Biblical Authority

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bible is all you need for salvation? I thought it was grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Am I wrong or did I misunderstand what you are saying? Salvation is through Christ alone...right?

Joseph Botwinick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Bible is all you need for salvation? I thought it was grace through faith in Jesus Christ. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know?

 

You're right. I didn't read the whole thread when I posted that response. I see that he explained that further later on. Sorry about that. I just reacted to that because that was all I saw.

Joseph Botwinick

 

TomVols wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; If you don't accept all scripture as reliable, how do you decide which ones are and which ones are not?
&gt;&gt;BWS: Christ criterion.
&gt;Which is? And how do you know?

It all is reliable within the scope of the particular genre of the texts.

&gt;&gt;&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?
&gt;&gt;BWS: Paul.
&gt;Care to explain this obsurd statement?

BWS: Test everything. Hold on to the good.

&gt; 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?

BWS: It isn't untrustworthy.

&gt;&gt;&gt; If it wasn't for an infallable Word how would you know of Jesus?
&gt;&gt;BWS: Through a non-infallable Word.
&gt; How could you know?

BWS: By reading it.

&gt;&gt;&gt; because without those words that you say can't be trusted you would know nothing of the saviour that you claim.
&gt;&gt;BWS: And yet the words we have received are sufficient.
&gt;Why? What makes them more trustworthy than the phone book? The Koran? The book of Mormon? The rules of golf?

BWS: They are the standard for faith and practice.

 

Curtis wrote:
&gt; "Sanctify them thru thy word; thy word is truth" John 17:17

("Thy Word" != Bible) in this verse.

 

Mr. Curtis wrote:
&gt; You either believe the Bible is all you need for salvation, or you dont. I do.

I don't. JESUS is all you need for salvation.

 

Scott wrote:
&gt; I challenge you to give evidence for your faith in Christ, your salvation.

All I know is that I once was blind, but now I see.

 

Curtis wrote:
&gt; If you can't count on God to preserve his word, then why would you count on him for anything ?

If you couldn't count on angels coming out of the sky to stop Jesus from being crucified, why would we count on Him for anything?

God's Word is preserved, but not in a book. It moves as it pleases and we don't know whence it comes or whither it goes.

 

&gt; 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.

Whereas you are open to changing your mind? Is that a true statement?

 

kwob02, you do realize that most Baptist churches are not like the one you attended, right? Surely you value soul competency and the priesthood of the believer enough to find a moderate Baptist church instead of a non-Baptist church, right?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BWSmith:
kwob02, you do realize that most Baptist churches are not like the one you attended, right? Surely you value soul competency and the priesthood of the believer enough to find a moderate Baptist church instead of a non-Baptist church, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I realize that there are some Baptist churches that are different from the one in which I grew up, yes. There was always a way to find out which Baptist churches in town were the "different" ones when I was in Bible college because there was sort of an "unofficial" list of those of whom the administration or faculty disapproved.

However, how do you go about finding them? Can you say for sure that all churches that belong to a particular group of Baptists that fundamentalists consider "liberal" really are all that liberal? Especially in the way they do church? And how many of this brand of Baptist would you find in the hills of the northern part of South Carolina, where ignorance is a virtue and education and free thought are despised?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt;&gt;&gt; If you don't accept all scripture as reliable, how do you decide which ones are and which ones are not?
&gt;&gt;BWS: Christ criterion.
&gt;Which is? And how do you know?
It all is reliable within the scope of the particular genre of the texts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No one would debate that, but that has nothing to do with your so-called "Christ criterion."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt;&gt;&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?
&gt;&gt;BWS: Paul.
&gt;Care to explain this obsurd statement?

BWS: Test everything. Hold on to the good.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul's statement could be one of the untrustworthy ones you allude to. Why trust his statement there?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt;&gt;&gt; If it wasn't for an infallable Word how would you know of Jesus?
&gt;&gt;BWS: Through a non-infallable Word.
&gt; How could you know?

BWS: By reading it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Proves nothing. Muslims know Allah by reading the Koran. So what?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt;&gt;&gt; because without those words that you say can't be trusted you would know nothing of the saviour that you claim.
&gt;&gt;BWS: And yet the words we have received are sufficient.
&gt;Why? What makes them more trustworthy than the phone book? The Koran? The book of Mormon? The rules of golf?

BWS: They are the standard for faith and practice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So? Koran is the standard for Muslims as is the B o M for Mormons and the Rules of Golf for golfers. Why should the Bible be the standard for faith and practice? Are you that infallable that YOU get to decide? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt; You either believe the Bible is all you need for salvation, or you dont. I do.
I don't. JESUS is all you need for salvation
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How do you know?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> &gt; I challenge you to give evidence for your faith in Christ, your salvation.
All I know is that I once was blind, but now I see.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How do you know? Because the Hymnal is as inspired as Scripture? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you couldn't count on angels coming out of the sky to stop Jesus from being crucified, why would we count on Him for anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Boy, if you buy this garbage you are posting, your theology is more pathetic than I thought. If you don't know why Jesus was crucified, you need help. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> God's Word is preserved, but not in a book. It moves as it pleases and we don't know whence it comes or whither it goes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How do you know it moves as it pleases? How do you know any of this? This is really laughable 'logic' you're throwing out here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Whereas you are open to changing your mind? Is that a true statement?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Absolutely. But I need more proof than the comic book theology and tabloid logic being bandied about here.

