1 Corinthians 7:12

[Skandelon]

As stated in the original post, my comment was a general statement for all, INCLUDING MYSELF, and NOT directed at any individual. It is very similar to Paul's comment when he wrote:

2 Corinthians 13:5:
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?

Or Jesus when he said:

22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

 

[webdog]

So webdog.
If skan does what I do it is okay....but when i call into question,or post a quote that asks for self examination you whine and cry ...how you are going to report the post or try to censor everyone who does not agree with you.
You spend more than half your posts as a troublemaker, trying to accuse everyone else. Then you attempt to present yourself as pristine in your conduct.....interesting

First...skan did not do what you and Aaraon so casually do...and that is to question the salvation of the non-cal any chance you get. And for your information, I didn't report P4T's post...I can't, he's on my ignore list. It would seem the troublemakers here are the ones questioning the salvation of others openly and violating the rules...not the ones who call them out on this. Don't like it? Then stop doing it.

The other day I offer you a sermon from one of the godliest men alive, and you brush it off with.....I did not read it because it probably agreed with your view?? what do you think...I am going to offer something I think to be error. You act as if it was a surprise
Webdog.....are you here to interact and learn, or just look for things to complain about, and maybe report...
are you the BB police?

I didn't want to discuss a sermon...that seems to be your MO...when dealing with someone just throw out a sermon to listen to...I was interacting with YOU. If you want to interact and learn as you claim, then do it...don't post sermons from those who you agree with. As I said in that thread, that does nothing for the debate. You never addressed my points.

 

[JesusFan]

As I stated in my very first post on this subject. I don't have any problem with people referring to the bible as "God's Words" because I know what they mean. They typically mean that the bible is divinely inspired, God-breathed.

However, when pressed by JF regarding whether it "contains" or "is" God's word I gave further explanation as to the distinction between words spoken by God and words inspired by God to be written in scripture. For example...

"Cast yourself down and angles will attend to you." -Satan
"Don't test the Lord your God." - God

Both of these phrases were inspired by God and thus contained in scripture. But God never uttered the words, "Cast yourself down..." Satan did. The scriptures recorded that encounter in a reliable and authoritative manner--by divine inspiration. But clearly anyone can see the difference in the literal Words of God and those words inspired by God to reliably reveal what someone else did or said, right?

Think that we would be in agreement here on this!
NOT everything recorded was/is accurate in sense of being biblically true, BUT everything written was accrately recorded as was said/written/done!

Also, ALL doctrines written in NT though were and are accrate and truth, regardless IF jesus said it Hilself, or Paul gave his opinion on the matter, as the very nature of Apostolic Inspiration means that just as it in the OT prophets, "Thus sayth the Lord!"

 

[Aaron]

As I stated in my very first post on this subject. I don't have any problem with people referring to the bible as "God's Words" because I know what they mean. They typically mean that the bible is divinely inspired, God-breathed.

However, when pressed by JF regarding whether it "contains" or "is" God's word I gave further explanation as to the distinction between words spoken by God and words inspired by God to be written in scripture. For example...

"Cast yourself down and angles will attend to you." -Satan
"Don't test the Lord your God." - God

Both of these phrases were inspired by God and thus contained in scripture. But God never uttered the words, "Cast yourself down..." Satan did. The scriptures recorded that encounter in a reliable and authoritative manner--by divine inspiration. But clearly anyone can see the difference in the literal Words of God and those words inspired by God to reliably reveal what someone else did or said, right?

Holy vivisection, Batman! And I was accused of splitting hairs?

You're projecting here. I know of no one who has the notion of the Word of God that you're being so careful to prevent. Quite the contrary, they mean exactly what you've expressed here. And this is NOT what you expressed in your now-moved-to-private-forum post on the subject.

 

[Aaron]

NOT everything recorded was/is accurate in sense of being biblically true, BUT everything written was accrately recorded as was said/written/done!

And recorded for our learning. so God is speaking to us through these things.

Also, ALL doctrines written in NT though were and are accrate and truth, regardless IF jesus said it Hilself, or Paul gave his opinion on the matter, as the very nature of Apostolic Inspiration means that just as it in the OT prophets, "Thus sayth the Lord!"

:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Holy vivisection, Batman! And I was accused of splitting hairs?

