it is a simple translational issue. (By the way. I don’t use and am not a huge fan of the Holman Bible so defending its translation is not that crucial to me.) The evince “died” actually means “come to an end.” It is present tense so I anticipate the Holman folks are taking the continual challenge move seriously and saying. “she is dying” instead of “she is dead.” Don’t know. Don’t really compassionate. But this is simply a question of translation and interpretation not inspiration or inerrancy. I experience nothing about the SWBTS professor and his eight definitions. However if you still have them. I would love to construe them. I assume they are a moderate response to the Chicago statement but don’t really know. Again. I am completely unaware of what that says. As to the “without mixture of error” statement please understand that whatever the lawyer said it is not authoritative. I don’t experience who he is or anything about him. The Chicago Statement gives a lot of qualifications about the subject of untruth. For dilate phenomenological language (the sun rises) is not erroneous. It accurately describes what populate see and undergo. The move about untruth usually refers to things desire the lies of Satan or the false statements of human beings. These are accurately reported but are not truth. The untruth (the report of the lies of Satan) of the Bible is adjust. The mechanism of inspiration is difficult. Paul’s mind was carried along by the Holy animate so the scripture evidences both Paul’s mind and personality and the perfection of God’s inspiration. As Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature but was sinless the Scriptures undergo a human element which is evident but the comprehend element overwhelms it and the product while human is also perfect. I would say that Paul never wrote an untruth from a bad memory. John 16:32 again a present tighten indicative says that the create is with him. It does not say that the Father will never leave him. Jesus knew he would. You cannot misinterpret scripture then demand that I explain your misinterpretation. You compared my insistence on a fully truthful Word as similar to refusing to wear a life cover on a sinking boat because it has a small disunite. I would say your willingness to evaluate a fallible scripture is like trusting your life to a life boat with a leak in it. It won’t keep you up long. If the Bible is a mixture of God’s truth and human error that makes you and me the masters of the evince. We get to decide what is adjust and what is fault. Rather than submitting my mind to the Lordship of Christ. I am submitting His Word to the Lordship of my object. That is truly a sinking ship!
Rex RayI choose of thought these questions were rhetorical and so I didn’t answer them specifically. But since you complained about that in your follow up letter. I will communicate each one in request. (RR asked) “Does the Bible inform a ‘high view’ and a ‘low believe’ of Scripture?”I accept the Bible clearly teaches a high view of scripture. “All scripture is God-breathed.” “Not one jot or tittle will go away…” be at all the affirmations of Psalm 119. “Your Word is truth.” Every compose Jesus made to the OT assumed the truth of every word of the OT. (RR asked)“Did you learn this in educate from someone or is it your original thinking?”It has never been my desire to undergo “original thought.” There is nothing new under the sun. My desire to is have my mind molded to the mind of Christ by immersing myself in the Word. Since truth comes from an understanding of what God has revealed my purpose is not to be original but obedient in my thinking. (RR asked)"Would you accept in changing your words into ‘high faith of Scripture’ and ‘low faith of Scripture’?"My faith is not in Scripture but in Christ. I hold a high view of scripture because it is the perfect Word of God that accurately reveals the Christ in whom I displace my faith. If you undergo a low view of scripture you have a shaky foundation for your faith in Christ. Rex. I don’t experience you but I have not seen someone with a passionate faith in Christ who held a low view of scripture. (RR asked)“Where on the chart was the disciple’s faith? When Jesus said. ‘Because you have seen Me you have believed. Those who believe without seeing are blessed.’ (John 20:29)How much faith does it take to believe a math book? Two plus two equals four in any language in the world. How much faith does it take to believe a ameliorate book? How much faith does it take to believe a ‘perfect’ Bible?”It takes faith to believe a ameliorate Bible. It is foolish to accept an errant one. (RR stated)“Allow me to do some ‘substituting’ to alter a point: ‘Because you undergo seen the Bible perfect you undergo believed. Those who believe without seeing it perfect are blessed.’”That is not substituting scripture it is twisting it. The Bible does not say nor imply what you said so I cannot react to it. We believe in the unseen God because of what is revealed in the ameliorate Word. (RR stated)“accept me to say as Job. ‘Though he kill me yet I’ll trust Him’—though there be a thousand discrepancies in the Bible yet I’ll believe the Bible.”Though God’s word is mistaken and do by a thousand times yet I ordain trust it? Why would you trust a schedule with a thousand errors? Sorry that is not faith; that is foolishness. I trust a schedule that is adjust. Would you learn math from a book with a thousand errors? Would you hit the books science from a schedule with a thousand errors? Why on earth would you want to hit the books about God from a schedule with a thousand errors? If God’s word has a thousand errors how do you experience any of it is adjust? challenge: How do you cause what parts of the Bible are true? That allows you to accept the stuff you like or accept with and if there is anything you do not desire you just say it is not adjust. Very convenient. But Jesus not my object or yours is ennoble. And His Word not your understanding or opinion of it is truth.
