Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Since Romans 8:28 reminds us of the rock-solid truth that all things work for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose, my family learned a valuable lesson from the earthquake.
Material possessions mean very little. Christ and life are that matter. In that order. 8~)
So is the Koran. Your dogmatic statements do not make the Bible objectively God's revelation, FK. You are placing yourself in the position to dictate what is and what isn't from God.
I don't dictate anything. There is both internal and external evidence. Please forgive the length of this, but it is directly on point. From Got Questions? :
Now, add to all this the fact that God's Church HAS accepted the Bible as God's word, and I think one should have enough evidence.
Nowhere in the Bible, OT or NT, do we have anyone tasking the believers in general to read or interpret the Scriptures. That is a Protestant myth.
I just showed you the scripture where Jesus says that a man LIVES by the word of God. Do you think it is such a wild stretch to take that as meaning that a man should know what the word of God IS? :)
And the Bible which you worship specifically tells you that (not everyone is appointed to be an apostle, teacher, etc), but you choose to disregard that because it was pointed out to you on numerous occasions.
To this day no one on your side has explained to me what "worshiping the Bible" even means. We have showed you over and over again how you all demonstrate your worship of Mary. But anyway, not all are appointed to teach etc., WITHIN the church. That wouldn't make sense logistically. Now, outside the church, in the mission field of the whole world, ALL believers are called upon to be Christ's ministers of His Gospel. It is a responsibility. I think the REAL faith of "limo-riders" would have to be yours since apparently you get to sit back and let other people do all of God's work. :)
Yes, Christ's propitiation is capable of redeeming the entire world, every single soul who has ever been or will be born.
And yet not all men are saved. Therefore, we must look deeper into the Scriptures to understand what God is telling us because we know that if Christ has paid for a man's sins, those sins have been forgiven by God and that man has been redeemed. So we keep reading John and find verse 5...
"But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." -- 1 John 2:5
So John draws the same distinction Christ drew in John 17 -- those who are His believe in Him and keep His commandments. And that belief and the keeping of those commandments are part of the good fruit of the Spirit, by which "know we that we are in him."
John reiterates this distinction a few verses later...
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." -- 1 John 2:19
Faith is the evidence of our regeneration by the Holy Spirit; a lack of that faith "manifests" and testifies that "they were not all of us."
Universal salvation does not exist just by looking around us, as well as considering what the Scriptures say about Judas and those who depart from the faith of Christ and all those who seek destruction.
Universal atonement does not exist, or else every sin of every man would be forgiven, and all men would be saved.
Therefore, Scripture is telling us that Christ's atonement is specific, personal and transformative. His sacrifice was sufficient for all the world, while efficient only for those whom God has given Him to gather, those who are called by His name.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:9-10,20"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
To deny the particular redemption of Christ is to do the devil's work by making the grace of God ultimately ineffectual, turning it from a specific declaration to whom God wills into a general nudge in the right direction, capable of being ignored by men who are somehow stronger than the Holy Spirit.
That is not the God of Scripture. He gets what He wants because it's all His anyway. Some men are given saving grace and are healed by His stripes and receive the love of the truth, while some men are not. Paul agrees with Christ...
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" -- 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Everything gets back to the first cause, one way or another. And one way or another, everything works to glorify God, either by displaying His mercy or His perfect judgment.
I realize this is of little import to you, but we enjoy it. As God wills.
One voice singing God's praise is lovely. One hundred voices is even more delightful. All singing the same words.
Thanks for complying with this simple request.
Don’t forget John 3:18 “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
The term, “world” has different meanings in Scripture, depending on its context.
Oft times it refers to the value system of the world as in James 4:4 “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”
Sometimes it refers to all the lost people in the world, as in John 18:6-10 “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.”
Sometimes it speaks of mankind in general, as in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Interesting note on this verse (upon which I’ve had a discussion with the author of the article that started this thread!) - the word, “so”, this verse is not an adjective modifying “much”; it’s an adverb describing the action in the phrase “he gave his only begotten son”. John 3:16 would be more properly rendered from the Greek as follows: “”For this is the way God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
So, you toss Matt. 4:4 because you say there wasn't a witness there suitable to you? OK. I am sure you have it on good authority that Christ never recounted what happened to Him to His disciples.
