OK, seeing as we've resurrected the Dead Horse of inerrancy, to pick up on what Me4Him has said, what is the point of an infallible Bible if the best any of us can come up with is a fallible interpretation?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I ITim 3:16 and infallibility
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
Mark Osgatharp
New Member
Matt,
Jesus promised to guide those who love Him into all truth. When we base our judgements on the infallible Scriptures our judgements are equally infallible.
For example, John wrote,
"These things have I written unto you who believe on the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life."
Those who believe what God wrote through His apostle John have an infallible, cognizant, understanding and possession of eternal life.
Mark Osgatharp
Sorry, don't buy that. If that was so, seeing as most Christians do try to sincerely do that, then we would all agree. We don't, so that doesn't work.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Looking at even the exact text, I fail to see how the above passage shows that the bible is infallible.
First, it claims that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. The implication here is that God inspired the authors of scripture to write. Nowhere does it say that everything the authors of scripture wrote or said is accurate.
It then says that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness.
There are many examples of teaching materials that are not literally correct (every single parable is on that list) but that make useful teaching materials. </font>[/QUOTE]#1. Put your bias aside. Take the obvious point from scripture first.
#2. Trying to use "the existence of parables" as "proof" That the Bible is wrong is a fallacy of logic and does not go very far. Parables are easily seen and they do NOT justify the reader's "editing the rest of scripture" to fit his bias because "He found a parable in Matthew".
#3. The point of something being "God inspired" AND valid for CORRECT doctrine - is relying on the obvious fact that the reader believes God "Tells the truth". The POINT made in scripture is that it is BECAUSE God can only tell the truth THAT HIS WORD is trusted.
This is so obvious - that only "extreme bias" could turn a blind eye to it!
Again - put your bias down for a minute. It is "obvious" that the "Reader" was expected to hear the argument of the accuracy IN CONTENT of scripture as a "proof" for the point Christ was making. IF The listener could respond "Scripture is amost never correct so why should we listed to the literal details of THIS one?" Christ's whole argument would have ended!!
Obvously
Here Christ HIMSELF argues for the integrity of the SMALLEST part of the written word!
Next we see that the DETALS of the text are so "reliable" that they may be searched and researched to find SPECIFICs - "details" about future events.
Finally we see Peter addressing the heresy "People in the Bible were just writing what seemed right to them - they are not God and they are not always right. Take what you like and leave the rest for the Pope".
Finally Christ shows that "ALL" are held accountable to the Word - to ignore it as "unreliable" is to do so at the peril of the soul.
Those who argue AGAINST the Word of God do not do it BECAUSE of these texts - they do it "inspite of them".
In Christ,
Bob
Mark Osgatharp
New Member
A. You make an assumption when you say that most Christians try to do that.
B. Trying is not he same thing as succeeding.
C. "Most Christians" are not Christians at all.
D. All those who do know the truth do agree. Just because one man believes a lie doesn't mean another man doesn't know the truth.
Mark Osgatharp
Rev. Lowery
New Member
Mans interpretation is not scripture and never will be and man is called a liar Romans 3:3-5
3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
We cant interpret the word of God only the Holy Spirit gives us interpritation and if we all where truly saved we would all agree because the Holy Spirit wouldnt interpret incorrectly.
Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.
3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
We cant interpret the word of God only the Holy Spirit gives us interpritation and if we all where truly saved we would all agree because the Holy Spirit wouldnt interpret incorrectly.
Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.
The "Spirit" will teach "ANYONE" who is "HUMBLE" enough to be taught, but this is a major problem for many.
I'm, Baptist, Catholic, Amill, postmil, pre trib mid trib, "WHATEVER", but most of all "I'M DOGMATIC".
The "Christian" who can use the scripture to prove their belief is few and far between, their doctrine of "I heard/He said" was a man teaching/preaching, not the spirit, some have all their "FAITH" in man/denomination rather than in Jesus.
And like a "Teenager", some learn a little and "Think" they "know it all".
These "milk drinkers" will "Choke" on the "Meat of the word".
A true "Bible Student" "NEVER" graduate, all that is "IN THE SCRIPTURES", can't be taught in one "lifetime", the more you learn, the more you learn there is to be learned, and the scripture keeps getting "DEEPER" and "DEEPER".
