I believe this do you?

Nope. His whole thesis is tied to the idea that our spiritual life, vitality, and guidance is given exclusively from the Bible, not from the living and active Triune God.

 

The dichotomy between spiritual life from the Bible and from God is not a biblical distinction. God works through the Word to give us spiritual life.

 

Nope, I don't believe it in its entirety, at all. The distinction between permanent and temporary gifts is entirely arbitrary, IMO. I'm only willing to accept that three or four gifts are necessarily 'Temporary', for that is all that Scripture implies, (Knowledge, Prophecy, Tongues, and I'd assume the gift of Interpretation of Tongues would not be around if Tongues weren't. ).
There may well be more, but Scripture does not say this, so I won't either.

Ed

 

Spiritual life comes from God.

The history of our spiritual heritage comes from the Bible.

Information, instruction, guidance and correction come from both the Bible and from the Triune God.

One can have spiritual life apart from the Bible. (There are many biblical examples recorded.) But one cannot have spiritual life in Christ without a direct relationship with the Triune God.

Yes, both the written word (the Bible) and the living Word (Christ).

 

Sometimes, it is kinda' hard to separate the Word from the Word, hunh?

Ed

 

Yes, but he gives it through the message of the Bible, not apart from it.

Actually from the Triune God through the Bible. It doesn't come apart from the Bible in this age. The Bible is more than a spiritual heritage book.

There is no one who has spiritual life apart from the message of the Bible.

And apart from the preaching of the Bible, they will have nothing to believe about the Triune God or Christ.

Yes both. Not one without the other.

 

I'm not sure why you would want to try to separate the written word from Christ since the written word bears testimony to Christ and serves Christ's purpose.

The two are distinct however.

 

Life in Christ is not mediated through scripture, but rather supported by it. Most often the teaching and message of scripture is the means that the Holy Spirit uses to prick our conscience and move us into a saving relationship with Christ that is nutured through the written word. But that is not the only way. Remember, Paul pointed out in Galatians and Romans that we come to Christ essentially the same way that Abraham did, by faith. And Abraham had no scripture.

I'm not sure how you can make that assertion when it contradicts Paul's teaching in Galatians and Romans. And what is it that makes "this age" different than any other in history? Paul is very clear that there is essentially no difference between those who came to faith in God before the Law was given and those who came to faith in God after the Law was given (his readers). The New Testament is of enormous benefit to us, but it does not change the way a person comes to faith in God.

Of course. But it is a spiritual heritage book in additional to other things.

If you had said, "There is no one who has spiritual life apart from the Bible," I would strongly have to disagree with you, citing Paul's teaching regarding Abraham.

But since you shifted the question slightly and said, "the message of the Bible," I can agree.

God's revelation always agrees with the scripture, even though the Bible may not be available.

The work of the Spirit of God is not restricted to the occasion of "the preaching of the Bible" by human beings. The Holy Spirit can provide the essence of the message of Christ, without human assistance, to those whom God elects and to those who seek after God.

Yet we are called to be the ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, so we should go forth into all the world and spread the good news, just as Paul in Romans 10 insists.

Well, sometimes without the written word. Remember Abraham and what Paul said about him.

 

Pastor Larry, are you saying that one can't be saved apart from the Bible? If you're talking about the 'message' of the Bible, I would agree with you, but if you're talking about the book, the written word, I would disagree. The Holy Spirit is not limited by whether a Bible is available to someone or not. I was saved by the drawing of the Spirit and the testimony of others. I did not read the Bible (expect for a few proverbs) until after I was saved.

 

You are completely missing the point. Abraham had direct revelation from God. We do not. The message of salvation today is found only in the Bible. That means that life in Christ comes only through the communication of the message of the Bible. Apart from the Bible, one would have no idea what to believe about God and Jesus Christ as the sacrifice for sin.

I am not aware of any place in Romans and Galatians that contradicts me. Galatians, as I recall doesn’t address this issue. Romans 10 says clearly that faith requires knowledge of the word of Christ. That word of Christ comes only through Scritpure.

Completed canon. Close of direct special revelation.

Yes and no. We all come to God by faith, believing what God has revealed. We have a different content of faith than Abraham had. But Abram had to believe what God said, which only came through revelation. Today, we must believe what God says which only comes through revelation, the Scripture.

The Bible is available. That is how we know about Christ. The point of saying “the message of the Bible” is to say that I can witness to someone from memory, without the book in front of me. I cannot witness to them without the content of the book.

Romans 10:13-17 tells us that he has chosen not to do that. He says that people will not believe unless they hear, and they will not hear unless someone is sent. So God has very clearly tied the progress of the gospel to human proclamation. The question of what God “could” do is irrelevant. He could certainly do it as you describe. But he has said he will not.

 

Amy, when you got saved, it was because someone communicated to you the message of hte bible, that you are a sinner and that Jesus came to die for your sins, to take your place. They may not have opened the book in front of you, but the gospel message that they communicated came from the book, and nowhere else.

 

Thanks. I agree.

 

That's an astounding statement!

So God never speaks to you when you are not directly meditating on scripture? Doesn't God ever give you guidance during the routine of your day when there is a ministry opportunity or someone in need?

My experience (and the testimonies of believers given to us in scripture to emulate) is quite the opposite.

How can you be so sure God is not still speaking to humankind?

Remember that the gospel is not an exposition a theory of the atonement, but is an invitation to life with God in Christ. When God called Abraham, Abraham responsed in faith and entered into the life of God along his journey. When Jesus called His disciples, He said, "Follow Me...", and they entered into the life of God (in Christ) along the journey (except for Judas).