Second, Matthew is quoting from the Septuagint. If you check the Hebrew Bible, it says every thing (not every word). It is the Greek Septuagint that introduces the "word," but not the Hebrew version. The Hebrew version says nothing about a "word of God." It says every thing that wells from God.
Ah, so for this we need to toss the Septuagint and take up the Hebrew OT. I see. Should we accept the Septuagint in every other case, or will you let me know about the exceptions as we go along? :) In any case, every "thing" that wells from God obviously includes the word of God.
This alleged "quote" was taken from Deuteronomy 8:3, and in the context of the OT chapter that follows it is clear that we are not speaking of "words" of God, but of God being a source (orifice from which proceeds everything of what) we need.
I have no idea what kind of distinction you are trying to make. I'll grant that you are working very hard to get rid of "word", but it's not working. While the Hebrew did not have word, the same Hebrew has no problem with "that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord". Adding "word" only makes sense. It is tortured reasoning to suppose it doesn't.
The second part of your post here says "So, if one wants his life to be nourished by God, he MUST [sic] know the scriptures himself." It sure sounds like the man is deciding. Was this a slip?
No slip, God will make sure that His children know Him by leading them to know something of His word.
Is it not the Bible which you worship, by your own admission, that says the Holy Spirit will teach you everything you need to know?
When you refer to my agreeing that I "worship the Bible" you have to include the definition that we agreed upon. That is "devotion to God's word". Otherwise, readers will get confused. By this same type of definition, of course you will be fine with my saying that you worship Mary, by your own admission. And since I do not pray to the Bible, that would make your worship of Mary all the stronger.
And yes, the Holy Spirit will teach us everything we need to know. He will illuminate the scriptures to us so that we will understand what we need.
And do you not think that God will nourish you spiritually if you simply pray?
One cannot know what or how to pray without first knowing God's word.
Is it not Jesus who is quoted as saying that whatever we ask (in good faith) will be granted?
We can't know how to ask in good faith without first knowing God's word. God can always make special dispensations for people on desert islands, etc., but I am talking about in the normal course.
Is it not the same Bible you worship that says in the OT that those who obey God's commandments will be taken care of?
We can't know what God's Commandments are without first knowing God's word. Again, you are espousing a works-ONLY salvation model. The Bible does not teach that. Rather, it teaches a faith-ONLY salvation model.
Where does it say that anyone "must" know the Scriptures in order to believe or to be spiritually sustained?
Barring a special dispensation, one cannot know what he believes IN without first knowing the word of God.
It seems to me, you place the Bible before prayers and seem to think that one cannot pray without knowing the Bible.
One cannot pray without first receiving God's grace. That grace will lead a believer to want to know God's word. God's word will teach the believer how to pray such that all of his prayers will be heard.
Our connection to God is through prayer FK. It can be even without words! If God is the Comforter, what words are "necessary" to feel His love?
I still do not understand why you are going to such lengths to try to show that God's word is unnecessary. God's word shows who God IS. Barring a special dispensation, one may as well pray to a head of lettuce as to "God" without God's word. That's where blind faith leads.
Sure, we are connected to God through prayer. But blind prayer to no one in particular is of no use when one intentionally turns his back on God's word.
One more dogmatic truism that has no basis in reality.
Then you believe in loving blindly, without knowing anything of the object of your love. Now, there are numerous, faceless terrorists all over the world who want to kill you. They are your enemies. The Bible says you should love them and you should. Therefore, shouldn't I assume that the relationship with these faceless terrorists that you have is the same as you think proper for us to have with our Lord? That is, with no knowledge and no words, only blind love?
FK: While one CAN certainly come to true faith without having read a word for himself, especially if it is unavailable to him, the danger is in whether the human teacher actually has it right.
And there is no danger in private interpretation of the Scriptures?