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
Our "Fellowship" with God is in "direct proportion" to our "listening to the spirit", "Humility/Fellowship" in time will manifest it's self through our "Biblical wisdom".
I'm not a "Baptist" because their doctrine matches mine, but because mine matches their's according to what the spirit has taught me, if it didn't, I wouldn't be a "Baptist",
One chance at Heaven/Hell is too important to trust in the hands of a "Man, Denomination or Doctrine",
My salvation is strictly between "JESUS/ME" to "work out", and that is only through/by listening to the "HOLY GHOST".
I'm, Baptist, Catholic, Amill, postmil, pre trib mid trib, "WHATEVER", but most of all "I'M DOGMATIC".
The "Christian" who can use the scripture to prove their belief is few and far between, their doctrine of "I heard/He said" was a man teaching/preaching, not the spirit, some have all their "FAITH" in man/denomination rather than in Jesus.
And like a "Teenager", some learn a little and "Think" they "know it all".
These "milk drinkers" will "Choke" on the "Meat of the word".
A true "Bible Student" "NEVER" graduate, all that is "IN THE SCRIPTURES", can't be taught in one "lifetime", the more you learn, the more you learn there is to be learned, and the scripture keeps getting "DEEPER" and "DEEPER".
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
Our "Fellowship" with God is in "direct proportion" to our "listening to the spirit", "Humility/Fellowship" in time will manifest it's self through our "Biblical wisdom".
I'm not a "Baptist" because their doctrine matches mine, but because mine matches their's according to what the spirit has taught me, if it didn't, I wouldn't be a "Baptist",
One chance at Heaven/Hell is too important to trust in the hands of a "Man, Denomination or Doctrine",
My salvation is strictly between "JESUS/ME" to "work out", and that is only through/by listening to the "HOLY GHOST".
Rev. Lowery
New Member
AMEM AMEN AMEN
Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.
Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.
A. You make an assumption when you say that most Christians try to do that.</font>[/QUOTE]And you make an assumption equally that they don't.
Agreed. I don't know any individual who does succeed. Do you?
Excuse me, but who are you to make that judgment call?
Er...and how does one distinguish between the truth and the lie? Can you?
The problem with your theory is that is presumes that the fallible medium through whom the Holy Spirit works - the Christian - is able to produce an infallible interpretation. That is manifestly incorrect. I don't know any perfect Christians who are infallible in that way - do you?
Mark Osgatharp
New Member
Matt,
The problem with your theory is that it presumes an omnipotent God (if, in fact, you believe in God and that He is omnipotent) is incapable of infallibly revealing truth to man.
I do not claim to have all truth infallibly. I do claim to know some truth infallibly. For example, I know infallibly that Jesus of Nazareth is the virgin born Son of God, who was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and was risen from the dead and is seated in the heaven's waiting to return and conquer the kingdoms of this world.
I further know, and that infallibly, that all who rest their hope of eternal life on Him will, in fact, have eternal life. You ask,
"who are you to make that judgment call [that most people who claim to be Christians are not]?"
I answer with Paul's words,
"he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
Mark Osgatharp
The problem with your theory is that it presumes an omnipotent God (if, in fact, you believe in God and that He is omnipotent) is incapable of infallibly revealing truth to man.
I do not claim to have all truth infallibly. I do claim to know some truth infallibly. For example, I know infallibly that Jesus of Nazareth is the virgin born Son of God, who was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and was risen from the dead and is seated in the heaven's waiting to return and conquer the kingdoms of this world.
I further know, and that infallibly, that all who rest their hope of eternal life on Him will, in fact, have eternal life. You ask,
"who are you to make that judgment call [that most people who claim to be Christians are not]?"
I answer with Paul's words,
"he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
Mark Osgatharp
I do believe in an omnipotent God. The trouble with your theory is those two small words: free will.
I am very wary of anyone who claims to know something infalllibly, whether that individual be the Bishop of Rome or the pastor of a church in Arkansas.
If you wish to engage in a battle of the proof-texts, then I'll see yours and raise you with Jesus' words: "judge not lest you be judged."
I am very wary of anyone who claims to know something infalllibly, whether that individual be the Bishop of Rome or the pastor of a church in Arkansas.
If you wish to engage in a battle of the proof-texts, then I'll see yours and raise you with Jesus' words: "judge not lest you be judged."
Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Why didn't Jesus say: "In 72 hours", instead of "in three days", means the same, doesn't it???
That is what most read/understand in these verses, but it has a "FAR DEEPER" meaning.
Jesus was born/crucified "In the evening" of the "FOURTH DAY" on God's "WEEKLY SCHEDULE" for the earth, "In three days" (1000 years) forward is the 7th "Day of Rest", or Mill reign.
"In three days" is both 72 hours, (Spiritually) and "in three of God's days", (Literally) Jesus was actually prophesying "WHEN" he would return to the earth.
Changing "in three days" to "in 72 hours" seems innocent enough until it's realized 50% of Jesus's prophecy would be "destroyed".
This holds true for many other "words" in scripture.
I find the ones who oppose "infallibility" are also the ones most "Ignorant" of this "DEEPER" meaning of scripture.
Scripture doesn't become "God's word" until you see "God in his word",
Just like Jesus.
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Why didn't Jesus say: "In 72 hours", instead of "in three days", means the same, doesn't it???
That is what most read/understand in these verses, but it has a "FAR DEEPER" meaning.
Jesus was born/crucified "In the evening" of the "FOURTH DAY" on God's "WEEKLY SCHEDULE" for the earth, "In three days" (1000 years) forward is the 7th "Day of Rest", or Mill reign.
"In three days" is both 72 hours, (Spiritually) and "in three of God's days", (Literally) Jesus was actually prophesying "WHEN" he would return to the earth.
Changing "in three days" to "in 72 hours" seems innocent enough until it's realized 50% of Jesus's prophecy would be "destroyed".
This holds true for many other "words" in scripture.
I find the ones who oppose "infallibility" are also the ones most "Ignorant" of this "DEEPER" meaning of scripture.
Scripture doesn't become "God's word" until you see "God in his word",
Just like Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16 states that scripture is “profitable”, nowhere does Paul say that scripture is sufficient for learning and righteousness.
Another thought occurred to me as well. It was obvious that there were other letters written by the NT writers that didn’t make the final cut. So with this in mind, 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul’s reference to “scripture” was in regard to the O.T., since the N.T. didn’t exist yet and didn’t for at least another 300 years. So if this is correct, that would mean that the N.T. isn’t necessary for the sole rule of faith.
Another thought occurred to me as well. It was obvious that there were other letters written by the NT writers that didn’t make the final cut. So with this in mind, 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul’s reference to “scripture” was in regard to the O.T., since the N.T. didn’t exist yet and didn’t for at least another 300 years. So if this is correct, that would mean that the N.T. isn’t necessary for the sole rule of faith.
Indeed. There was at least one, possibly two, letters which Paul wrtoe to the church at Corinth which for some reason best known to God and to the Church didn't make the NT grade.
And speaking of final authority in regard to Sola scriptura, this theory presents a problem of authority as multiple interpretations exist! IF the bible was so clear and all Protestants agreed simply by reading the bible with a willingness to accept and follow its teaching, that would be one thing, but with thousands of different Protestant denominations this isn’t the case. So this in itself disproves Sola Scriptura.
Indeed again. But doubtless Mark O will be along shortly to reassure us all that he does indeed possess the only possible interpretation and that the rest of us are 'infidels' who are going to hell in a handbasket
I've been trying to find my OP on the thread entitled "The Theological Bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura" but it seems to have been pruned. Howvever, here's what I wrote:-
"I've hinted elsewhere of my progressive disenchantment with this (evangelical) doctrine. Permit me to elaborate that here, dear BB members!
As I dialogue with other evangelical Christians, the more I become convinced that sola Scriptura is a nonsense and that there is a need for a single church teaching authority to interpret the Bible. This trend seems to be more marked the more fundamentalist the parties tend to be. For instance, I recently had the misfortune to observe a heated debate between a whole load of Christians on whether it was theologically correct to be pre-millenialist, post-millenialist or a-millenialist. These 'armed factions' further broke down into those who believed vehemently in a pre-tribulation rapture (and they in turn divided into those who thought that would be open or secret - clearly someone had been reading too much of the Left Behind series ), post-trib rapturists, total and partial preterists ad nauseam . Each faction was absolutely convinced that they had it right and were busy flinging personal insults and anathemas at everyone else, and generally presenting an appalling witness.
