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:
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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.
