Biblical Authority

Well I made it about 2 paragraphs & I wanted to barf. 2 thumbs down....way down.

 

The point he is trying to make is that the Bible can't be the only authority in a Christians life. That was plain in the first few sentences. I don't need to read anymore.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
.. you didn't get to read any of the points he makes.

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What exactly are his points? I read that "the classic conservative view has created considerable interpretive problems,"
but I failed to see any concrete evidence that would back up this statement, and , quite frankly, fail to see the point of the article.

 

From the article: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As Dr. Rhodes puts it: "the authority of Scripture cannot be separated from the authority of God. Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms... that revelation is authoritative - just as authoritative as the One who gave it." Liberals do not and can not believe this, because in our view it simply is not true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the crux of the argument. There is a predisposition to distrust God and His revelation of Himeslf, or even the very notion that God can and would reveal Himself. Since Liberals openly assume this, then all bets are off.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> God's will to human beings. It does not do this by being the literal, verbally inspired, perspicuous and historically reliable Word of the divine, nor by being the only source of divine revelation to us. Instead, the Bible takes authority for Christians in spite of the fact that it is the limited, human expression of people; it assumes authority for us because it was written by people of faith who have passed on their faith as people of faith. They have given us their faith-filled understanding of themselves, their times, their people, and most importantly, of God. Our own experience of the enduring "truth" of their testimony is what renders the words of the Bible the Word of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do we know this? Why should we assume this? This is an assumption in its entirety. Why should we assume that the faith-filled people gave us something worth adhering to if God cannot be trusted to do the same?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our mission is not to "preach the bible", per se, but to preach Christ. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why is Christ and the Bible assumed to be in opposition to one another? This is often argued in liberal circles but never really articulated reasonably.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The classic fundamentalist proof-text which they believe supports the idea that the Bible is infallible actually says only that all scripture is inspired, and it makes the claim that the purpose of inspired scripture is to help prepare people for faith in Jesus as the Christ. It has no other purpose. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To divorce inspiration from infallibility is a fallacy. And this is exegesis at its worst regarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This means that we are not to preach moral messages interpreted simply from the stories of the Old Testament, or say things like "Abraham was rich, so Christians can be rich." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll buy that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The common practice among Conservatives is to regard every scriptural reference to God's Law or to God's Word as being a reference to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. This view suggests that an ancient psalmist or wisdom writer, who was writing of the glories and wisdom of God's Word way back in the 10th century B.C. was in fact referring to your King James Version Bible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Red herring.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This view is held in spirte of the fact that the passage being considered might in fact have been written some 300 years before the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronom -- no, it was not all or even mostly written by Moses, for it always refers to him in third person, does not identify its own author, and an account of his burial is found at its end). Besides being preposterous, this position is destructive to faith, because it denies and limits our understanding of the meaning of scripture. As many have quipped, "God gave you a brain, use it". The prophets and wisdom books frequently speak of the Law or of God's Word, or of Wisdom herself as an ineffable divine reality which is learned from God directly, not only by studying ancient scripture, but through prophets and teachers and people of knowledge. Therefore, we must reject out of hand the list of several scores of Biblical references to the "perfection" of God's Word or God's Law. These references do not support a 20th century protestant doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>An assertion without proof. If this "logic" is to be followed, then we cannot claim the OT points to Christ since obviously Christ came long after the prophecies were made....oops, wait, many liberals DO claim that don't they
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A better way, a spiritual and true way for us to understand ancient references to this ineffable spiritual reality, God's Word, is to realize that as Christians, we inherit a tradition which understands Jesus Christ to be God's living WORD made into flesh. (John chapter 1). We do not believe that the psalmists knew that they were referring to Jesus hundreds of years before his birth, we simply believe and recognize for ourselves, after "encountering" God's Word in the life of Jesus, and recognizing in faith that God speaks to us through Jesus, that Christ is a perfect representation of the very Word which has always inspired the prophets of God.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not a better way, just an anti-supernatural way, an existential way filled with subjectivly flawed reasoning.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But ultimately, God's word is external to scriptures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Direct inconsistency. Earlier the writer claimed the Bible contained God's Word. Now, the Word of God is outside the Scriptures. Which is it?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Scriptures are SIGNS ONLY, SIGNS WHICH POINT TO CHRIST.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And according to the author, untrustworthy ones at that. Not compelling.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If we preach the scriptures as the final, exclusive, inerrant and literal Word of God, then we in fact deny Christ, we deny the reality of the holy spirit, which inspired the prophets, which annointed Jesus in his life, and which is always present with us calling us into relationship with God. Instead, in preaching the Bible as the Word, we tread into legalism, literalism, and the preaching of the written code... something Paul warned about strenuously. We cannot preach a written code, but only the spirit of Christ, for "the written code kills, but the spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sheer nonsense and prejudice. And does anyone else think it's amusing when liberals strip all the truthfulness away from Scripture then appeal to a text to prove something, when by their own assertions Scripture cannot be trusted?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There can be no credible claim that the Bible is anything but a human document. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sheer prejudice based on ad-hominem

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Far from being "simple" or "clear", the bible's significance for individual modern lives depends entirely on perspectives and subjective factors brought by the readers to the text. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, guys - you don't have to be faithful to your wives just because the Bible teaches it: bring your subjectivity to that text. Hey KKK: you don't have to repent of your racism - bring your subjectivity to the Bible.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Even if the Protestant Bible did claim its own infallibility in one or more verses of scripture, which it does not, such fact would not change the overall thrust of the Bible's own concepts of fallible human being, nor would it scuttle the obvious purpose of the Christian use of the Bible, which is to preach Christ, nor would it contradict the obvious and Biblical fact that Christ represents a re-evaluation of the whole idea of the legal and scriptural tradition itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since the contradictions here are so obvious (and pathetic), let's wrap this up. I suspect you get the point. More could be said, but why bother?

