Biblical Authority

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:



As for my faith - it is based on the Christ that I was introduced to in Scripture. I then came to know Christ via a relationship with him. I've written it before and I will write it again (although noone seems to want to respond to it): A flawed introduction does not necessitate a flawed relationship. Just the opposite. If somone introduced me to you and got some of the details wrong, I could still get to know you by having a relationship with you in which we both talk and listen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bible is not only the introduction. It is at least one half of the conversation. What do you that is 100% true about God outside of the scripture? If your experiences show you which parts of scripture are acceptable then what if you just haven't had all of the right experiences yet? If you were not allergic to poison ivy would that mean that it doesn't itch or that calimine lotion doesn't help?

It may not be the answer you want but I have read your post here and none the less assert that if the only "objective" proof for your faith is your experiences, feelings, or independent thoughts then you have no foundation at all.

BTW, I am dealing with the issue that you brought up. I am dealing with the premise... Your point of origin for what you believe. I refuse to be subjected to rules which are designed to pre-destine the outcome in your favor.

You reject inerrancy. So, you can never prove anything by scripture (at least not without defining which parts are true). You also have an automatic 'out' whenever someone proves you incorrect based on scripture. By demanding that we debate under the assumptions you make about scripture, you wish to pre-determine the outcome.

 

Martian, I will answer your absurd reasons for rejecting innerrancy tomorrow. I have a wedding to attend. I will say for now that Jesus embraced it. You claim to follow Jesus, yet you don't embrace it. You must follow another Jesus.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
Scott,

You did not at all address the fact that my basis of faith is Christ. In fact, you changed my wording so significantly that you wrote my basis of faith is experience. I never wrote or said that experience is my basis. I have written that my experience with Christ is the basis of my faith. I'm not sure you can be any more orthodox than that.

Let's pretend I'm an inerrantist, ok? Prove to me that Scripture teaches inerrancy.

Daniel

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: MarciontheModerateBaptist ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's pretend I'm not. Prove to me anything you believe about God or KNOW about Christ. You either have an objective basis for your knowledge of Christ or you don't. It is either based on your experience or something else.

I just want to know, what is your basis?

How can your basis for faith be Christ if you deny the only resource we have for knowing about Him is reliable or, at a minimum, say that it is only reliable after being filtered through a some extra-biblical belief system?

 

OK, one more post, and I'm really on my short little mini-break or vacation or whatever.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A flawed introduction does not necessitate a flawed relationship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then why did Notre Dame fire George O'Leary? Since the beginning of their relationship was based on untruths, they could not trust him in the future.

Besides, if your introduction was flawed, how could you claim to know Christ? What if that Scripture is one of the untrustworthy ones? You still (Surprise, surprise) are evading the issue.

Wish me well on the golf course and with my friends

 

Marcion, you are not giving a convincing defense of your perspective. Instead, you are coming off merely as evasive. This slipperiness is not doing your cause any good. Answering a question with a question or deflecting a question by pointing to some other issue is not interesting or informative, just irritating. And your answers are sounding more like retorts than explanations.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: aiki ]

 

Scott, Mr Curtis, Tom, Aiki
You gentleman are giving the impression that you cannot have a relationship with Christ unless you have a Bible in your possession. You are turning the scripture into your own Virgin Mary. The scripture is not meant to be taken literally it is meant to be taken seriously.

Mr. Curtis most folk dont equate "word" in the passages you cited to "Bible" as we know it.

How could Jesus believe something that did not exist during his lifetime was inerrant?

Marcion try BaptistNet and BaptistLife a different genre of Baptist.

Tom, I assume you attended Seminary, the old How do you know argument when utilizing higher critisicm is rather insulting dont you think?

My friend rhoneycutt asked a question earlier that Mr Curtis ignored so maybe the calvary can help. Can a person who has never seen or held a Bible have an ongoing relationship with Christ?