But - get this; here's the real rub - they were all quoting the same Scriptures at each other and all claiming that their interpretation of those verses was the correct one ! All claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation and all were determined to rely on just the Bible alone for their doctrine.
(The same could be said for cessationist v charismatic debates, Calvinist v Arminian, dispensationalist v covenantist, presbyterian v episcopalian v congregationalist, paedo-baptist v believers' baptist etc)
This leads me to a rather obvious conclusion: if relying on the Bible alone plus the individual inspiration of the Holy Spirit leads to this doctrinal anarchy, then clearly either the Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job...OR there is the need for some kind of singular teaching authority to interpret scripture....
Discuss! (I'm particularly interested in the views of the evangelical camp here, although the thread is of course open to all; I'm also aware that I am to a degree preaching to the converted to those who hold Tradition in high esteem )"
"I've hinted elsewhere of my progressive disenchantment with this (evangelical) doctrine. Permit me to elaborate that here, dear BB members!
As I dialogue with other evangelical Christians, the more I become convinced that sola Scriptura is a nonsense and that there is a need for a single church teaching authority to interpret the Bible. This trend seems to be more marked the more fundamentalist the parties tend to be. For instance, I recently had the misfortune to observe a heated debate between a whole load of Christians on whether it was theologically correct to be pre-millenialist, post-millenialist or a-millenialist. These 'armed factions' further broke down into those who believed vehemently in a pre-tribulation rapture (and they in turn divided into those who thought that would be open or secret - clearly someone had been reading too much of the Left Behind series ), post-trib rapturists, total and partial preterists ad nauseam . Each faction was absolutely convinced that they had it right and were busy flinging personal insults and anathemas at everyone else, and generally presenting an appalling witness.
But - get this; here's the real rub - they were all quoting the same Scriptures at each other and all claiming that their interpretation of those verses was the correct one ! All claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation and all were determined to rely on just the Bible alone for their doctrine.
(The same could be said for cessationist v charismatic debates, Calvinist v Arminian, dispensationalist v covenantist, presbyterian v episcopalian v congregationalist, paedo-baptist v believers' baptist etc)
This leads me to a rather obvious conclusion: if relying on the Bible alone plus the individual inspiration of the Holy Spirit leads to this doctrinal anarchy, then clearly either the Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job...OR there is the need for some kind of singular teaching authority to interpret scripture....
Discuss! (I'm particularly interested in the views of the evangelical camp here, although the thread is of course open to all; I'm also aware that I am to a degree preaching to the converted to those who hold Tradition in high esteem )"
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Very good points indeed.
Now I predict someone will come back claiming that none of these disagreements are "essential" (at least by that one's definition of what is "essential")...and whatever they (the different factions) disagree about, they all agree on the important stuff like sola Scriptura and the fact that Catholics are going to hell.
That’s a good example Matt; nicely done. What gets me is that it’s just old fashion common sense.
When I think back to my years in a fundamentalist church, I remember putting our pastor on too high of a pedestal. He preached Sola scriptura, so therefore everything he said was the gospel. He was right and all the other denominations were in error as he claimed many times and we all yelled a hearty “amen”.
When I think of this now, being away from that fundamentalist setting for the past 8 months, it looks like in effect these pastors become a sort of “pope”, to varying degrees. And now when my parents say “my pastor said this or that” I just grin, shake my head. What else can you do?
When I think back to my years in a fundamentalist church, I remember putting our pastor on too high of a pedestal. He preached Sola scriptura, so therefore everything he said was the gospel. He was right and all the other denominations were in error as he claimed many times and we all yelled a hearty “amen”.
When I think of this now, being away from that fundamentalist setting for the past 8 months, it looks like in effect these pastors become a sort of “pope”, to varying degrees. And now when my parents say “my pastor said this or that” I just grin, shake my head. What else can you do?
Interesting you mention that and not to get off of topic, but my parents were visiting my family a few months ago and my mother a fundamentalist, stated that her co-worker a Catholic, had a very good testimony and that her life looked very centered on Christ, but unfortunately for her, she going to Hell.
Of course her comment didn’t shock me; after all, I once believed the same thing. I asked her HOW she knew her co-worker was headed to Hell. She asked “You don’t know?” I said no, tell me. She said that her pastor preached on it. I ask if she verified what the pastor said in regard to all Catholics being lost. She said, why should I, he’s right on everything else…