 

by the way, I know there's more of this salient and scintilating philosophy to come, but I'm way over due some time off. I know I'm going to miss startling moderate/liberal discoveries not seen since people discovered that water is wet, but I still must tear myself away. Y'all have fun and keep the gloves up.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
I have yet to see any logical, much less scriptural, arguments for inerrancy. There are so many stipulations modern inerrantists put on the doctrine of inerrancy, that it really can't count as inerrancy at all anyway.

Daniel Payne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still aren't answering the questions. What do YOU build your faith on? If it is scripture, what scripture? How do you know that the scripture you use is valid, that it actually means what it says?

When we fundamentalists assert inerrancy, you say show the scripture. When we show the scripture, you say it does not mean what it says or does not apply to the argument. You have made up your mind as assuredly as you accuse us of doing. I, like Tom, am not opposed to changing my mind if given a sound reason to do so...you guys haven't even come close yet.

 

Sorry to be so late in replying. I didn't notice when you first posted.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BWSmith:
Scott wrote:
&gt; How do you know Christ without the scripture?

How do you know the scripture without Christ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By reading or listening.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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>
I will admit my ignorance. Please define Christ criterion.

<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> In a later post you use the scriptural command to test all things and hold to that which is good.

The obvious question is how do you know that Paul said this or meant it to apply outside the specific circumstances he was addressing?

The more serious question is that if you believe Paul was saying to evaluate the worth or validity of scripture then by what standard should it be measured?

What standard did Paul say we should use for evaluating beliefs?

<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> You take this scripture completely out of context. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

My request still stands unanswered.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt; Isn't a little Eve-like to think that you must understand and know all?

Who understands all, or claims to?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My reference is to those who demand a conclusive clarification to every difficult passage in the Bible. If one subjects truth universally to their own understanding then they are either attempting to ascend to God or to bring him down to man.

<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> You didn't answer the question and your accusation is way off the mark. To believe in inerrancy is not the same as worshipping the Bible. I do not attribute the Bible's perfection to it, I attribute it to God.

I will ask another way. Where does your knowledge of God come from if the Bible is a fallable work of men?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt; The evidence pointing to the preservation of God's Word through the last 1900 years is overwhelming.

And yet, some books of the Bible are older than 1900 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My post had nothing to do with the Bible being a progressive revelation. It is. The OT mss found which date from before the NT also validate the reliability of scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt; You may scoff but the Bible is clear that God does providentially work in the affairs of mankind. There is no reason not to believe that God by an act of His own sovereign will revealed Himself to man except your own preconceived bias against the concept and, truthfully, lack of faith.

I think you meant to post this in alt.athiest. It doesn't apply to anyone in this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not really. The atheist is more consistent. He rejects all of scripture not just the select portions that bother him.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt; All of your arguments are subjective.

As are yours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. I believe that the Bible is inerrant because the originals were directly inspired by God. It is against the character of a perfect God to give imperfect inspiration. Therefore, I believe the scriptures to be a completely reliable foundation for faith and practice.

Additionally, the historical record gives overwhelming evidence that the Word of God has not been diminished since the original writings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt; Your feelings and experiences can never create a sound foundation for faith.

Neither can leather, paper, and ink.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well...yes they can. Our whole system of justice is established upon the notion that lawmakers write down laws that are then to be followed and that the law means what it says in ink.

The scripture is no less objective than a math book. The ink and paper don't make the rules of math valid. They explain them and testify to them. They exist whether they have been discovered or not. Of course, math books are only as valid and as extensive as the knowledge of the author...just like the Bible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt; You accuse fundamentalists of oversimplifying. But what is the liberal doing? You just toss out anything that requires work and study.

Thanks for the belly laugh!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're welcome. But you didn't answer the question. Being a liberal seems to be fairly simple with regards to the Bible, if you don't agree with what it says then it must not really say it. The difficulty comes in when you try to build a meaningful faith without a meaningful, tangible, objective foundation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&gt; There is nothing noble in reducing God to something you define, manipulate, and ultimately dictate to.

Amen. Please stop doing just that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cute, but also evasive. Please answer the question directly, if scripture is not completely reliable then how do you know what to believe about God? If you decide for yourself then you are doing exactly what I state above.

I believe in the God of the Bible. I can say that because I believe the Bible to be completely reliable. The scripture tells me who God is and how I relate to Him. Because the Bible is a true revelation, I have no need nor right to decide who or what God is. The perfection of His message does not eliminate the imperfection of my discernment however. So, I accept with deference to His wisdom that I will not understand everything about His revelation while clothed in sinful flesh.