A certain belief about "Jesus Christ as the sacrifice for sin" is certainly part of the gospel message, but it is not all of the gospel by any means. And repentance from your old life and active faith toward God is the core of the gospel, not merely an affirmation of the atonement.

Galatians 3 deals with the relationship of the Law (the scripture of his readers) toward true faith in God. Paul asserts that they are completely compatible, but the Law does not mediate the promises of God toward them. Throught the example of Abraham, he shows that Abraham believed God and was reckoned as righteous, and those who are of faith are sons and daughters of Abraham (Galatians 3:6-9), that is, they come to faith the same way (v.14).

Romans 4 is a more detailed exposition on the same theme. Abraham was declared righteous (v.3) before he was circumcised (v.9) and before any written revelation such as the Law (v.13). Those who are of the faith of Abraham are also heir to the promise (v.16).

Except that we have extensive biblical examples of people who do not meet your requirements... Therefore, I don't think you can interpret Romans 10 as hard and fast as you want to interpret it.

For all practical purposes, the canon of scripture seems to be complete. There have been no widely accepted authoritative writings produced for the last 1,900 years. However, I don't think you can demonstrate that doctrine through scripture.

Ah yes, here is the crux of your argument. I've studied this position off and on for years and can't find any biblical support for that assertion. Could you enlighted me?

Yes. Some may have very little information, others may have an abundance.

In what way?

Yes, there was nothing else available. And isn't believing what God said (and changing your life in response to it) the same thing as repentance and faith? How is that different from today?

You're asserting that revelation comes exclusively through scripture without backing up that assertion (other than Romans 10).

Not everyone and not to everyone. There are people all over the world suffering under repressive goverments and/or isolated from the message of the gospel through language and cultural barriers.

Yes.

Yes. As long as you are properly teaching the message and content of the Bible, you will be effective. But we are really talking about direct revelation. Since any direct revelation from God will be congruent and complementary to the written word (the Bible) that we are fortunate to have now, I agree.

The difference between our opinions is that I affirm the possibility (as God wills) of direct revelation and you believe that direct revelation has ended. Is that a fair assessment? I don't want to muddy our discussion with rhetoric.

Yes, but the question is the identity of that "someone" you mention. In some cases it has been the appearance of heavenly visitor(s) who appeared in person or in visions. And in a very specific and complete way, it happened when God appeared as a human being named Jesus. Others throughout history have heard a heavenly voice or have had an experience that caused them to worship the true God, only later getting more information from missionaries pioneering the area.

Certainly God has included, invited, and commanded us to spread the gospel, but the burden is not completely on us. God works in ways and places that we cannot and does not bind Himself according to human actions.

Can you give me a reference for that assertion, other than your interpretation of Romans 10?

 

For what it is worth, I agree with his response. The faithful believe may not have much scripture at his or her command, but they can testify to what God has done in their lives and how to follow Jesus.

 

It’s a strange world when orthodox theology is astounding.

That’s not direct special revelation. Perhaps a review of basic theological categories is in order.

You never measure theology by experience. You measure experience by theology

I am fairly sure because of the teaching of Scripture. However, “speaking to mankind” isn’t really the topic. The topic is direct special revelation, and that ended with the close of the canon.

It is actually both, but the latter (life in Christ) depends on the former (the atonement).

Which is true but off topic here.

Yes, indeed. And how do you know that? By Scripture. You wouldn’t know that by your apparently theology. But that is not the issue here. The issue that Abraham believed in the revelation of God. We believe in the revelation of God. What we have in common with Abraham is faith. The revelation is different.

Think about what you just said. First, you use as an example people in the Bible who were, by definition, prior to the close of the canon when things were different. So, your analogy is not even addressing the topic I am talking about. Second, the biblical examples prove my point. Show me in Scripture, one person who was ever saved without hearing the message of God. No one. There is not one example. Which is exactly my point, and the point of Romans 10. Salvation comes by faith, faith comes by hearing, hearing comes by a preacher who preaches the message of Christ. Today, where is that message found? In the words of the apostles in Scripture.

So, there are no examples in the Bible that refutes my point, and Romans 10 is clear.

You can. But that’s not the point here. Historically, orthodox theology has accepted a closed canon.

If you haven’t found any biblical support, then you have studied the issue. You may disagree with the biblical support, but it is there. And yes, I could enlighten you but that is off topic, and I don’t really have the time.

Actually, today we all have the same. It’s called the sufficiency of Scripture.

The content of our faith is the person of Christ, his work in death, burial and resurrection. Abraham did not believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That would be unknown to him because it was prior to that revelation. This is the doctrine of progressive revelation.

Yes, it’s essentially the same. It is not different from Abraham. The difference is in what was believed. Abraham could only believe what was revealed to him. He could not believe something that was not revealed.

The Bible declares that it is sufficient. It is the only place where the message of salvation in Christ is found. What else do we need?

But the Bible is available.

yes, that is essentially the difference on that topic.

I would not put much stock in these kinds of stories. I would put more stock in what God has said.

There is no biblical support for this that I am aware of.

Matthew 28:19-20, 2 Tim 2:10, Acts, among others. But why isn’t Romans 14 sufficient. How many times must God say something before it is true?

 

In a word. No.

 

We's (at least we's s'posed to be in this forum) Baptists!

That's why we argues and fights!! :laugh:

Ed