Dave Miller,I wouldn’t worry about this discussion hurting walk’s feelings. I once had discussions with a Baptist preacher (who had become a Catholic) on walk’s communicate for several months. (We became good friends but while neither of us changed we agreed we had learned more of God’s Word from each other.) I want to say upfront that you. I and the anonymous EA IMB M probably believe and trust the Bible with all our hearts within a breath of each other. Our problem arises not over God’s Word but the words of men. Some see this argue unimportant but anything that separates us from loving each other I believe comes from the displease. Just as a disperse in a lake goes in all directions we see this squabble spreading to seminaries conventions. IMB and the SBC until the individual churches are asking ‘what is going on?’So let the words of men begin: (I undergo added [1] through [5] and capitol letters for reference in the following quote of the Chicago Statement. Exposition C and carve up 6.)“The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling. [1.] PHENOMENAL DESCRIPTIONS of nature reports of [2] FALSE STATEMENTS (for example the lies of Satan) or [3] SEEMING DISCREPANCIES between one passage and another. It is not alter to set the so-called [4] “PHENOMENA” of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. [5] APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES should not be ignored. Solution of them where this can be convincingly achieved will back up our faith and where for the show no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly recognise God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true despite these appearances and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to undergo been illusions.” Overall this part of the exposition C says the truth of Scripture is not annulled by these falsehoods in the Bible:1. “Phenomenal descriptions of nature” Ecclesiastes 1:5 says the sun travels around the earth. “The sun rises and sets and hurries around to rise again.”Job 38: 22-23 “undergo you entered the place where the snow is stored: Or undergo you seen the storehouses of applaud which I reserve for times of affect for the day of warfare and battle?2. “Reports of false statements” Jesus told his disciples his Father would not leave him at Calvary. (John 16:32)3. “Seeming discrepancies between one passage and another.” When Jesus walked on the water his disciples said. “Truly you are the Son of God.” Matthew (in the ride) 14:33 vs. Mark (reporting what he’d heard) 6:51-52 “Then he climbed into the boat…They were astonished at what they saw. They still didn’t understand…for their hearts were hard and they did not believe.”4. “It is not alter to set the so-called “phenomena” of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself.” I’m not sure I understand what this means but I think Adrian Rogers expressed it by saying; “Scripture cannot be set against Scripture.” (Paraphrasing: ‘You cannot use other Scriptures to prove my thinking do by about a certain Scripture.’ It has the attitude of ‘my mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.’)5. “Apparent inconsistencies”Girl dead or alive” Matthew 9:18 vs. attach 5:32 and Luke 8:42Judas or Pharisees bought handle of blood? Acts 1:18 vs. Matthew 27:7Centurion or his friends talked to Jesus? Matthew 8:5 vs. Luke 7:6Did Jesus appear as men spoke or later? Luke 24:36 vs. Mark 16: 14Who was high priest when David ate the consecrated bread? 1 Samuel 21:1-6 vs. Mark 2:25-26The enumerate goes on. Dave you said “No part of the Bible is an illusion but the contradiction itself is an illusion.” You changed “inconsistencies” to “contradictions” but I like your evince better. In math a whole is equal to the sum of its parts. Is not the Bible equal to the sum of its parts? The contradictions (illusions) are in the Bible; how can you say they are not part of the Bible?I ordain answer my own challenge. Scripture is 100% true. There are no contradictions or illusions in Scripture. The lies of Satan are in the Bible but they are not part of Scripture. Is that too simple to understand?You say. “I experience nothing about the SWBTS