Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
Do you understand the meaning of a spiritual gift? I do not refer to an imaginary gift, but a very real gift in our anthropology, which is a different sense of perception other than rationalism or empiricism. Faith is a system of perception provided by God which allows us to perceive things spiritually.
Some have a gift in ministry, where they perceive an explicit right thing to say, at the right place, at the right time, to the right person per God's Plan. The information conveyed by God the Holy Spirit might be very personal. Absolutely nothing is hidden from God, and He might communicate to the human spirit of a believer to communicate to another believer or an unbeliever the right thing to say for that particular situation in glorification of the Son.
Scripture is Divinely inspired. That means a very real communication was made from God the Holy Spirit to a particular author who wrote the letter or book which has been translated for us to read today.
That spiritual gift used by God to communicate the Word during the scribing of the canon of Scripture is complemented by other spiritual gifts today from God the Holy Spirit to each and every believer, as well as during the sanctification process of the believer in learning Bible doctrine.
You are correct that it is possible to read the Bible and not grow in the human spirit. If one is out of fellowship and doesn't breath in the Word, the soul is not sanctified in that process. Worse, the Word of God is not without effect. Those who study while outside of fellowship risk hardening their heart to the Word and degenerating in their Christian life.
Redemption is not the same as forgiveness.
Redemption of all sin occurred on the Cross at the time of Judgment.
Forgiveness did not occur at the Cross.
Judgment occurred at the Cross.
Forgiveness occurs at the moment of saving faith or initial salvation for all presalvation sin and forgiveness for all post salvation sin occurs upon repentance and confession per 1stJohn 1.
The Unlimited atonement Christ provided on the Cross does not change the condemned state of man, but it satisfies the righteousness of God the Father demanding Judgment for all sin.
All the sins of man were imputed to the Son of God on the Cross and received by Him in His personal love for God the Father and impersonal love for all mankind.
Now that all sin has been atoned, every man is able to be saved by God’s grace. God will have nothing to do with sin, however, and while man remains in sin, God does not grace man with eternal life.
Neither does man have anything good in him to given eternal life, but faith, which is non meritorious of the believer, but glorifying of the object of faith, our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, makes a situation where God is free in His essence to grace the believer with eternal life.
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..."
So your best criticism is that it is not the Bible which says anything, but rather a book of the Bible? And, that what Paul says is no good unless there are some number of witnesses sufficient for you? I have no idea what to say to that. :)
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.
It is certainly fair to ask about the author. It doesn't say and these questions apparently are answered by various staff. Here is the explanation:
".... Our writing staff includes pastors, youth pastors, missionaries, Biblical counselors, Bible/Christian College students, Seminary students, and lay students of God's Word. All of our answers are reviewed for Biblical and theological accuracy by our President and Founder, S. Michael Houdmann. He possesses a Master's degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary and a Bachelor's degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary Bible College."
Of course if I post it in my answer you may assume I agree with it, unless otherwise indicated. Anyway, I disagree with you about whether the OT teaches salvation by faith. The first Jew is a primary example, and David is another. Many Jews did misinterpret the OT and believed in a works-based salvation model. Jesus criticized those types of Jews for their false beliefs. Paul of course correctly understood the OT teachings and explained them in his writings. For example:
Rom 4:1-10 : 1 What then shall we say that Abraham , our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about — but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven,whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!
Paul goes on, but you get the idea. This is what the OT REALLY teaches. And finally, I don't know if Paul calls his own writings scriptures, but Peter did:
2 Peter 3:15-16 : 15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
And, if you want to throw out Peter's epistles because you think he didn't write them, as you have before, that is up to you. Scriptures are my highest written authority, so I'm going to quote them for anyone who wants to see what the Bible says. :)
But, let's forge on with this "masterpiece." The author states:
Of course, this is a matter on "internal" interpretation, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Naturally, the author understands that those who are actively hostile to what the vast majority of Christians believe about scriptures will not buy any of his arguments. Of course it wasn't the scope of the article to predict the hundreds or thousands of contradictions that you see in the scriptures and then refute them all. That would take years, as it has taken me so far. :)
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.
Hundreds of millions of Christians around the world know exactly what the author is talking about here. They have lived it. They know it to be true. It speaks to them. No other book like the Bible has ever been written.
[Continued on next post]
He then moves on to the next internal "evidence," the prophesies:
Needless to say, even here is there a no consensus of opinions, and opinions are not "evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that it is not clear that Biblical prophecies have come true? Obviously, men for many hundreds of years have been trying to show that, but they have all failed, haven't they, since Christianity is still going strong? Do you think you have evidence showing a Biblical prophecy to be false? I mean, I'll bet you could really make some money from some interested parties in that sort of thing.
