Biblical Authority

ddavis wrote:
> daniel, how can you trust Christ as your saviour, if you don't trust the words he left for you to come to know him by?

Jesus didn't write anything.

> because without those words that you say can't be trusted you would know nothing of the saviour that you claim.

And yet the words we have received are sufficient.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt; If you don't accept all scripture as reliable, how do you decide which ones are and which ones are not?

Christ criterion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is? And how do you know?


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt; And, quite frankly, who gave you or anyone else the right to decide for anyone including yourself which parts are true and which are not?

Paul.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to explain this obsurd statement?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt; Please cite the scripture that says you can disregard anything that does not make sense to you or makes you feel bad.

""Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you're basing a doctrine on Paul's repetition of a common phrase, you need a basic course in hermeneutics. And why base anything on the BIble at all when you make it clear it is untrustworthy?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt; What kind of pride brings someone to the point where they feel justified in creating their own God? You get to say what He is, is not, did, didn't do, thinks, feels, will do, etc.

Ask the bibliolaters.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't know any, so can't ask them. But the anthropolaters may have more to say on this than anyone.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt; If it wasn't for an infallable Word how would you know of Jesus?
Through a non-infallable Word.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How could you know?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt; because without those words that you say can't be trusted you would know nothing of the saviour that you claim.

And yet the words we have received are sufficient.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why? What makes them more trustworthy than the phone book? The Koran? The book of Mormon? The rules of golf?

 

" Sanctify them thru thy word; thy word is truth " John 17:17

 

Daniel, A.K.A. Mile-long-name wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I challenge anyone on this thread who believes that the Bible is completely perfect to give evidence to back up that claim (hopefully scriptural evidence since that is what you claim to base your doctrine on). I know the scriptures inerrantists use when defending their doctrine, but none of them really say the Bible is inerrant. It is a completely man-made doctrine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why bother? You ask for evidence but then in the next sentences say you will dismiss any and all evidence. How closed minded is that???

 

Mr Curtis
Was this your answer to Daniels question or mine from above?
Russell

 

I had to go back & read thru the thread...

My answer was to Daniel Payne, but this is a fruitless argument. You either believe the Bible is all you need for salvation, or you dont. I do.

 

Mr Curtis
So you believe all you need to be saved is a Bible?

 

All you need is a relationship with jesus. Everything you need to know about Jesus, & how to have a relationship with him is in the Bible. Everything God wants me to know about him & how he has preserved his word, & kept his promises, & gave us salvation if we want it, is in the Bible.

And Marcion...the words I posted were from Jesus Christ, in the garden, praying for us...

What else could I need ? Why do you think my salvation isn't complete ?

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
I challenge anyone on this thread who believes that the Bible is completely perfect to give evidence to back up that claim (hopefully scriptural evidence since that is what you claim to base your doctrine on). I know the scriptures inerrantists use when defending their doctrine, but none of them really say the Bible is inerrant. It is a completely man-made doctrine. I'll be waiting....

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I challenge you to give evidence for your faith in Christ, your salvation. Remember, you cannot use scripture. It may not be an accurate portion.

Perhaps everything you believe is a man-made doctrine... how do you know that the feelings you must be relying upon are not some "undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato" as Scrooge put it.

You have decided not to believe BEFORE the evidence is presented; demanding proof from scriptures that you deny say what they say to start with.

I will ask again. What do you believe? And what foundation do you have for what you believe? If it scripture, I will ask again which parts are accurate and who decides? Without reliance on scripture, you are creating a god of your liking just as surely as the pagans.

 

The fundamentalists claim they believe the Bible is inerrant and literally true. But the fundamentalists in this thread are doing exactly what they claim the liberals/moderates are doing. They're just applying their own standards to the presupposed interpretation of prooftexts to which they hold. It's an old argument, and I heard it every Sunday from my preacher.

If the Bible is perfect, totally without error and verbally and plenary inspired, then explain the following:

II Chronicles 2:14 vs I Kings 7:14
I Kings 8:9 and II Chronicles 5:10 vs Hebrews 9:4
II Chronicles 9:25 vs I Kings 4:26
The numerical discrepancies in the reported numbers of returnees in the clans in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7
II Samuel 24:1 where God commands David to take the census, versus I Chronicles 21:1 which says Satan told David to take the census.
II Samuel 24:9 says David has 800,000 warriors in Israel and 500,000 warriors in Judah but I Chronicles 21:5 says David had 1,100,000 warriors in Israel and 470,000 warriors in Judah.
Did King Saul know Jesse and David, as I Samuel 16:20-23 asserts? If so, then why does I Samuel 17:55-58 state that King Saul did not know who David or his father were?
II Samuel 24:13 says David's punishment for taking the census of Israel was seven years of famine. But I Chronicles 21:12 says the punishment was three years.
II Samuel 24:24 says David paid 50 silver coins for the threshing floor of Araunah. But I Chronicles 21:25 says he paid 600 gold coins for it.