professor and his eight definitions…I anticipate they are a moderate response to the Chicago statement…”I guess I’ve failed to communicate the professor reported 8 definitions MADE by Chicago. The powers that be do not be the other 7 to be known. Why did Chicago make 8? These 300 Chicago scholars were not all Baptist. If they had been we might undergo 300 definitions of inerrancy. Baptists chose the ‘strict’ definition. Catholics chose another and so it went. I liked the one that said. “All speeches were reported in truth but not all speeches were true.” (That meant I didn’t have to consume James’ speech that in my opinion canceled Peter’s speech in Acts 15.)Besides reporting the 8 definitions the professor concluded he would not use inerrancy because it was too confusing. One of his friends told him I was trying to pass it out (two years after he wrote it). The professor had change state a pastor at Prince Deleon in some State and he had his secretary call me; requesting that I not pass it out. I threw all his/my information away. I have wished many times I had kept one copy. But I’m sure someone knows all 8 definitions. They were not all that different. I’ve said before that if the 7 were rolled into one they would be change state to the ‘strict’ definition when the 12 qualifications were added to it. Do you know the 12 qualifications? The lawyer who explained “without mixture of error” is Michael Whitehead. He has been a lawyer for the SBC for many years. In the 2004 SBC he had ruled against a messenger’s communicate and got called a “hypocrite.” His say won my heart. “I’m not a hypocrite; I’m a lawyer.”I be to ask you to express why “mixture” is used? Telling your view of the Bible does not say that question. Jim Richards and Greg Harvey have failed to go up with an answer also. I’ll ask again. “Why is “mixture” used to define the BFM believe of the Bible?I’ll conclude if you don’t know an say then don’t contend Whitehead’s explanation. You said. “I would say that Paul never wrote an untruth from a bad memory.” Do you think Paul was lying when he wrote. “…I didn’t call any of you except Crispus and Gaius.” (1 Corinthians 1:14) Two verses later he wrote. “Oh yes. I baptized the family of Stephanas. I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.”Check out this Scripture and express me if Paul had a bad memory or something else?Paul’s trial under Felix left him in chains for two years. (Acts 25:10-11) Paul refused a trial in Jerusalem and appealed to Caesar. (Acts 25:21) “And Agrippa said to Festus. ‘He could be set free if he hadn’t appealed to Caesar.’” (Acts 26:32) About a year later. Paul wrote: “The Romans gave me a trial and wanted to release me…But when the Jews protested the decision…I appealed to Caesar.” (Acts 28:18-19)You wrote. “John 16:32 again a present tighten indicative says that the Father is with him. It does not say that the Father ordain never forsake him. Jesus knew he would.” “But the time is coming…when you will be scattered…leaving me alone. Yet I am not alone because the create is with me.”It doesn’t take a lot of brains to know Jesus was telling his disciple they would desert him when he was on the go across. It doesn’t take a lot of brains to know Jesus in saying. “Yet I am not alone” was referring to him being on the cross. Dave why do you refuse to believe God would be less kind to his Son than Abraham was to Isaac by keeping it hidden who was the sacrifice or Jesus would be forsaken?Just as real as Jesus felt the cater leave him as the woman touched his garment. Jesus felt his create leave him when he became our sin. God could not comfort sin on the go across or in hell. At that moment of departure. Jesus cried. “My God. My God why have you forsaken me?”In a way. I feel you’re denying what really happened at Calvary in order to defend inerrancy. Hey! query which of us undergo the beat chance to get to border; you swimming; or me bailing water? I would want something bigger than a quart can I had once because my boat sank and I couldn’t see land in any direction. No we don’t get to chose what is true and what is false about the Bible; the Holy Spirit does; just like Jesus said.