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.
Well, I remember well that when I really first read into the Bible I was by no means a believer and I remember to this day the power it had over me. It wasn't anything like I expected, and it just rang absolutely true to me in very simple terms. I know that's just my testimony so it doesn't count as "proof" for you, but I'd bet anything that a lot of other Christians would say something very similar.
Of course, he doesn't say anything about the archaeological 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.
If you are right I would think that Christianity would have been severely damaged because so many people would be on board with your view of the facts. Yet, this has never happened. I mean, you have to remember that you are not the first here. There have been countless THOUSANDS of men who even spent their whole lives trying to discredit the Bible. Yet they all failed. Perhaps this means something. :)
Now that he has "proven" this to himself, then author writes about it as a "fact."
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!
Sure one can be honest and sincere and be wrong. However, look at what the Biblical authors taught. They didn't teach murder, etc., as the jihadists do. No, they taught what has well passed the test of time for an effective and fulfilling way of life. They taught things that hit directly home to ME. It's no contest. After God had opened my eyes, there is no way the jihadist message could ever be for me. The Biblical message, though, fit everything perfectly.
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.
Ah, so we have the Jews and the Muslims to partly thank for our Bible still being around and relevant today. I see. And as for your opinion of the weakness and fleetingness of God's word, God obviously disagrees:
Isa 40:8 : The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."
-------------------------
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!
Well, I think your response goes to prove the truth of what the author says. Certainly among other Christians, almost NO ONE agrees with you. :) And among the atheists, etc., who make these types of arguments, their views have not seemed to have had any effect on how true believers view the Bible. Now, certainly they and liberals in general have done some damage in fooling SOME people (those who have never believed), but I am unaware of very many who called themselves true believers, but then became atheists because the "lies" of the Bible had somehow been revealed to them by science or logic or the arguments that we have been discussing.
FK: 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?
The Great Commission says that, but I know that you believe that is someone else's job. Following God's commands really isn't so hard when so few of them apply to you. :) If it was possible to know, I would be interested in knowing if the average Apostolic spent more time following the extra-Biblical commands of the Church or the Biblical commands of God. A hunch says I would be disappointed in the answer.
That's what the Lord tells us we should do. Not only should we love those we don't even known as we love ourselves, but we should even love those who want to hurt us, our enemies. Why not love God who gave us all that there is, who provides us with food and comfort, and indeed our very lives. If I am to blindly love my life takers, why should I not blindly love my life Giver? I don't need to read the Bible to give thanks to that which created all this!
Well, here you need to define "private interpretation"
Teachings unknown to the Church. After all it was the Church that decided which books are holy. From this it follows that the Church has the correct interpretation lest it not be able to distinguish inspired from profane.
First you will have to explain how do you know it was the Holy Spirit that 'touched' you and sent you to the scriptures?
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.
For that analogy to hold true, you'd have to prove that the Bible is His very word , as Obama's policies are something he takes credit for.
***First you will have to explain how do you know it was the Holy Spirit that ‘touched’ you and sent you to the scriptures? ***
Unfortunately, my dear Kosta, if we have to explain it to you, you haven’t recieved it yet. There is still hope, though. I will pray for you.
It’s a unique feature of faith, wherein those who accept it, perceive through faith and clearly recognize its associated life.
It is difficult to describe than other simply stating one either has it or they don’t.
Describing it independently is fruitless.
So how can we describe it to another? Is it too surprising that nearly all of Scripture is actually doing just that.
It’s only as difficult as we have scarred our own minds by thinking independently from faith through Christ. All faith is from God.
What a valiant effort.
. . . as long as ne is a good steward of one’s pearls.
Unfortunately, my dear Kosta, if we have to explain it to you, you haven’t recieved it yet. There is still hope, though. I will pray for you
So, I am the "bad" guy for asking? If I ask you to do a bunch of math problems and you come up with correct answers, is it too much if I ask how you solved them? And if you can't, there are two possibilities: (1) one-in-impossible chance that you guessed it or (2) that you cheated (i.e. lied).
If I say that there are pink unicorns on Jupiter because one came to me and 'touched' me, you will either dismiss me as a lunatic, someone on drugs, or you will ask me to prove it.
If someone says "the Holy Spirit 'touched' me and immediately sent me to the scriptures" and I ask how do you know it was the Holy Spirit that 'touched' you and you can't answer except by appealing to some "inner knowledge," then there are two possibilities: (1) you don't know, but you think/hope/wish it was, or (2) you are lying. Which one is it?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Hopes and wishes do not constitute a proof. Otherwise we can all go around "witnessing," and making claims of "inner knowledge" as proof. That's why the Church opposed Gnosticism, which seems to be alive and well among the Reformed.