 

Personally, if I had problems with "some" of the scriptures; (not believing that it was the word of God), then I would have a very, very hard time believing any of it. After all, if part of it is a lie, why should you trust the rest?
Sorry, MarciontheModerateBaptist, either you believe God, or you don't!

 

I would like an answer to Tom Vol's remark. He said: "...does anyone else think it's amusing when liberals strip all the truthfulness away from scripture then appeal to a text to prove something, when by their own assertions scripture cannot be trusted?" Yes, Tom, I think it is amusing but quite in keeping with the confused nature of liberal thought. Just how do liberals ascend the slippery slope they make of divine revelation in scripture? And what, exactly, does "dialogue with scripture" mean?

 

Daniel,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As we know, the Ancient Hebrews thought everything that happened was from the hand of God. We know differently today. Satan is the author of evil. God is the author of good. Because the Israelites recorded history from their persepctive does not mean it is worthless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So based on this concept, the destruction of Sodom was by Satan?

 

Daniel, now that you made your point by letting us know that you are a liberal / and moderate Baptist (who does not believe in the innerancy of the Bible), is there anything more you would like to reveal about yourself to us? If not, there is really no point to discuss the validity of your claim about the Bible, for the majority of the folks here do not see it your way. Hope you agree and stop beating at a dead horse. Just my two cents worth.....

 

Daniel (I'm not about to write his entire new name here ) wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Believing in the errancy of Scripture is not equal to a distrust of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly distrusts what God has revealed. Which then distrusts the revealer. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I believe that God revealed himself to people at certain times, and the Scriptures are records of that revelation - not the revelation itself. As one who places my faith in Christ alone, not Scripture, I am not worried in the least if a story here or there is wrong. I do not place my faith in a book.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, there's the old bromide about people putting faith in a book rather than Christ. Tell me Daniel, if the record is errant in places, which places is it errant? How do you know it's not errant about Christ? Your experience? What if my experience tells you it's all inerrant? What if someone else's says it's all errant? Who's right? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Innerancy is a modern invention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true at all. A simple recognition of history will disprove this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is what many fundamentalists long for so much - surity in a book. Why don't they find it in the perfect revelation of Christ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here you go again, pitting Christ against the book that testifies to Him. How do we know that revelation of Christ is perfect? If it's totally subjective, then all bets are off: Muslims, athiests, etc., are on even salvific ground so to speak. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fundamentalists take all of the Bible (OT & NT) as the perfectly inspired revelation of God. So what do you do when Jesus completely overturns a sacred law of the OT? Do you recognize that the OT law was less than perfect without implementing a whole host of man-made arguments to get around the fact that Scripture is something to be dialogued with? The life and teachings of Christ show that the OT conception of God as wrathful and angry is plain wrong. You cannot look at Jesus and Yahweh and see anything but two different Gods. [I can't wait for someone to scream"heresy."] If you put aside your fear at calling into question the inerrancy of Scripture, I think you would come to the same conclusion. But we're so scared of dialoguing with Scripture that we swallow whatever is fed to us.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, you need a course in hermeneutics pronto! Second, your abandonement of the doctrine of the Trinity for modalism is heresy. So let me do the honors: HERESY! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>it is obvious that you do not understand the moderate/liberal way of interpreting Scripture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, that's what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid I'm right
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, I am quite sure this has only created more questions (or scorn), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You finally made sense there <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> but it is my firm belief that a really open person cannot look at Scripture objectively and think that every word is God's own. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Anyone else see the inconsistency here? You're looking at Scripture with a totally subjective lens, now you're appealing for an objective look and an objective outcome? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God is too human if we look at the Bible this way.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? Sounds like you're making God the human when you reject the idea that God cannot inspire a totally trustworthy revelation of Himself. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What I do not understand is that all the fundamentalists I've ever meant do not take the Bible literally, and they do not operate in daily life on the belief that ALL of the Bible is God's word. If they did, they would probably be thrown in jail for child abuse, spousal abuse or crualty to animals not to mention a myriad of other things.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Another bromide. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Inerrancy is inconsistent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As Phoebe on Friends once said, "Hello Kettle, this is the Pot calling, I just thought I'd tell you that you're black." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The destruction of Sodom was the destruction of Sodom. Period. We weren't there and we can't possibly know what happened. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So can we possibly know anything else Moses wrote? Paul? What about that early morning and this account of an empty tomb? Can we trust that one? Why? This calls for a higher level of inspiration than needed to inspire an accurate revelation (B.H. Carroll's analogy, and a pretty good one.)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If I'm going to stop posting because I'm the dissenting voice, then I might as well stop posting altogether. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends on what you're dissenting from. Folks dissent all the time around here, but not when it comes to Theology proper, normative Bibliology, and doctrine of the Trinity.

Sorry, I can't resist.....AMEN!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
The following is an excellent link on Biblical Authority from a Moderate/Liberal perspective. If you want to know what we believe about the Bible, give this article a look.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The words excellent and Moderate/Liberal should never be together in the same sentence ...

 

It seems that the so-called "moderate" baptists can't agree on a whole lot. I find it interesting that someone will toss out one section of scripture while using another in a different conversation. If you can't trust one section, what makes you think you can trust another?

I could say "I don't think the scripture you used in your argument is a valid scripture." Where can you go from there?

Do "moderates" keep their Bibles in loose leaf binders, so it's easy to take out sections that they don't approve of?

It doesn't make sense to me.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
The destruction of Sodom was the destruction of Sodom. Period. We weren't there and we can't possibly know what happened.

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what happened...cuz it's in Genesis 19.