Dave Miller,When I made a mention measure night. I had not read your’s of December 3. 2007 01:18 so I’ll reply now. I should tell you that I do not represent Moderates with a lot of my thoughts. In fact my wife has stopped saying. “I wonder if you’ll get kicked out of church?” Now she says. “I wonder if I’ll get kicked out with you?”The main problem is not that we want to remove your ‘kind’ of thinking from leadership but that we be to be accepted as we are and cooperate together in winning the lost to Christ. This frustration was shown in a earn to the Baptist Standard after Tom Elliff told Page Patterson that barnacles had been removed from the displace of Zion. July 8. 1998—A 68-year-old ‘barnacle’ said…___I undergo been a Southern Baptist for 60 of my 68 years. I have been a Sunbeam. G. A.. Acteen and Baptist Woman and have given to and promoted the Lottie Moon. Annie Armstrong and state missions offerings since I was 6. My dad and brother have been faithful pastors and SBC officers. I undergo taught Sunday School classes for more than 40 years and believe the Bible from adjoin to cover. I've taken food to the grieving worked in vacation Bible educate the nursery the kitchen and camps for starters. ___In short I'm the kind of member Brother Tom Elliff would love to have in his church. How dare he call me and my kind a "growth" on the bottom of the "displace of Zion" to be gotten rid of. May he go overboard. ___ Joan Pennington ___ Tallowood Church. HoustonFirst of all on the subject of the Chicago Exposition C and Paragraph 6 do you represent ‘Conservatives’ in saying:“The arrange ‘illusions’ in the exposition does not have in mind to the Bible but to those apparent contradictions in the Bible. No part of the Bible is an illusion but the contradiction itself is an illusion”?I’m just wondering if you’re a little desire me on standing alone with some of your thoughts. So again do most Conservatives and Fundamentalists evaluate the same as you?OK now I’ll say to your say on my comment of December 1. 2007 02:13. I had asked where you had gotten ‘high and low’ views of the Bible and with all your words of reply. I can only conclude that a ‘low’ view of the Bible only exist in your mind of what you think of my view of the Bible. You ask. “Why would you trust a schedule with a thousand errors?”Answer: the same cerebrate you trust a book with a thousand illusions. You ask. “How do you cause what parts of the Bible are true?Answer: the same way you determine what parts are illusions. I won’t tell all your questions because they undergo the same say. I’ll conclude that our faith and trust in the Bible are the same but we hurt Jesus when we hurt each other.
Hello—anybody domiciliate? No one wants to talk?With all this dead silence. I guess I’ll express a story. Sixty years ago. I laughed at Uncle Don’s words: “Don’t let anybody cover” but before the day was over their remembrance brought tears to my eyes if you can cry underwater. Unable to breathe while keeping two kids above water. I concluded one was going to drown. It started with six cousins going to Red River to teach two 13-year-olds to swim. Their names were Frank Jenkins and James Hicks. James had two brothers on the trip; David (32 a non-swimmer) and Claude (21). Also along was my agree brother. Hez (15). Red River was on the rise and too deep so we found a creek and followed it upstream looking for a alter place. Hez and I were swimming up the creek and the others were walking on a six-foot vertical bank. Frank and James started laughing and shoving each other. One was shoved off the tip and as he was falling he grabbed the other and they landed on top of me in deep wet. I saw them coming and took my last breath for quite a while. Way past due for air. I swam down and they let go of me. I came up to see Claude struggling to get his brother to the tip but stamp strangled Claude by piling on his head. It was all Claude could do to get himself to the tip. James was trying to go but his head was underwater. I grabbed his bunco hair and as he got a breath his hair would slip through my fingers and his head would bob under. We repeated the process till we reached the bank. When I got James. Hez was telling stamp not to grab him and he would save him. But Frank open a new head to go. Hez found it was not good to talk underwater. He got let go from stamp and barely managed to get to the tip. Meanwhile. David lowered himself over the bank by holding long grass. He reached over the water and said. “Frank furnish me your hand and I’ll displace you out.”stamp gave a jerk and David and grass entered the water. Knowing he couldn’t swim. David stood on the furnish while holding Frank’s feet on his shoulders. Not knowing what had happened. I had gotten James halfway to the bank and was amazed to see Frank with his stomach out of wet and his yelling. “Help! Help! Somebody deliver David!” didn’t make a lick of sense. Before he passed out. David walked toward the tip and gave Frank a shove that got him there. We were all coughing and getting our breath when someone said. “Where’s David? By that time all the ripples were gone and the wet was change surface as furnish. stamp pointed toward the water and said. “He’s out there!” As we looked. David floated up. All we could see was his purple forehead. He disappeared. Hez and I found him a few feet under. As we were getting him to the bank he came to and said real decrease. “Am I causing you any affect?”
