If certain "Baptists" don't believe the Bible is God's Holy Word,

They hold to it for salvational issues, usually. It is just not trustworthy in other areas. Kind of like a boat that floats, but the engine and sails don't work and the anchor is missing. They don't scuttle the Bible completely, they just want it powerless in areas they don't like.

 

SheEagle,

The point about the liberals when it comes to God's Word, whether present day or in the past, is if they can bring there morbid doctrines of errancy about God's Word, then they can live and believe the way they want.

Abortion, homosexuality, divorce, drunkeness, fornication, adultry, and a wide variety of ungodly beliefs, become acceptible, in the name of "Love".

”Why stand on the broad road and get trampled?” Justified Version

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, than to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

”Conservatives- Theology dictates morality/Liberals- morality dictates Theology” Justified Version

 

Interesting, indeed. While I am aware that a liberal Christian perspective allows for a committed homosexual relationship, and abortion and divorce under some circumstances (which, if I am not mistaken, such [i.e., the latter two] is also descriptive of belief among many conservatives, too), I don't think I have come across liberal biblical scholars or theologians that advocate "drunkeness, fornication, adultry, and a wide range of ungodly beliefs." However, I would be willing to review these assertions if you would kindly provide me a list of these people's published remarks on these topics. Thanks.

 

Norm,

All you have to do, is read some of the apostate posts on other threads and you will see that i am not stretching my statement one bit!

”Liberals help others to stand on the broad road to get trampled on their way to Hell!” Justified Version

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, than to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

”Conservatives- Theology dictates morality/Liberals- morality dictates Theology” Justified Version

 

Well said Maverick keep it up, Justified there is bound to be trouble with this thread. I wonder if we should take the advice given on the literal translation thread and simply ask the liberals not to post on this one. I sure they would be cival about that don't you? Now concerning Norm's request for evidence, It's funny do they go thru a training course on how to harass and drag out issues until we give up in disgust?
Murph

 

Maybe we aren't saved by the bible. Maybe we are saved by Jesus. The robber on the cross next to Jesus- I wonder if his stance on inerrancy prevented him from entering into heaven? Or did it matter at all? The fact of the matter is, I don't need the bible to be saved, and I could scarcely read at all when I accepted Jesus as MY personal Lord and savior. You know, some people wonder if you can be saved even if you are an idolator, even if its the bible you are worshipping...
Jesus is the foundation of our faith, not the bible (at least that is the case for Christians). The bottom line: either Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God, and the bible bears witness to him, or the bible is God's word, is inerrant, and IT is the revelation of God (and therefore on equal terms with Jesus or superior to him). Some people worship one. I choose the other.
I'm curious why some people feel that the bible is more important than Jesus.

 

Hi, Justified. Well, I am new here, but I have read some posts, but I have yet to come across a liberal advocating "drunkeness, fornication, adultry, and a wide range of ungodly beliefs (please see my previous post for the context of this list - thanks)." Perhaps I shall in time; however, are there liberal biblical scholars and theologians that have published said beliefs? Should be an easy task to name a few, given that it is, I assume, shall I say, quite rampant?

Hi, C.S. I can't speak to such a course; is it internet-based? Free of charge? I am unaware that a request for information is considered harassment; however, as I mentioned to Justified, I am new here, and as such, I am learning.

 

Is there any physical object in the universe that is perfect? That is without some flaw? We know God is perfect, but he is not a physical object in our universe, Christ was the last perfect object in existence.

Many of us think the Bible is a perfect object. If it were, we should be worshiping it as God. Just as Jesus was the word and it and he is worthy of worship. So obviously we don't have a perfect Bible, meaning the words are not perfect.

Perfect words (God) touched by original sin (man) equals, skewed perfection (inspired, but not perfect). Yes, the Bible contains the Word of God, but is not the "perfect" Word of God.

But it is not to be tossed away either. We try to find man's corruption and God's perfection within the Bible. This results in the many different denominations and beliefs. If it were perfect, there would be no questions, no problems, no conflict, no ambiguous meanings, no "sides", no doctrine.

[ August 31, 2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Post-it,

The problem with your statement is that you fail to see that the Bible is perfect, just as God intended it to be, and it is because of man not wanting it to be perfect, is why we have denominations and false beliefs.