DB

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deitrich B:
The scripture is not meant to be taken literally it is meant to be taken seriously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So when it claims to be the revelation of the God for whom it is impossible to lie, you have a decision to make. Believe it or not? You want to make a dichotomy that doesn't exist. To take it seriously is to take it literally -- to believe that God said what he meant. (However, "normal" would be a better word.) YOu play the old bibliolatry card in a new form -- the virgin Mary. You know it is not true. It really gets old.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How could Jesus believe something that did not exist during his lifetime was inerrant?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How anachronistic you are. The OT did exist in the time of Jesus. Had you forgotten that? Furthermore, he pre-authenticated the NT Scriptures.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can a person who has never seen or held a Bible have an ongoing relationship with Christ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure ... but he can't do it without revelation. Someone can be told the truth that comes from Scripture and have a relationship with Christ that way. However, the relationship does not come apart from revelation and that revelation today comes from Scripture.

You have the more serious problem that you keep on ignoring. It was asked when you frequented this board before. How do you know which part of Scripture is true and which part is not? You claim to believe in Christ. Yet everything you know about Christ comes from the Scripture that you pick and choose from. You have no basis for your beliefs.

 

Okay, since I can't hit the links this morning, I'll toss my hat back into the ring for another day.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Tom, I assume you attended Seminary, the old How do you know argument when utilizing higher critisicm is rather insulting dont you think?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I did. And how would this be insulting? Only way I would think someone would be insulted is due to the embarassment of not being able to answer without slitting the throat of their own argument, and even that's tenuous ground. I can't see how this is insulting unless one just doesn't wish to be questioned.

 

Cool the calvary comes in the form of Pastor Larry,
Ho Hum here we go again. "preauthenticated the NT scriptures"? Larry even you know better. Shame on you. Show me scripture since thats your old standby. By the way speaking of anachronistic, looks like you wrote the book ol boy.
I dont know if you have read the thread or not, I doubt it from reading your post. I do believe that all of scripture is true. I do not even begin to think that I have the handle on it like you do. How lucky your congregation must feel


Ya'll continue to attempt to define faith objectively. I reject that. My experience is different. My faith no doubt is much weaker in places than yours and probably stronger in others, but it is mine and its all I have when I need it so try not to belittle something that you obviously do not comprehend. Faith is not something you read about in a book or listen to some Pastor tell you about. The thread by the way is about biblical authority not faith.
Larry, thanks for the concern but I believe all the scripture is "true" and it should all be taken "seriously" I wish you would do the same and quit trying this oneupmanship nonsense you really look silly. Answer the questions and leave your thesaurus on the shelf.
DB

 

Tom Said:Okay, since I can't hit the links this morning, I'll toss my hat back into the ring for another day.

DB Said:Why didnt you play it was perfect here and I had a great round.

Tom Said:Yes I did. And how would this be insulting? Only way I would think someone would be insulted is due to the embarassment of not being able to answer without slitting the throat of their own argument, and even that's tenuous ground. I can't see how this is insulting unless one just doesn't wish to be questioned.
DB Said: Leave the Passive Aggressive nonsense behind and ask your questions. Cloaking them in your pat little "how do you know" bs is insulting to people who have really thought about the issues.
DB

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deitrich B:
"preauthenticated the NT scriptures"? Larry even you know better. Shame on you. Show me scripture since thats your old standby.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

This is pretty standard stuff Deitrich. YOu should know it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do believe that all of scripture is true. I do not even begin to think that I have the handle on it like you do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You believe that Scripture is true so long as you can define "true" the way that you want to. However, "True" is not really available for private definition. In many places, you have shown very little to no understanding of the propositional contents of Scripture. YOu have taken great liberty with the text, twisting it beyond recognition so that you can defend your own notions. Such is not compatible with truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ya'll continue to attempt to define faith objectively.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't know faith was the object of discussion here. I was talking about biblical authority. Looking back at my post I didn't even discuss faith except to question the basis of your belief with regards to biblical authority.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Larry, thanks for the concern but I believe all the scripture is "true" and it should all be taken "seriously" I wish you would do the same and quit trying this oneupmanship nonsense you really look silly. Answer the questions and leave your thesaurus on the shelf.
DB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I cannot see how you reconcile your beliefs about Scripture with the "truth" of Scripture. It does not seem to fit. Neither does your claim of me trying "oneupmanship." I take all Scripture as true and preach accordingly. I do not adjust it to fit the modern notions of society nor the sinful expectations of modern man. I simply cannot see how "truth" can be reconciled with some of the things you have said about Scripture here. I do not mean to be offensive to you; it is just inconceivable.