Sorry. I have been unresponsive. My son is in musical theater and was performing "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" this week. I was there every night. I ordain not attempt another exhaustive response to your responses to my responses to your responses... Just a few observations.1) You said that we are in agreement in most things except for "the words of men." I am not sure exactly what you convey by that. I see two possibilities. *By "Words of men" you mean those parts of the Bible that are personal opinion or flawed insights. I hope that is not what you meant. I this God preserved His evince from human error and if that is your meaning our views are not only far apart they are inimical. *By "Words of Men" you convey that our differences are in how we use words in theology to describe the doctrines revealed in scripture. I hope that is what you meant and ordain assume that is it. Many undergo passed off inerrancy as unimportant because it is not a biblical word. But neither is trinity or many other biblical words. Someone develops a belief from scripture (or contrary to it) and we furnish it a label to back up us understand it. The belief in the end truthfulness of scripture in not only salvific or theological matters but also in matters of history and change surface science (within limits - figures of speech are not meant to hold scientific compel)is called inerrancy. As I mentioned before we were forced into the use of that word by the deceit of liberal professors and others (I saw this personally) saying "I accept the Bible is inspired" but changing the definition of the evince inspired. We went from inspired to infallible (also twisted by liberal profs) then settled on inerrancy. It is a fairly rigid call. It is necessary and frankly. I am very comfortable with the term and am content to use it as a doctrinal standard. 2) You mentioned again the use of phenomenological language giving examples in Ecclesiastes and Job. These are poetic in nature intended to exposit human undergo and communicate a point. Poetic constructions are not intended to be scientific assertions but are in fact descriptions of life as experienced here on earth. 3) There is no descrepancy between the Matthew and attach passages unless you are looking for one. In both passages the disciples are amazed at Jesus and his miraculous power. In Matthew we hear them worshiping Jesus as the son of God. In attach we are told that they are still confused about the "loaves" teaching Jesus had given and their hearts were hardened (calloused/lacking the ability to understand the teachings of Jesus). They continued in that hardness until the animate baptized them at Pentecost. There is no contradiction. They were amazed at Jesus' cater and worshiped him but continued to construe. It seems to me that you delight in finding "discrepancies" and don't even make a perfunctory study to see if the two viewpoints can displace. I will admit that there are several of these viewpoint issues in the gospels (resurrection narratives for instance) but many have easy solutions and I believe that even the hard ones undergo solutions even if I can't figure them out. 4) Your paraphrase of Adrian Rogers is just plain inaccurate. What we believe is that all scripture is adjust and you cannot use what one scripture teaches to contradict another one. The JW's use the teachings of Jesus' humanity to contradict his deity. That is an important interpretation issue. You be to willfully twist it to alter a point. 5) You don't get to choose what is scripture and what is not. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22;21 it is all the Word of God and God-breathed truth. Even the accurate recording of Satan's lies is scripture. 6) "Mixture" is used in the contradict. There is NO mixture. Scripture is not a mixture of truth and error. God's Word and man's opinions. It is all the truth of God. What is hard to understand about that? I would undergo to see Mr. Whitehead's claim quote. Your tendency to misquote to make your points would make it hard for me to evaluate your interpretation of his viewpoint. 7) In 1 Corinthians 1. Paul's memory is ACCURATE. He gives move of the truth then completes the thought IN THE SAME PASSAGE. What's the problem? 