1. When did I accuse you of splitting hairs?

2. You all (you and P4T) started all this by pouncing on a simple reply to one of JesusFan's many questions about the bible containing God's words or being God's words. I made this simple distinction and you both pounced like lions on their prey with every kind of false accusation and wrong implication you could create. The only "hair splitting" was the ones falling out of my scalp as I read your posts. This is the kind of nonsense that results from people who don't read with some measure of grace and brotherly kindness toward others in the effort to understand rather than demean their view.

You're projecting here. I know of no one who has the notion of the Word of God that you're being so careful to prevent.

I'm not even sure you know what I'm attempting to prevent since clearly you have yet to understand much of anything I say.

I personally believe many believers (generally speaking) fail to really get to know God personally and intimately because they become content only "hearing from Him" in his "word" (scriptures), when the goal is to also hear from The Word Himself through the Spirit. Not that they would ever contradict each other, but the specific guidance and relational aspects of conversing with Him daily is what leads to real intimacy, understanding and love for Father. The relationship moves from reading the text book of the author to having dinner with the author. Both are extremely valuable, but why settle for one when you can have both?

Quite the contrary, they mean exactly what you've expressed here. And this is NOT what you expressed in your now-moved-to-private-forum post on the subject.

I copied and pasted exactly (verbatim) what I wrote in that thread, so that accusation won't fly. Ask any of your Moderator friends to verify if you'd like.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally Posted by Skandelon"Cast yourself down and angles will attend to you." -Satan
"Don't test the Lord your God." - God

Both of these phrases were inspired by God and thus contained in scripture. But God never uttered the words, "Cast yourself down..." Satan did. The scriptures recorded that encounter in a reliable and authoritative manner--by divine inspiration. But clearly anyone can see the difference in the literal Words of God and those words inspired by God to reliably reveal what someone else did or said, right?

Holy vivisection, Batman! And I was accused of splitting hairs?

Plus, wasn't it you that went into that whole explanation as to how the whole bible was God's "utterance" as if you were making the case that God did utter these words of Satan? I think that was one of the post that lead down the so-called "hair splitting" trail, right?

 

[Aaron]

1. When did I accuse you of splitting hairs?

2. You all (you and P4T) started all this by pouncing on a simple reply to one of JesusFan's many questions about the bible containing God's words or being God's words. I made this simple distinction and you both pounced like lions on their prey with every kind of false accusation and wrong implication you could create. The only "hair splitting" was the ones falling out of my scalp as I read your posts. This is the kind of nonsense that results from people who don't read with some measure of grace and brotherly kindness toward others in the effort to understand rather than demean their view.

I'm not even sure you know what I'm attempting to prevent since clearly you have yet to understand much of anything I say.

I personally believe many believers (generally speaking) fail to really get to know God personally and intimately because they become content only "hearing from Him" in his "word" (scriptures), when the goal is to also hear from The Word Himself through the Spirit. Not that they would ever contradict each other, but the specific guidance and relational aspects of conversing with Him daily is what leads to real intimacy, understanding and love for Father. The relationship moves from reading the text book of the author to having dinner with the author. Both are extremely valuable, but why settle for one when you can have both?


I copied and pasted exactly (verbatim) what I wrote in that thread, so that accusation won't fly. Ask any of your Moderator friends to verify if you'd like.

Then it was moved before I saw it. Here is your original statement:

What is wrong with calling scripture, "the scripture?" Call it "God-Breathed," or use terms that it uses for it-self? Why do we need to make up new terms for it? So we can out-Chrisitian the other Christian and look down our noses that them because our term is more Holy than theirs?
I really don't have that much of an issue calling scripture "God's word," because I'm a reasonable person and understand what is probably intended when one says that, but surely even the most "conservative" among us can draw some distinction between the "thus saith the Lord" passages and statements such as "I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment," where Paul gives needed Godly counsel, but does so recognizing there is no direct command of God for it. And the difference between narrative accounts and didactic teachings. And the differences between custom and principle regarding issues such as head coverings. And objectively recognize the uncertainties surrounding variants in older manuscripts such as the Mark passage about handling snakes.
I think these matters should be able to be discussed objectively without the fear of some labeling any questioner as being a heretic who doesn't believe the Bible. Such response reminds me of the three monkeys (see no, hear no, speak no), so they don't have to deal with any difficulty. To me that is not faith, it is just ignorance. (and I'm not saying that about any person here, just in general to mean a "lack of education on the subject")
​

Here's the obvious point of your statement. God-breathed does not mean God said, and some parts of the Scripture have a lesser force and effect than what I consider God's Word. There are some parts of our canon the inspiration of are in doubt. Only eductaed people can appreciate this and know when God is speaking and when He isn't.

