Posted on 12/08/2011 2:01:52 PM PST by OneVike
The problem with interpreting this without the bible is that God's "law"....the one that he puts into our hearts and minds....become entirely subjective without a basis in scripture.
In fact modern Christianity has already done this. They've decided to interpret God's law as basically whatever we want.
Scripture IS needed today because the world is under the sway of Satan. In the future, when Satan is put away and Christ rules physically all governments then scripture MIGHT not be needed but that's only because God himself will be there to teach.
Since writing was the way Scripture were preserved for those not an eye witness to the events described and since its survival in the face the greatest campaigns against it, it would seem the Bible has the necessity for Christianity.
Perhaps another means of transmitting that Word of God would work but a written word is what was directed, Christianity and God’s Word are parts of a whole not just close friends.
Without a Bible, would we be Christians?
Holy Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God and is inseparable from Christianity.
Respectfully, Doug’s argument begins with a false premise and is therefore falsified.
Amadeo
Holy Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God and is inseparable from Christianity.
Respectfully, Doug’s argument begins with a false premise and is therefore falsified.
Amadeo
What would you do, if you had no Bible, and you met a stranger. You would use your memory of what you learned from reading the word, which is understandable.
No the Bible does not make it Christianity, Christ does, and without Him it would be Judaism. The Bible is not God, the Bible tells His story. John said that there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
So does the fact that all of the things Christ did was not all written down make God incomplete if the Bible is God? No, because the Bible is not God. I agree it is the best tool we have available to us, but there could come a time when we as Christians do not have it. If so then how miserable we would be if we cannot reach the lost without it?
Think of a scenario that would put you in a place without the Bible, and you could not give it or read from it to reach others.
Are you saying you could not save that individual? God is the one who said, “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts”, not me.
Either he can reach the lost without the Bible, or he cannot, and we all know the truth. God does not need the Bible to reach us. We need it to understand Him. remember, He can and did grow the church without the Bible.
But I do understand you take, and that was my first take until i thought it through.
Hey editor, my friend is a good Christian. However, as a professor of apologetics, he finds himself doing these sort of mental gymnastics to sharpen his ability to fight the good fight and to reach the Dawkins of the world. Plus he is thinking of writing another book.
No you need to read some history.
I have the luxury of the Scriptures to make a point to prove the Scriptures are not needed to win souls. After all, whet did they win souls by for the first 300 years?
The first 300 years had the books of the NT already in place. Your are dating them far too late.
In short, you need the Bible.
Take the Bible out, and the theology will start falling apart. Look at history, and what happens when a church or denomination leaves the Bible. It will (not may) start embracing all sorts of things, and very quickly leave God.
It is a Rule and curb for the Faith.
A very thought provoking question! It is too hard for to conceive not having a Bible in our lfe time. I have been a Christian since May 1953 (about 58 years).
In my younger years I did not avail myself in a consistant study and memory of God’s word.
My wife and children have always had access to the Bible, so I think it hard to visualize living the Christian life, having never had access to the word of God.
My knowledge of God, and His soverngity,teach me He lead Holy men to write and publish His word, and we are blessed in our time to have it available.
Jesus taught: “To whom little is given little is required, and to whom much is given, much is required,”
I’m now nearing 78 years, and I just shut down my TV cable, and had my computer off. This gave me time to refresh my Bible memory work.
I do not want to boast, but I have 30+ plus random verses rememberized. How refreshing,its restoring, how cleansing and how restoring it is of the Spirit.
I started with Psalm 119:9,10&11, then Psalm 150:6; Proverbs 16:6, 16:25; Then Isaiah 1:18, and Isaiah 53:6,then Proverbs 16:6 and 15:25(just to give you an idea of such memory work).
Let me recommend every believer do the same!
Not at all. You failed to give a reasonable answer for your disagreement, and then you added an insult to one’s intelligence and faith.
My point was they were not agreed upon as to what the canon would be as to which letters were divine and which were not.
I know history, but you need to use proper reading comprehension because I never said they were written in 300.
However, the vast majority of Christians never read, nor had them read to them by the time they were gathered together for the canon.
98% of the Roman Empires population could not even read in the year 300.
It sounds like your friend Doug thinks he can be a Christian without the Bible. Yes?
Perhaps it is your reading comprehension that is the problem.
They were circulated and read to the early churches far earlier than 300 AD.
I agree with you. We should all avail ourselves to putting the Scriptures to memory as much as we can.
Also, again you make a good point about to whom much is given, much is expected.
We are given His word in a language we can understand. We live in a time when we have archeology proving the existence of times and people of the Scriptures. Oh how much more we will answer for our inability to share what we do know to be true.
My point of all this is exactly what you say. We need to put the bible in our minds and make sure it is part of our daily life. I say so because one day we may not have it so available. One day soon, it could become hate speech and become as detested by the masses of secularists as Mein Kampf is to Jews, and Germans.
So the question is a relevant one, and I must ad, that I am not all shocked at the reaction to the very thought.
No, you are another one who failed to read the whole article. Otherwise you would not say that.
I know it is long, but you can at least read the last paragraph which is his conclusion. Read it then get back to me and say that again.
“However, the vast majority of Christians never read, nor had them read to them by the time they were gathered together for the canon”
And you know this how?
The canon for the most part was well known and accepted by the end of the second century. One need only look at what was quoted and collected as Scripture.
The last part of the conclusion is a wordy way of saying what was said earlier:
“For even if we give up the entire Bible, Christianity remains.”
This is typical of the pseudo-intellectual clap-trap that says the Word of God is subservient to a hierarchy instead of the reverse.
No it isn’t. He is saying that Christianity survives because Christ survives. He is also stating that if you have trouble defending the Bible against those with minds like Dawkins, then maybe you should try defending the movement that produced the Bible as proof of Christ instead.
You probably also have a problem with the statement that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. After all there is more credit given to the blood of the Saints for building the church than the word of God.
What does he say about Holy Tradition?
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.