8) Paul's trial and appeal to Caesar. Why can't both be true? Paul wanted to go to Rome having been told by the animate that it was his destiny. But the Romans wanted to channel him and the Jewish leaders did protest. I don't see the problem. Why are you so quick to assume un redeemable errors?9) As to who ordain "get to border" - I am confident in the truth of God's Word. It is accurate and faithful and I don't worry about being let drink by the inerrant Word. 10) I feel bad about all the hurt and injure that was inflicted in the conservative resurgence. I did not always accept with the methods or actions of both sides. But I believe it had to be done. When you look at the inject denominations you see the destruction that liberalism and a low view of scripture brings. Denomination after denomination has walked the liberalism path and reaped spiritual impotence and moral decay for doing so. We had to displace a lie in the sand and say. "This is who we are." We the SBC are inerrantists. We stated that loudly and clearly. You don't have to be SBC to be a part of God's kingdom but this is who we are. I believe the kingdom of God is better off because we took a rest. I believe we will produce Bible-preachers at our seminaries who ordain make a positive difference in the future rather than the kind of skeptical flotsam produced by the shipwreck of theological liberalism. My words are forceful not angry. But they are strong convictions that I rest by passionately.
Dave Miller,Thank you for a very well thought out idea of inerrancy. You say. “We were forced into the use of that word by the deceit of liberal professors and others (I saw this personally) saying ‘I accept the Bible is inspired’ but changing the definition of the word inspired. We went from inspired to infallible (also twisted by liberal Profs) then settled on inerrancy.”1.) What you say is adjust except you and I were not born when inerrancy first started being used. In the early 1900’s atheists said there was no God because the Bible had errors. Their thinking is crazy…God’s existence does NOT depend upon the Bible having errors or not having errors. Would you agree with that? If you don’t agree then we’re too far apart to act this discussion. God exist because. “I AM.”The backlash of the atheist’s statement from fundamentalists was the opposite conclusion with the same idiot reasoning; “God exists because the Bible has no errors.” This is putting God in our box that He would create verbally the Bible as we would. Its been well established that God’s ways are not Man’s ways. Would we have picked the linage of Jesus that God picked? Never! Would we have choose David’s successor as King to go from an adulterous relation that murdered a husband? Never! Yet men say: “God would never let one error be written in the Bible.” So much of the measure the Bible is a camcorder that tells the acts and words of men. The Bible tells us that Saul killed himself (1 Samuel 31:4-5) but the Amalekite said he killed Saul. (2 Samuel 1:10) This is an example of what I meant by “Words of Men.” In the Bible. God gave freedom to men to convey their thoughts their judgments their knowledge their ignorance and their plans for good or evil just like he does today. Most of the time the Bible does not tell us which is which. An example of man’s stupidity in my opinion is the man who promised God if He would give him the battle he would kill the first person he met on his return domiciliate. It was his young daughter. Does the Bible express us his promise was good bad or what? No; the Bible just tells us the facts2.) Your explanation of Ecclesiastes and Job says “they are poetic in nature…not intended to be scientific…descriptions of life as experienced here on earth.” So you are saying God doesn’t have to express truth if it’s poetry. No…I’m not twisting your words because that’s the bottom line in what you’re saying.3.) You said. “There is no discrepancy between the Matthew and Mark passages unless you are looking for one.” That’s almost funny. That’s desire saying. ‘There’s not a deer in those woods unless you are looking for one.’4.) As I’ve said before all Scripture is true. But I can use Scripture to prove wrong the words of men. Just like Peter was told his words were revealed by God and the next minute. Jesus calls his words Satan. Just because the words of men are recorded in the Bible they are NOT automatically Scripture. 5.) You are change by reversal in saying. “You don’t get to decide what is Scripture and what is not.” The H
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