Now, naturally your groupies will come to your rescue on this. But seriously, can anyone get anything like what you asserted in this thread from that statement?

 

[Aaron]

Plus, wasn't it you that went into that whole explanation as to how the whole bible was God's "utterance" as if you were making the case that God did utter these words of Satan? I think that was one of the post that lead down the so-called "hair splitting" trail, right?

First, I didn't say you accused me of splitting hairs. That was DHK. I've interacted with him enough to find it hard to believe that he doesn't get up from the computer sometimes sickened at having to feign unity with you in all points because of his vendetta against Calvinism, but I could be wrong.

The Apostle said that God spoke in "diverse manners." That means it wasn't always speech like you're thinking of speech. It means often times in the speech of God's handiwork: the Creation, and in his ruling of the nations and of his ruling of Satan. Does any here really think that Pharoah ruled Egypt?

But look at how Paul treats the words of Sarah in a history:

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
​

Compare this with how Paul treats the words of God in the Law:

For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
​

He calls them both Scripture, and holds them both up as equally authoritative and binding when establishing faith and practice. Sarah's words here are God's words.

But the Scripture does call itself the Word of God. We have a verbatim of Christ saying:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
​

Now we three monkeys can see plainly see that Christ used the terms law, word of God and Scripture interchangably, for nowhere in Moses is it said, "Ye are Gods." It is said in the Psalms.

What then can be the purpose of your statement, other than to undo what we here see Christ and His Apostle doing?

 

[Skandelon]

Then it was moved before I saw it. Here is your original statement:

What is wrong with calling scripture, "the scripture?" Call it "God-Breathed," or use terms that it uses for it-self? Why do we need to make up new terms for it? So we can out-Chrisitian the other Christian and look down our noses that them because our term is more Holy than theirs? ​

When I was writing this I had terms more like "inerrant" (which was mentioned earlier) in mind simply because that term has been such fodder for legalist's and has caused so much unneeded distention, IMO.

I really don't have that much of an issue calling scripture "God's word," because I'm a reasonable person and understand what is probably intended when one says that, but surely even the most "conservative" among us can draw some distinction between the "thus saith the Lord" passages and statements such as "I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment," where Paul gives needed Godly counsel, but does so recognizing there is no direct command of God for it. And the difference between narrative accounts and didactic teachings. And the differences between custom and principle regarding issues such as head coverings. And objectively recognize the uncertainties surrounding variants in older manuscripts such as the Mark passage about handling snakes.
I think these matters should be able to be discussed objectively without the fear of some labeling any questioner as being a heretic who doesn't believe the Bible. Such response reminds me of the three monkeys (see no, hear no, speak no), so they don't have to deal with any difficulty. To me that is not faith, it is just ignorance. (and I'm not saying that about any person here, just in general to mean a "lack of education on the subject")

Here's the obvious point of your statement. God-breathed does not mean God said

Right, which you seemed to concede just a bit ago with your batman exclamation and your accusal of "hair-splitting."

and some parts of the Scripture have a lesser force and effect than what I consider God's Word.

I'm treading carefully here for a few reasons. I'm not sure what YOU mean by "force and effect" and "God's Word." Are you meaning what God has said or what God has inspired to be reliably recorded, or both? Sure there are different ways in which we apply narratives versus didactic texts. The story of David and Goliath certainly has a greater appeal to most than the begets, as an example. Is that a shock to anyone? They serve different purposes. One may be inform and another inspire and yet another instruct or advise, but all of it is profitable, reliable and authoritative.

There are some parts of our canon the inspiration of are in doubt.

It is a matter of fact regarding certain manuscripts missing parts or having different additional parts than other sometimes older or more reliable manuscripts. So what? My faith is in the author, not merely his book. Why is it that we are fine to admit God's chosen messengers (David, Paul, Peter etc) were full of flaws and yet were entrusted to carry God's message, but somehow can't stand someone suggesting that the book God produced using these messengers might have some typos along the way? The message is what matters, and that has been preserved and is sufficient to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent...which is NOT for it to be dissected, analyzed and idolized, but for it to lead us into relationship with the WORD, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! He is the one we need to be analyzing and idolizing. Yes, the scriptures help with that, no doubt, but they are not the end in and of themselves... That was my point.

Only eductaed people can appreciate this and know when God is speaking and when He isn't.