Well, here you need to define "private interpretation". Most Apostolics think it means "anything inconsistent with the Apostolic Church". I reject that definition. I think private interpretation is anything inconsistent with the totality of scriptures, so I would consider many Apostolic beliefs to be private interpretations. So, what I said somewhat agrees with you. If one turns his back on learning the scriptures himself, then there will be a danger of being led astray by a false teacher, from any faith. But of course, if one turns his back on learning the scriptures himself, then it might not make any difference. :)
FK: Of all the hundreds or low thousands of Christian testimonies I have ever heard or read, not a single one goes anything like that.
Kosta: Isn't that what the "indwelling Spirit" does? The Spirit did not come to you because you read the Bible, but before you did, so that you may recognize the Bible as speaking the message of truth, as you know it.
The Spirit does come first, but He doesn't give detailed "magic" knowledge. Maybe we're talking about two different things, I don't know. What I do know is that when the Holy Spirit first touched me, He sent me directly to the scriptures, before I believed. It was not the case where I said to myself: "Well I suddenly have everything I need to know, who needs the Bible?" :) The Holy Spirit also sent me to a teen Bible study group, where I heard the word preached. Between those two things I grew enough to be sure that I believed and became a believer.
FK: Yes, there can be no other source of faith but God.
God is the source of faith but the Bible is not. Your side equates the two.
As the sole source of faith, God uses His word to SHOW us what that faith IS. One cannot have a growing faith if he rejects God's word. To reject God's word is to reject God Himself. I do not think that Obama and his policies are the same thing. Yet, when I reject virtually all of his policies, I am also rejecting him.
Then they can show me that the North African Council of Cartage was "ecumenical." It wasn't. Period.
Fair enough. It would just shock me if Catholics hereon would agree that no official Church Canon was established in at least one of those early Councils. I have heard many argue strongly against that idea. But, I can't speak for them.
FK: I said that we Bible-believing Christians use that term to refer to each other, and that we know each other when we come across each other. My experience has been that the term works well across denominational lines.
Works well? Last time I checked, Joel Osteen preaches there's no hell! You find him in your theological camp as a "Bible-believer?"
Along with everything else I know about him, if he preaches that, then NO. See how easy that was? :)
Being a "Bible-believer" says nothing of the private theology each and every such self-styled believer conjures. That's like using the universal "Christian" label.
Not at all. The "Christian" label is MUCH broader and includes, as you said, even false Christians. The term "Bible-believing" Christian is much more narrow. Not only does it exclude all false Christians, but it even excludes a large number of TRUE Christians. To me, that makes the term actually mean something. :)
The Church Christ established and left to the Apostles and their successors simply believes that God in His infinite love offers the same blessings to all.
Obviously, in strong contradiction to the Scriptures. The Church you say was established by Christ feels free to contradict Christ whenever it wants. In this case, for example:
Rom 9:14-16 : 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
So, obviously, God does not treat everyone equally in all ways. God gives saving grace to whomever He wishes, but not to all men.
Jamnia resulted in throwing out all the books written by Christians, including the Gospels. They rejected the Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. You call that Christ-friendly?
Well, they WERE Jews, so we would expect them to reject anything in the NT. That's not surprising. But, I expect that they would have rejected the Septuagint because it was in Greek, not the original language. Presumably, they HAD the real Masoretic Text. You can't blame them for that. :)
Sometimes it speaks of mankind in general, as in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Interesting note on this verse (upon which I’ve had a discussion with the author of the article that started this thread!) - the word, “so”, this verse is not an adjective modifying “much”; it’s an adverb describing the action in the phrase “he gave his only begotten son”. John 3:16 would be more properly rendered from the Greek as follows: “”For this is the way God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Precisely.
While I'm at it, here's Pink's magnificent classic on-line...
You should read this mighty Baptist, Daniel. Most of us Calvinists once would have agreed with your post. After returning to Scripture and reading guys like Pink and Calvin and Boettner and Luther and Zanchius we understood differently. And we have been blessed by the alternation in our perspective, from our work to God's work.