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:12-14
And conversely, when I repeat the words of God and get a "tell me more" or "and it also says" or "but what about" or some other Spiritual connection, then I know it is fertile ground and we all stand to benefit from sharing the words of God.
The power of God is Jesus Christ, the living Word of God. The fruit is always His, never ours. Without Him, we can do nothing.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23
I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. – John 15:5
AMEN!
From the excellent earlier thread...
"...The Holy Spirit Himself is given to the believer so that by prayer and diligent comparative study, knowledge of the Gospel and the will of God is made plain to him. It is this means alone, comparing Scripture with Scripture under the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, that safeguards the renewed reader from the danger of imaginative self-centered mystical deceit and the errors propagated by religious fanaticism and cultic heresies. Natural men, those not made alive by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by Him, have only their darkened understandings to guide them..."
FK: 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
The only Councils that are binding to the whole Church are those recognized as ecumenical by the Church. The North African Council at the end of the 4th century was not an ecumenical council. This doesn't mean that the Church as a whole did not adopt the canon over time. The specific North African Council that canonized the Bible was the first conciliar definition of the canon. Until that time, different bishops had different canons. The canon used by St. Athanasius (c. 360 AD) was the one that was accepted by that Council.
Kosta: Works well? Last time I checked, Joel Osteen preaches there's no hell! You find him in your theological camp as a "Bible-believer?"
FK: Along with everything else I know about him, if he preaches that, then NO.
But he claims he believes in the Bible. I am sure his beliefs are based on something he found in it. Even the devil quotes the Bible, FK! Being a Bible-believer doesn't make one an orthodox Christian.
Not only does [the term "Bible-believing"] exclude all false Christians, but it even excludes a large number of TRUE Christians.
So, then you admit that it is not necessary to believe in the Bible to be a TRUE Christian? Which begs the question, what then makes the "Bible-believing" Christians different from other true Christians?
Of course, I don't agree with you at all, as all Christians must believe the message of the Bible, as seen through the prism of Christ as taught by the Church and expressed in the books collected by the Church that are in the Bible.
In addition to that true Christians believe in the Holy Trinity and in the Hypostatic union known as Incarnation, in Christ with two wills and two natures, one divine and one human, unconfused and distinct in one Person.
The Church derives its beliefs from Christ's oral teachings, which were later expressed as apostolic writings or scriptures (graqh) of known and unknown authors that comprise the New Testament.
FK: 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.
Why don't you quote Christ instead of quoting Paul quoting the OT and saying it's "Christ?" Christ is quoted as saying God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. [Mat 5:45]
In your book, Paul and Moses trump Christ.
So, obviously, God does not treat everyone equally in all ways. God gives saving grace to whomever He wishes, but not to all men.
Obviously, Christ, even Paul is telling us otherwise. He died for all, and thus offered righteousness to all mankind. Some take it, and some don't. One does not quote the OT to express Christ correctly; one quotes Christ to express the OT correctly. True Christians put Christ first, Paul and Moses second.
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
How naive, FK. The Dead Sea Scrolls, written in the "original language" agree with Septuagint as well as with the Masoretic Text, so the original language was not the issue, even though it may have been used as an excuse.
Judaism was not monolithic, but heterodox. The Samaritans, who are Jews, ethnically and religiously, were treated as such by the Pharisees only when their worship and Tanakh (written in biblical Hebrew) agreed with Pharisaical worship Tanakh version! Otherwise they rejected it, and treated them as non-Jews (one major reason being that the Samaritans don't believe the Temple should be in Jerusalem).
Modern Judaism is a derivative of Pharisaical Judaism that rejected all other forms of Judaism, including that of the Sadducees and the Essenes and Samaritans (until the 18th century). More importantly, Pharisaical Judaism was an enemy of Christ and anything Christian, so the very fact that the New Testament is overwhelmingly based on Septuagint is reason enough for them to throw it out, whether it was written in Greek or not!
And if the theory that Mark wrote his Gospel in Hebrew first is true, why is is not in the Tanakh, except for it being Christian? Can't blame the language in Mark's case.
Now you are saying that Jesus boasted for having resisted evil? That's rather out of character, wouldn't you say?
You MUST have seen the word "recounted" before. It just means "tell", it has nothing to do with "boast". Jesus told them what happened to Him, and they learned from it. When facing evil, think of scripture.
There are other issues with this chapter in Matthew, Luke and Mark. According to one, Jesus was now "full of the Holy Spirit" (cf Luke 4:1). When was Jesus not full of the Holy Spirit? Before Baptism?