Quite the opposite. Some of the least educated people I know (in regard to theological concepts, etc) have the greatest knowledge of the Word (Christ). My point is that you can know the Word without owning a bible...just ask many of the believers in closed countries who can't have the scriptures. Generations of believers didn't have the bible yet many were very intimate in their knowledge of the Word (Christ.)

We, humans, always have a tendency to worship the created over the Creator...ALWAYS. That's as true in Baptist bible-believing circles as it was in OT times. We idolize the gifts God gives us which were given to lead us into intimacy and relationship with Him and others, but instead are used as a substitute for God and as a stick with which we beat others.

Sometimes is easier to relate to a tangible book that we can define, systematize and hold in our small hands, than to step into a radical, dangerous, sometimes unpredictable journey with a Father who can't be defined or contained. I know because, that's me! I fight that tendency daily, and having tasted of both worlds I'm just not content staying where I am. That is just me...I'm not "projecting" anything. Read into what ever you want...

 

[DHK]

First, I didn't say you accused me of splitting hairs. That was DHK. I've interacted with him enough to find it hard to believe that he doesn't get up from the computer sometimes sickened at having to feign unity with you in all points because of his vendetta against Calvinism, but I could be wrong.

I wouldn't call it a vendetta, but a healthy disagreement. I don't agree with Skan on everything. Sometimes when a person digs a hole for themselves it is better to let them climb out of it themselves (just a general statement). Often I am silent in conversations until I find an appropriate time.

The Apostle said that God spoke in "diverse manners." That means it wasn't always speech like you're thinking of speech. It means often times in the speech of God's handiwork: the Creation, and in his ruling of the nations and of his ruling of Satan. Does any here really think that Pharoah ruled Egypt?

God spoke in divers manners: audibly to Samuel; in dreams and visions to Daniel; in person to Abraham; in a theophany to Jacob, and also in a vision; out of a burning bush to Moses. He spoke in diverse manners--in different ways. Those were just some of them.
Did Pharaoh rule Egypt? Absolutely! God sets up governments and God takes them down. He allows the rulers to rule. Read Romans 13:1-6

But look at how Paul treats the words of Sarah in a history:

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.​

Paul's instruction; Paul's inspired words.
​

Compare this with how Paul treats the words of God in the Law:

For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
​

He calls them both Scripture, and holds them both up as equally authoritative and binding when establishing faith and practice. Sarah's words here are God's words.

Paul's instruction as Paul quotes Scripture. It is still God's inspired Word.

But the Scripture does call itself the Word of God. We have a verbatim of Christ saying:

Go back and read a previous post of mine. I posted many verses where the Scriptures do indeed call themselves the "Word of God."

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Now we three monkeys can see plainly see that Christ used the terms law, word of God and Scripture interchangably, for nowhere in Moses is it said, "Ye are Gods." It is said in the Psalms.

Doesn't this contradict what you just said. Jesus himself referred to Scripture as the Word of God.

 

[Skandelon]

DHK, the only hole was the one dug by those who would rather sling mud than understand simple but clear distinctions regarding God's actual utterances and that which He inspired to be reliably and authoritatively recorded in scripture. A distinction for which Aaron later (after much ridicule, demeaning and subversion) dismissed as mere "hair-splitting."

After all your experience with such things I would think you would notice the difference.

 

[Skandelon]

I posted many verses where the Scriptures do indeed call themselves the "Word of God."

Yet is also says, ""Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." 8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

There are many kinds of words recorded in the scripture, all of which are inspired by God and thus fully reliable, authoritative and profitable in every way. Some are the "Words of God" (His actual utterances) and others "words of prophecy," "proverbs," "wisdom," "historical narrative" etc. Yes, again, they are all inspired (God-breathed), but it just appears to me that scripture reserves the actual title "Word of God" for his actual utterances, of which Christ was the fulfillment and full manifestation of such. Is that distinction clear when scripture refers to parts of itself in which God's actual utterances are indeed recorded? Maybe not, but I think common sense (what some might call hair splitting) shows us that there indeed are some distinctions worth drawing within scripture.

 

[DHK]

Yet is also says, ""Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." 8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

There are many kinds of words recorded in the scripture, all of which are inspired by God and thus fully reliable, authoritative and profitable in every way. Some are the "Words of God" (His actual utterances) and others "words of prophecy," "proverbs," "wisdom," "historical narrative" etc. Yes, again, they are all inspired (God-breathed), but it just appears to me that scripture reserves the actual title "Word of God" for his actual utterances, of which Christ was the fulfillment and full manifestation of such. Is that distinction clear when scripture refers to parts of itself in which God's actual utterances are indeed recorded? Maybe not, but I think common sense (what some might call hair splitting) shows us that there indeed are some distinctions worth drawing within scripture.