In fact, here's another great Biblical statement of truth...
Many thanks for the kind words and the excellent links, although I do think Pink’s initials are A.W., not A.A. - as witnessed on the link you provided (among other documents). At least your eternal destiny does not hang on such a trifle error :-)
lol. Thanks for the correction. A & W always sounds so refreshing. 8~)
A&W - especially good with vanilla ice cream!!!!
My very favorite. Frosty chilled glass mugs. Those were the days. 8~)
When I was young Army brat and we were driving across country to a new duty station, we would spend the night in a cheap motel and enjoy “home made” A&W or Orange Crush ice cream floats. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm good.
If this is what you believe as "evidence" then I am really not surprised that we can't agree on anything.
Let's look at the "pearls" this articles says.
Right from the start, it is obvious that this will be a dogmatic blather void of any documentation or valid references.
The opening sentence says it all:
"There can be no doubt about the fact [sic] that the Bible does claim to be the very Word of God. This is clearly seen in verses like 2 Timothy 3:15-17, which say , “. . .from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."
Goodness, so much nonsense in one sentence! First, it is not the Bible (how misleading!) but one book in the Bible written by one man (Paul) who has no witnesses who says that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."
That constitutes a "proof?" Maybe to someone with a reptilian-sized brain, FK. To make things even worse, the author quotes (who is the author, by the way?) verse 15 which says "from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
What scriptures pray tell? All they had (from their childhood no less) when Paul was still around was the Old Testament, and the Old Testament does not teach salvation through faith (let alone in Christ Jesus!), but through works (of keeping all of God's commandments, the mitzvot). And to the best of my understanding, Paul does not call his Epistles scriptures.
If this is the strongest argument the author has to present, then the whole article is intended for reptilian-sized brains to marvel; it would be laughable were it not an insult to intelligence.
His "proof' is in the "fact" that the Bible says so (in his mind)! He even confirms this by saying that
But, let's forge on with this "masterpiece." The author states:
"One of the first internal evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more that 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction."
Of course, this is a matter on "internal" interpretation, and nothing could be further from the truth. The author then leaps to this conclusion:
"This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words as God moved men in such a way that they recorded His very words."
This "unity," which is in dispute except by those who blindly accept it as such, magically becomes "evidence" of the divine origin of God's very words! There is absolutely no valid cause and effect in this conclusion. The conclusion is based on a presumptive and subjectively claimed "unity," facts to the contrary notwithstanding.
He then moves on to the next internal "evidence," the prophesies:
"Another of the internal evidences that indicate the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in the detailed prophecies contained within its pages."
Needless to say, even here is there a no consensus of opinions, and opinions are not "evidence.
To continue:
"A third internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible is seen in its unique authority and power."
LOL! This is true of any "holy book." Very "unique" indeed.
"While this evidence is more subjective [sic] than the first two internal evidences, it is no less a very powerful testimony of the divine origin of the Bible."
How much "more subjective" can you get then this? By his logic any holy book is of divine origin because it holds unique authority and power over those who believe! The Bible has no authority or power over those who don't already believe.
"This authority and power are best seen in the way countless lives have been transformed by reading the Bible."
I am sure the mullahs say the same thing about the Koran—countless lives have been changed by it! In fact Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Using the Jurassic Park logic of this author, the Koran would definitely qualify as being of divine origin just based on that!
"Besides the internal evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word there are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One of those evidences is the historicity of the Bible."
I was waiting for this one, LOL!
"Through both archaeological evidences and other written documents, the historical accounts of the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true. In fact all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best documented book from the ancient world. "
A little false, and a little deceitful, but cleverly said. The first sentence is patently false. The second sentence cleverly states that all archeological evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best documented book from the ancient world. Of course, he doesn't say anything about the archeological evidence contradicting or not supporting the Bible. And there is plenty of that. Take the alleged Exodus and the alleged 40-years being lost in Sinai, or the alleged 460 years living in Egypt for openers. Biblical archeology was a colossal failure; it failed to prove a preconceived outcome.
"Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the integrity of the human authors."