 

Deitrich,
Once again, you've been asked how this is insulting and yet you avoid dealing with the issue, save for childish innuendo, insults, and language.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ya'll continue to attempt to define faith objectively. I reject that. My experience is different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, there's the crux of the matter. If that's not a blatent, outright denial of any attempt to reason one with another, I don't know what is, since your subjectivity gets to make up the rules as you go along.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why didnt you play it was perfect here and I had a great round.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where are you? Will you pay the greens fees? And just how good of a round did you have?

Anyway, I'll see you all on WED, if this thread is still active then.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
I never wrote or said that experience is my basis. I have written that my experience with Christ is the basis of my faith.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Am I mistaken or did you just deny an experience based faith and affirm one in two consecutive sentences? You might be trying to distinguish between 'your experience with Christ' and 'your experience' but how can those be distinguished from one another without a reliable standard outside of yourself? That outside standard, not individual experience, is the sound basis for faith. Otherwise, a person is in a position to simply make up their own god shaped by their personal worldview rather than allowing God to shape their worldview.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm not sure you can be any more orthodox than that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That depends on which one of the contradictory and mutually exclusive statements cited above you are referring to.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarciontheModerateBaptist:
I agree that there must be a reliable standard outside myself. That reliable standard is Christ. NOt a book about Christ. My experience of the inerrant Christ is my experience base for faith.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you miss the fact that you have asserted your experience as the test of truth?

You want to claim Christ is the standard outside yourself but then you turn around and say that it is your experience of the inerrant Christ that is your base. So now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it Christ or is it your experience? The two are not the same ... unless you are raising your experience to the same level as Christ, which would be the worship of experience to use your method of argumentation. Is "experiencolatry" a word?? It is now.

Furthermore, you have been challenged before (and so far have failed to rise to the challenge) to show any knowledge of Christ apart from the book about Christ. Additionally, since you have denied the truth of part of the book (claiming that it does have errors), how do you know that the errors do not include the facts that you believe about Christ that led you to your experience of him?

YOu are in a never ending, ever tightening "graveyard spiral" as we pilots call it. You are tightening the circle, are suffering spiritual vertigo, and the only result is a huge crash. You can't have it both ways. If your experience is not the basis of faith, then you cannot claim your experience with Christ as the basis of faith. If the Bible has errors in it, then you must admit the possibility that what you know of Christ is in reality not even true but rather the inspirational stories of men who were infatuated by a gifted, charismatic leader who died for his beliefs.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Daniel is often too far to the left for me to agree with. But he's hit the nail on the head with this last post. The need we often feel to validate our brother's faith for ourselves blinds us to who really decides if his faith is real-Jesus Christ. Yes, the scriptures do point us to salvation in Jesus Christ, but they do not provide the salvation, Jesus does. The scriptures were not nailed to a cross, died, then resurrected. The Holy Word of God Jesus was. Our personal relationship is with Christ, not his "biography". Conusing these two points is dangerous, and it is our selfish desire to know if there is a speck in our brothers eye (or theology) that often keeps us from seeing the plank in ours. Look, theology is important and to some degree can be objectively measured. But the most important thing is whether or not we have taken up the cross and followed Jesus. You know, if you're not straining under that burden to the point that you can go looking for specks, then good for you. But when you feel comfortable enough to look for specks you might want to make sure that the cross is still on your back. You may have dropped it along the way while you were looking at your neighbor's eyes and theology.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]