The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. (2 Timothy 4:13)
--Concerning the books and parchments, Barnes says this:

And the books. It is impossible to determine what books are meant here. They may have been portions of the Old Testament, or classic writings, or books written by other Christians, or by himself. It is worthy of remark, that even Paul did not travel without books, and that he found them in some way necessary for the work of the ministry.

Especially the parchments. The word here used, (membranoV, whence our word membrane,) occurs only in this place in the New Testament, and means skin, membrane, or parchment. Dressed skins were among the earliest materials for writing, and were in common use before the art of making paper from rags was discovered. These "parchments" seem to have been something different from "books," and, probably, refer to some of his own writings. They may have contained notes, memorandums, journals, or unfinished letters. It is, of course, impossible now to determine what they were. Benson supposes they were letters which he had received from the churches; Macknight, that they were the originals of the letters which he had written; Bishop Bull, that they were a kind of common-place book, in which he inserted hints and extracts of the most remarkable passages in the authors which he read. All this, however, is mere conjecture.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: (2 Peter 3:2)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

The Bible has many names or titles, not just Scripture. Perhaps I am not understanding what you are trying to get across.

 

[Iconoclast]

Webdog,

I didn't want to discuss a sermon...that seems to be your MO...when dealing with someone just throw out a sermon to listen to...I was interacting with YOU. If you want to interact and learn as you claim, then do it...don't post sermons from those who you agree with. As I said in that thread, that does nothing for the debate. You never addressed my points

Yes....I do offer a sermon or article very often. These men who preach or write what i offer to you are extremely gifted men.
I have met all of these men for the most part,spoken with them, corresponded with them. I ask questions then shut and listen...because they are way beyond me in every way......
While I am not opposed to personal interaction.....I tried once to meet for coffee/discussion/fellowship.....I am not nearly as knowledgeable as most any of these men... why would you pass up on them...to wait and see what I had??
These men have forgotten more than I will know in this life...
WD.....I drive 70 hours a week......I get to listen to dozens of sermons each week....I feel guilty if i do not pass on what i have found.
Most of the current living Pastors I post from...have been in the ministry for 30-40 years...they are not novices...and are loaded with bible, fully Christ centered......I would like it better if you would read the articles, or give a listen to those who are more knowlegeable and graceful in declaring truth.
I always try to address your points...unless you post an absurdity...what point do you feel I missed....I will get it later on tonight, turning east bound tonight...Give me the post number..i will get back to you {with my own thoughts,as per your request]
I will say this...if it is on james 1 ....I think you are off on the passage....
I just read Thomas Manton on that today to check on myself...
Anyone I read, or anywhere I look, i see no one at all who has come up with your idea......{thats why I said...webdogism} can you name one person, or sermon, or article, who has understood it as you do?
They all say it is about the progress and practice of sin...all of them say it.

 

[Aaron]

I wouldn't call it a vendetta, but a healthy disagreement. I don't agree with Skan on everything. Sometimes when a person digs a hole for themselves it is better to let them climb out of it themselves (just a general statement). Often I am silent in conversations until I find an appropriate time.

God spoke in divers manners: audibly to Samuel; in dreams and visions to Daniel; in person to Abraham; in a theophany to Jacob, and also in a vision; out of a burning bush to Moses. He spoke in diverse manners--in different ways. Those were just some of them.
Did Pharaoh rule Egypt? Absolutely! God sets up governments and God takes them down. He allows the rulers to rule. Read Romans 13:1-6

Paul's instruction; Paul's inspired words.
[/INDENT]Paul's instruction as Paul quotes Scripture. It is still God's inspired Word.

Go back and read a previous post of mine. I posted many verses where the Scriptures do indeed call themselves the "Word of God."

Doesn't this contradict what you just said. Jesus himself referred to Scripture as the Word of God.​

Who on God's green earth are you arguing with? It's Scandal who said the Scriptures aren't the Word of God, and who also said that the Scriptures do not call themselves the word of God, and that we are erroneously referring to them as the word of God.

What statement in my post are you taking issue with? It appears you and I are saying the same thing.