Oh, boy!
"God used men from many walks of life to record His Words to us."
Now that he has "proven" this to himself, then author writes about it as a "fact."
"In studying the lives of these men, there is no good reason to believe that they were not honest and sincere men. Examining their lives and the fact that they were willing to die (often excruciating deaths) for what they believed in, it quickly becomes clear that these ordinary yet honest men truly believed that God had spoken to them."
Sounds positively jihadist! Bin Laden could have written that paragraph! Being honest and sincere doesn't mean you are right! One can be honestly and sincerely wrong!
"The transformation of seeing the Risen Christ had a tremendous impact on these men. They went from hiding in fear, to being willing to die for the message God had revealed to them. Their lives and deaths testify to the fact that the Bible truly is God’s Word."
Actually, the Bible tells us that even after He rose form the dead some of his own disciples doubted (Mat 28:17), but he is correct in stating that at one point they changed form scared disciples to zealous Christians. But it wasn't the Risen Christ, or the miracles He performed, or what He preached. It was the Holy Spirit, or so the Bible says, and not the Scriptures. So, there is no cause and effect he claims here, namely that their death and lives testify that the Bible is truly God's word. It wasn't the Bible (the OT), it wasn't the Risen Jesus, and it certainly weren't the miracles and sermons, but whatever they understood to be the "Spirit of God" (which in Judaism was understood to be the power of God), His will.
"A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history...
The Bible remains intact, not because there is something magical about the Bible, but because the Jews and Christians and even Muslims hold on to it to various extent. When and if these religions disappear, so will the Bible, as a word of God at least.
"Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has established it as historical"
To a very small and insignificant degree. But it has failed it to a much greater degree. Lack of any evidence of Exodus or Hebrew presence in Egypt makes a large portion of the Five Books of Moses highly questionable historically speaking.
"No matter how its opponents try to attack, destroy, or discredit it, the Bible remains just as strong, just a true, and just as relevant after the attacks as it was before"
If someone has decided that no matter what evidence they see contradicting their belief they will stick to their belief this is not a proof that the Bible remains just and true. It simply means that some people will hold on to a flat-earth belief no matter what.
"It should not surprise us that no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed."
Nothing could be farther form the truth. The Bible is a mumb-jumbo of disconnected, copied, plagiarized, and what not books written over a period of many centuries. It incorporates a pagan-like proto-Judaism, Davidic Judaism, Judaism of the post-Babylonian era (messianic and apocalyptic), the various sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essens, etc.) whose beliefs were incompatible with each other, and dozens of sects which had nothing in common, some of which were not even considered "Jewish" by the Pharisees (i.e. Samaritans) because, get this, they didn't believe the Temple should be in Jerusalem!
Now, add to all this the fact that God's Church HAS accepted the Bible as God's word, and I think one should have enough evidence
God's Apostolic Church believes in the message of the Bible as being the source of eternal truth, which reveals God as He wished us to know Him through Jesus Christ. We don't reads the Gospels to read history but to get a message to take home with us and live by it, imitating Christ.
I just showed you the scripture where Jesus says that a man LIVES by the word of God. Do you think it is such a wild stretch to take that as meaning that a man should know what the word of God IS?
And I showed you that the original language doesn't speak of any "words."
Now, outside the church, in the mission field of the whole world, ALL believers are called upon to be Christ's ministers of His Gospel
Where does the Bible say that?
I think the REAL faith of "limo-riders" would have to be yours since apparently you get to sit back and let other people do all of God's work
No, just those who have been appointed teachers in the Church through Holy Orders and ordination, just as I sit back and let the lawyers do the talking, and lay on the operating table and let the surgeon do the cutting, and just sit and sip my coffee and let the pilots do the flying.
Where does the Bible say that
It comes from the Great Commission.
Have you ever considered exercising faith alone in Christ alone, even for a slight moment?
Wrong. The only people present at the Great Commission were the disciples (some of whom still doubted;). Christ addressed them alone.
Christ never commissioned all believers.
I believe in everything Christ stands for, everything He represents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.