David,

Those are the words and the way you look at this topic. It's not that the Bible is more important than Jesus, it's that the Bible is very equally important. It contains the facts needed to live a perfect life. This is what we are commanded, by God, to use for study to show ourselves approved unto God. You cannot rightly divide truth from falsehood if you don't have the truth in your midst. Your simple faith in Jesus will not be enough to live Christlike if you do not trust the resource he gave.

 

Norm,

For being new, you sure have a knack for the typical. If these are not true, it will be soon. And if there are liberal theologians writing this garbage, why would a conservative want to waste time reading it? If you want proof, find it. Why do the liberals always expect the conservatives to do the leg work. They never believe us anyway, and when the prooftexts from the Bible are used to back up why it is wrong, liberals say that the Bible is in error.

Murph, you are right. A decent discussion is impossible because so much webspace is wasted on liberal opinion.

 

Nice try but what exactly do you know or could you know about Christ or salvation without the Bible. Whoever witnessed to you was either very old (2000 year range) or learned about the gospel from the Bible.

You are trying to set up a false dichotomy. It is NEVER Jesus or the Bible. It is Jesus because of the Bible. The Bible is not more important than Jesus but we know nothing important about Jesus (or God's will for us) without the Bible.

You cannot offer true worship to Christ without the Bible. It is our only means of knowing Him. Otherwise, the Jesus you worship is one conjured up by an over active imagination. Without the Bible, Christianity becomes little more than superstitions based on feelings.

 

Hi, OliveBranch. A curious reply. If not true now, why the certainty that it is, and if it will be soon, on what basis is such asserted, and any ideas on when? Perhaps 10:48:37 AM, September 5 on any idea that one has disagreement?

Wouldn't one suggest that ' [written] garbage' is an evaluation that is based on a reading of something? All I have done is ask that those stating such opinions provide me (us) with where this 'written garbage' can be found and where in this garbage one advocates drunkeness, fornication, adultry, and a wide range of ungodly beliefs. But if conservatives are not reading this garbage, how are conservatives aware that 'it' is garbage? Don't judge a book by its cover unless it smells bad (an aside: and the best I can tell, according to Maverick's scale of who has truth and who does not, he allows that some conservatives and some fundies do not have the truth, or perhaps do not have the truth like an inner realm [?] of some conservatives and some fundies; thus what is to distinguish the former from the hated [?, "take no prisoners"] libera)? Again, is this about some fundies and some conservatives but all liberals missing the truth, however the miss is not quite as much for said fundies and conservatives?)? You see, OliveBranch, I am only trying to understand what some are saying and if there is any sense to it.

Those not considering themselves fundamentalist or conservative may come to agree with fundamentalists or conservatives on some issues, perhaps not, but holding that they will not is thin reasoning for failure to adequately support assertions that seek to marginalize another individual or group of individuals. If proof must be found, does it not assert that you have not found it, but are maintaining that it is there, nonethless, or perhaps you have found it and for some reason refuse to share where it can be found and what is objectionable about it? And if you perceive that such garbage is a waste of time and detracts from the cause of Christ, would you not wish to share what these writings are and why, so that others might avoid being suckered in by decitful, sweet-smelling covers? I don't assume, presumably, non-conservatives wish you to do their leg-work, however, but is it reasonable that you or others share your leg-work for stated assertions that marginalize people, assuming, of course, that leg-work has been conducted?

Could it be that differences of opinion are not due to perceived errors in scripture, but to honest interpretative differences? Do all conservatives and fundamentalists believe scripture in the same ways or is diversity of opinion the priviledge of a few or a select grouping of Christians, say, Maverick's category 7 and 8?

Does liberal, I assume this is how I am being perceived, opinion operate by a different set of logical principles than, say, conservative of fundamentalist opinion? Seems to me that 2+2 is the same for both, yea, the same for the pagan, too. I could be wrong, however? Thus, I think it behooves us that when we disparage another, along with the evaluation, rationale/support for said descriptives is in order? So I ask again, who are these biblical scholars and theologians that advocate divorce, abortion, drunkeness, fornication, adultry, and a wide range of ungodly beliefs? I will grant your argument that there are such that find scriptural support for a committed homosexual relationship. However, my comment concerns the vast left-wing, liberal Christian gaggle of immorality done in the name of love.

 

For being new, you sure have a knack for the typical. If these are not true, it will be soon.</font>[/QUOTE]So you're judging people on positions you *think* they will take eventually???

Wild charges were made... Shouldn't the person who made the charges have a basis for doing so other than just his own fantasies about how "liberals" are?