And answer a few of these questions:

How is it that God, who cannot look upon sin, can send an evil spirit? (I Samuel 16:23)
Is spitting in your daughters face a morally acceptable paternal practice? (Numbers 12:13-14) If you believe the Bible is literally true and inerrant, then tell me when the last time was that you spit in your daughter's face?
Exodus 21:20-21 recognizes a slave as his master's property. How many of you fundamentalists out there own slaves? If you do, and you decide to beat your slave, be careful so as not to cause his immediate death. If you do that, you will have to be punished, but if the slave can hang on for a couple of days, well, that's OK because he's your slave.
II Kings 2:23-24, 42 children are slaughered for calling Elisha a bald head. What kind of a prophet of God would curse a few boys who are calling him names? Couldn't he have a little more of the love of God in his heart? Have you warned your children not to call your preacher names, lest they be thrown into a bear pit? If they did call your preacher a name, would you throw them into a bear pit?
Explain Psalm 137:9 and how you would literally apply that.
Deutoronomy 21:18-21 says that disobedient sons are to be stoned. So, how many children do you all have left?

These are just a few of the many, many questions raised regarding the nature of the Bible as scripture. The Bible does have authority in matters of faith, because it is a progressive revelation. But it is only sufficient, not complete. The Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, is an illumination of revelation that is complete (Luke 24:49).

If you believe in a literal interpretation of an inerrant, infallible Bible, then you must find a way to twist and turn and reinvent and change and explain all of the above mentioned questions and more. But if you accept the fact that the Bible is progressive historical reflection and revelation of people as they learned more and more about God, up to his appearance in the flesh as Jesus, you have a reliable testimony to God's existence, power and salvation and you don't have to do all that confusing and inconsistent application and interpretation.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: kwob02 ]

 

I have asked why my the liberals on this board don't think my salvation is complete, but have recieved no answer. I know it's valentines day & all, but your above questions are nit-picky little things that could be explained away, if I was willing to look up every reference.

You answer my question first, & then I'll dedicate the 3 or 4 hours it will take to answer yours.

If you can't count on God to preserve his word, then why would you count on him for anything ?

 

Explained away! Exactly my point. There are the difficulties, right there for all to see. These are just a few. To explain every example like this, you'd have to invent an awful lot of stuff, because there are over 200 of these "nit picky" details.

A perfect Bible would have no "nit picky" details that needed to be "explained away". And what authority would you have to "explain" anything?

You, Mr. Curtis, have just perfectly characterized fundamentalism in a nutshell. If you can't resolve it, don't wrestle with it, or dialogue with it, or even think about it. Just put it from your mind by sealing off those Christians who do want to think about it by inventing some bad thing to call them, or just say that since they don't believe the way you believe they're either "not the elect," "not predestined", or just plain "liberal" because liberal = bad. Then just "explain it all away".

Oh, this is all so familiar. I almost feel like I am back in my old home church, it sounds all the same. Come to Sunday School and don't forget to check your brains at the door because all the thinking has been done for you by the preacher.

 

You still haven't even attempted to answer my question. So I'll ask it again. Why is my salvation not complete ? Layman's terms please, remember I'm the ignorant fundie.

 

It would just be my humble opinion, but I would guess that your salvation is not complete because you are still here, unless you are posting from heaven.

Also, do you speak in tongues? If you don't then your salvation is not complete. See Mark 16:17-18. Also includes picking up poisonous snakes and healings.

 

Are you sure you are a Baptist ?

 

O.K. Mr. Curtis, you and I are on here at the same time. Good evening, sir. Couldn't figure out at first why your posts kept popping up.

Actually, I am not sure I will remain a Baptist. I'm a member of a fundamental Baptist church, but I have not attended a Baptist church for more than 10 years, in fact, after a couple of years at BJU and TTU, I dropped out of church altogether. My membership is still there, but my experiences in that church and at the two so-called "Bible colleges" weren't good, and I stayed away from church.

That wasn't good, and some events in the recent past led my wife (who was not ever really raised in church at all) and I to seek out a new fellowship of Christians. We're looking around. Right now, we attend a small Episcopal church but we are open to finding a good one regardless of the label, except I do not think I could ever go back to a fundamental Baptist congregation, and I'm not sure any kind of Baptist church would be the right place.

So technically, yes, I am a Baptist. And the passage I gave you was just an example, not necessarily what I believe, though there it is and if you accept an inerrant, infallible, literal Bible, well, you have to deal with that statement now, don't you?

 

See, this is why it is impossible to dialogue with liberals. They have their minds made up already and no amount of evidence or dialogue matters to them. It's a chasing after the wind, because they believe they have transcended dialogue and objectivity. Why bother? It's like trying to skate in front of a Russian Olympic judge

 

I see a whole lot more dialogue here involving people you call "liberals" than there is among the "we already have our minds made up we're right you're wrong and nothing is going to move us from our conviction of our own interpretation" fundamentalists.

I grew up in a fundamentalist church and there was absolutely NO room for dialogue of any kind. If you disagreed with the resident authority and their literal Bible thumping, you were speaking from the devil and needed to have that evil spirit beat out of you. It was cruelty beyond believe, with the love of Jesus so far away it could never be seen.

I absolutely LOVE the people in the Episcopal church, particularly the one I am attending at the moment because they are real Christians and they show the love of Christ in everything they do. Their acceptance of my wife and I has been unconditional, which is a far cry from anything I ever saw in a Baptist church or a Bible college. And I see the same thing right here on this board. The fundamentalists are unrelenting in their insistence that they have some kind of inside track on the gospel that no one else has. You all sound like a bunch of Calvinists who think you're the elect and everyone else is going to hell regardless. And while I probably will not remain a Baptist, I know enough about what Baptists are supposed to be to know that is not a Baptist belief or characteristic.