These obviously refer to Jesus being 100% human. The account of the baptism says that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him then. However, to complain about this would be like complaining that the Bible says that Jesus ate food because God obviously does not need food. It's a non-issue.
And for what purpose? To be tempted by the devil. And James, which you consider infallible scripture, tells us that God cannot be tempted by evil, and [God] Himself does not tempt anyone (cf James 1:13). So, the only "rational" conclusion is that Jesus must not be God!
The verse says:
James 1:13 : When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
This is clearly referring to the fact that God cannot SUCCUMB to temptation. The Bible is clear that Jesus WAS tempted, but never succumbed. That makes it easier for us to understand that HE understands all the trials we face in our lives.
Obviously, these manuscripts show that Jesus was perceived as human (the "Son of God" part being understood as he Jewish messiah, a human being favored by God, but not divine).
I'm sure some misguided people saw Him like that, but neither the OT, nor the NT teach anything like that. Christ's divinity is revealed to us all over the scriptures.
This was nevertheless necessary because the Old Testament says that God rules the earth, whereas the NT says Satan does!
No, these are separate ideas and do not conflict. satan as ruler of earth is a juxtaposition to God ruling in Heaven. The NT writers were well aware that God is completely sovereign over satan.
I am making a logical inference from what Jesus said, that man does not live by bread alone but on every word from God. You can't live on God's words if you don't know them. I believe the words of God have actual power, and so I want to avail myself of that power by knowing them.
FK: 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.
But this can't be just devotion, FK. You treat the Bible as perfect, complete—by definition, divine because it is the word of God. And anything that comes from God is divine in essence, including His holy words. And that which is divine (in essence) is God and is worshiped.
If everything that comes from God is divine in essence then everything in the world is divine in essence. So, your argument falls apart since no one goes around or believes that anyone should worship everything in God's creation. My devotion is to God's word, not the pages in the Book.
The Bible says the HS will "illuminate the scriptures" to us?!?
Well sure. That's what John 14 means:
John 14:25-26 : 25 "All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
The Holy Spirit does not teach new doctrine but shows us what Jesus has already said. Reminding includes clarification and correction.
FK: One cannot know what or how to pray without first knowing God's word.
Then Abraham could not know how to worship God!
No, he obviously learned about God and how to worship from those who came before him. That was not made up by men but given by God.
First, Christ was a Jew and He taught Judaism, which is works-based.
No, He criticized the Jews who did believe in a works-based model. What did Jesus say the work of God was??? Did Jesus get that one wrong because He suffered from the same error as many others?
Then the faith doesn't come from God, but from the Bible. Yet you believe Paul who says he knew Christ in a flash!
Faith and the Bible BOTH come from God. Paul knowing Christ also came from God. There is no contradiction.
FK: One cannot pray without first receiving God's grace. That grace will lead a believer to want to know God's word.
But a few lines before than you write: "One cannot know what or how to pray without first knowing God's word." So, now it's grace?
First comes grace. Then one learns what to have faith in. Then one has faith. The overall point is that if one prays from "nothing" then it is not going to be heard by God.
But, let's say you receive grace without the word. In other words you believe, right?
No, because what do you believe IN? Grace irresistibly leads to faith. If God sometimes gives enough of His word in a zapping of grace to save someone through immediate faith, then that's fine with me. I just don't see that as the typical case. That's all I mean.
Where does it say in the Bible that, in addition to grace (grace is not sufficient!) we need to read the Bible in order to know what to believe in?
I am not talking about literacy. I am talking about having enough information to know and CONFESS what it is that one believes. That information is contained in God's word, however it is transmitted.
That's not how Noah or Abraham got their faith. That's not how Paul got his either.
There is nothing magical about hearing the word of God. Many hear it and never believe.
Do you understand the meaning of a spiritual gift. I do not refer to an imaginary gift, but a very real gift in our anthropology, which is a different sense of perception other than rationalism or empiricism?
We could say the same thing for lunatics who "see" and "hear" things, even talk to "God." What's the criteria for a "differential diagnosis?"
Prove it that what people believe is from God. Every religion men made up claims the same thing while rejecting the other man's religion as false. The Jews reject Christ; the Christians reject Judaism and Islam; the Muslims reject Christianity and Judaism, etc. yet they all claim their faith is from God.
Some have gift in ministry, where they perceive an explicit right thing to say, at the right place, at the right time, to the right person per God's Plan
What proof do you have that it's "per God's Plan?" Why would an all-knowing God need a plan?
I guess the "spiritual gift" includes some horse trading as well, since some of the controversial books were included by that "spiritual" method, to wit: Revelation and Hebrews.
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.