Because "conservatives" are making the false accusations. If someone accused you or your husband of doing something illegal or immoral (and you knew the charges were false), wouldn't you demand the other person to show their evidence? What's so difficult to understand about that?

Speaking as someone who has been branded a "liberal" here, I've never said the Bible is in error. In any case, Norm is not asking for a Bible verse, he's asking for evidence that liberals here are advocating "drunkeness, fornication and adultery".

I think it is wasted on people slandering their brothers and sisters in Christ and then refusing to take responsibility for it by changing the subject and acting as if they are somehow above it all...

 

I recognize that the history textbooks I studied as an undergraduate had flaws, and that even the primary sources I studied had their biases. Nevertheless, I can say with confidence that Thomas Jefferson was a real person, and that I understand the philosophical and political principles that guided him.

I don't need the writings of the Bible to be "inerrant" to learn the gospel from them, or to understand their historical role in guiding the Church. A couple thousand years of accumulated tradition and superstition have caused fundamentalists to do with the Bible what Roman Catholics have done to Mary - transformed the mortal into the divine.

I do think there is some insight into why inerrancy is so much more important to fundamentalists than liberals. Almost all the fundamentalists I've seen have claimed that without the Bible there is nothing to guide people to right behavior. Despite charges to the contrary, I think liberals are every bit as concerned with issues of ethics and morality; but we do not associate right behavior with resurrecting the social order of the first century.

Of course, to be frank, I think very few fundamentalists &lt;i&gt;really&lt;/i&gt; believe that every bit of the inerrant Bible's social system is perfect. Titus 2 is often used by fundamentalists as a club to beat women into their "proper" roles; but in recent years I haven't heard a single one use Titus 2:9 to condemn the civil rights movement or the nominal end of slavery in the previous century.

So, to more specifically answer SheEagle's questions:

How do you know you are saved?
Because the overwhelming testimony of the New Testament writings is that Jesus is the Son of God - and (consistent with those writings and the tradition of the Church) I have accepted Him as my Saviour.

Are you born again? Yes

How do you know? Because Jesus promised I would be.

How can you trust that part of Scripture to be God's Word and not others?

I don't think any of the Scriptures are the "words of God." Understanding and applying the Scriptures is the lifelong task of a Christian - and particularly of a Chrisitan minister. I truse all of Scripture as having a relevant message for us - but I recognize that prayer, work, and study are part of hearing that message.

So if we can't agree on the starting premise of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, what foundation is there for any discussion or meaningful debate?

Inerrancy beomes untenable in many theological discussions (the Calvinism debates for instance). In those situations, each side contextualizes the other sides verses and then claims that their verses are the inerrant rules for all time. In addition, when the theologian has a preconceived conclusion (for instance - on slavery) anything contradictory gets contextualized as well. Consequently, I'm not sure how relevant inerrancy really is to theological debate.

Regardless, as baptists, we have always recognized the authority - not the inerrancy - of scripture; and most of us consider that an adequate starting point for cooperation and discussion.

Joshua

 

Maybe I missed the point of the thread, but isn't SheEagle asking us to explain our views. The questions certainly seemed to be phrased that way.

Would you prefer to answer the questions for us? That might make it easier to villify and misrepresent us?

Joshua

 

Wow. Rather than addressing all of the sweeping generalizations and stereotypes in your post I'd just like to point out how ludicrous this one statement is.

Norm asked for proof because Justified made a vicious, untenable assertion using the kind of manic hyperbole that he's prone to in these "discussions." In such a case, the burden of proof rests on him.

If I started saying "Bob Griffin is a six-eyed alien from the planet Xerglibmarliexngs (the "ngs" is silent), and his real mission on Earth is to collect all of the Pez dispensers on the planet and turn them into the new galactic currency" the burden of proof would be on me to justify my outlandish claims.

Joshua

 

He *is* you know... The bowtie is a cloaking device.

Oh, I also have it from a reputable source (my mother's hairdresser's son's girlfriend's cousin) that Dr. Bob drinks directly from the milk carton when no one else is around!!!

When will they even learn?

 

He *is* you know... The bowtie is a cloaking device.

Oh, I also have it from a reputable source (my mother's hairdresser's son's girlfriend's cousin) that Dr. Bob drinks directly from the milk carton when no one else is around!!!

When will they even learn?</font>[/QUOTE]I see that Dr Bob has denied none of these allegations thus they must be true.
Russell