Scripture = the Word of God.​

 

[DHK]

Who on God's green earth are you arguing with? It's Scandal who said the Scriptures aren't the Word of God, and who also said that the Scriptures do not call themselves the word of God, and that we are erroneously referring to them as the word of God.

What statement in my post are you taking issue with? It appears you and I are saying the same thing.

Scripture = the Word of God.

Both.
I was in agreement with some of it; and disagreed with some of it.
It's late. I hope your not too confused.

 

[Aaron]

Does anyone other than Scandal's groupies find my post confusing? Does it sound to you as if I am saying that the Scriptures are not the word of God? Or does it sound only that way to DHK?

 

[JesusFan]

When I was writing this I had terms more like "inerrant" (which was mentioned earlier) in mind simply because that term has been such fodder for legalist's and has caused so much unneeded distention, IMO.

Why would the question IF one held that the Bible in inerrant be a "legalist" question though?
You do hold that ALL of the Canon of scripture is divinely inspired, and fully accurate in both was was recorded down, and accurate in all its details , don't you?

Since Jesus/Apostles/OT writers saw their scriptures as being inerrant and infallible?

Right, which you seemed to concede just a bit ago with your batman exclamation and your accusal of "hair-splitting."

I'm treading carefully here for a few reasons. I'm not sure what YOU mean

by "force and effect" and "God's Word." Are you meaning what God has said or what God has inspired to be reliably recorded, or both? Sure there are different ways in which we apply narratives versus didactic texts. The story of David and Goliath certainly has a greater appeal to most than the begets, as an example. Is that a shock to anyone? They serve different purposes. One may be inform and another inspire and yet another instruct or advise, but all of it is profitable, reliable and authoritative

.

ALL of the Bible though is equally inspired by God, some sections more valuable/important to us, but ALL came from God, and would say that regardless where found, Jesus said something is SAME weight as others saying it, IF matter of biblical doctrines!

seems that you keep "looking" fro the means to have a "limited inerrancy" bible, IF Jesus said it, or about Jesus Himself the wriiting, than "fully inspired" compared to rest of the Scriptures!

It is a matter of fact regarding certain manuscripts missing parts or having different additional parts than other sometimes older or more reliable manuscripts.  So what?  My faith is in the author, not merely his book.  Why is it that we are fine to admit God's chosen messengers (David, Paul, Peter etc) were full of flaws and yet were entrusted to carry God's message, but somehow can't stand someone suggesting that the book God produced using these messengers might have some typos along the way?  The message is what matters, and that has been preserved and is sufficient to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent...which is NOT for it to be dissected, analyzed and idolized, but for it to lead us into relationship with the WORD, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!  He is the one we need to be analyzing and idolizing.  Yes, the scriptures help with that, no doubt, but they are not the end in and of themselves...  That was my point.

Do you hold that the original manuscripts were 100% accurate and 100% error free?

Quite the opposite. Some of the least educated people I know (in regard to theological concepts, etc) have the greatest knowledge of the Word (Christ). My point is that you can know the Word without owning a bible...just ask many of the believers in closed countries who can't have the scriptures. Generations of believers didn't have the bible yet many were very intimate in their knowledge of the Word (Christ.)

We, humans, always have a tendency to worship the created over the Creator...ALWAYS. That's as true in Baptist bible-believing circles as it was in OT times. We idolize the gifts God gives us which were given to lead us into intimacy and relationship with Him and others, but instead are used as a substitute for God and as a stick with which we beat others.

Sometimes is easier to relate to a tangible book that we can define, systematize and hold in our small hands, than to step into a radical, dangerous, sometimes unpredictable journey with a Father who can't be defined or contained. I know because, that's me! I fight that tendency daily, and having tasted of both worlds I'm just not content staying where I am. That is just me...I'm not "projecting" anything. Read into what ever you want...

Not worshipping the Bible, just seeing IF you hold in same regards as the Lord and His Apostles did!

 

[Skandelon]

Scripture = the Word of God.

As I said IN THE FIRST POST on this subject, I don't take issue with this general statement because I know the intent. I simply drew the distinctions (based on JF's specific questions) regarding God's actual utterances and that which He inspired to be written. So, while I would accept your equation, if pressed (as I was), I would make this distinction:

Scripture = God's Inspired words...[Which includes: God's utterances (the fulness of which was in Christ), Prophecies, begets, historical narratives, Proverbs, didactic teaching, commands, concessions, etc etc.] You dismissed these distinctions as "hair-splitting" but none-the-less they are distinct and thus worthy of mentioning when asked.