The bible as a standard

Yelsew,

Do you believe all of the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus the original manuscripts are the Word of God with absolutely no error in them?

 

In no way. In fact, Scripture teaches otherwise. Christ holds the OT prophets on a part with his own words. Peter holds both his and Paul's writings on a part with the OT prophets. All of Scripture is God-breathed and is equally authoritative. This is an illegitmate dichotomy that you have created here.

Not when the third party report comes from God the father who knows all things. Again, you are minimizing the role of inspiration in the writings of the OT and NT. This cannot be done becuase scripture won't let it be done.

 

Of course the Spirit can instruct the believer. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. What I see is that the Spirit does not teach something contrary to the written Word of God.</font>[/QUOTE]That's exactly what I said.

 

What I find the most remarkable is that Yelsew is essentially saying that his own (Yelsew's) Spirit-inspired knowledge -- though not printed in red OR black ink -- is still more reliable than Paul's Spirit-inspired words. That's why his imaginations deserve preference over anything Paul taught.

So in order of preference, it seems to be:

1. What Yelsew interprets from Jesus's words.
2. What Yelsew perceives he has received directly from the Spirit.
3. What the rest of the scriptures say.

I would also add...

4. What the plain meaning of any of the text may be.

...but that is an unsaid preference.

 

The point that I was attempting to get across to you is that the bible is not all there is that gives the Word of God unto man. God Created, he did not write, except what he wrote on stone tablets. So if you look at the bible as the whole writings of God, you are sadly deceived, for the bible is merely a part of what God gave man to help his understanding.

The problem is you exclude wisdom gained from the creation. That which is now known about humanity doesn't fit your interpretation of scripture therefore you reject it, calling it varied names of a derogatory nature relative to Calvinism. You are clearly stifling spiritual growth if you do not include the lessons from all of creation.

 

What we must guard against is attempts to undermine the Word of God as the full inspired and complete Word.

Yes, much is gleaned from God's work as manifested in creation, yet it is not by these witnesses that men are saved, only by the name of Jesus and the preaching of the Cross.

What I am reading is akin (IMO) to the teaching prevalent in the world that all roads lead to God. This is false, regardless of the feigned love, peace, etc. one may attach to the content to appear "Christianized."

Bro. Dallas

 

Do we have the original manuscripts? Can you prove they are the originals?

Historians say that we do not have the original writings, letters, scrolls, etc., for many of the books of the bible, but rather second, through fifth generation copies; but, that those we have are close enough to the originals as to be trusted.

I believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. As for being complete or error free? Who among us was there when they were written that can provide evidence that they are 100% error free? If error free, why are there so many translations? Why is there so much discussion about meaning? Why are there so many diverse groups each claiming to have the correct meaning?

If what we have for "originals" were 100% complete, and 100% accurate, there would be but one translation for each of the worlds language groups and those translations would all agree. Do they? If all the language groups translations agree, why are Christians in diverse parts of the world different? Would we not all be alike?

Even if error free, the Apostle John concluded his Gospel with the words

So, is the Bible the whole word of God? I don't believe it is. That is why I look also to God's creation for truth. Where the creation and the scriptures do not agree, I usually go with the Creation because God's creation provides the supporting evidence. Free will is one such item where the scriptures, though speaking clearly about it, are not understood by those who choose to not understand. The creation reveals that all mankind has free will because we all make choices that effect our lives and the lives of others. If we did not have free will we could not choose.

 

Not true, Yelsew. We have free choice as we can choose within our nature. We do not have free will as we cannot choose outside of our nature.

 

We have free will as human beings without regard to our nature. It is by our use of our free will that our nature is determined.

 

You believe that the God who cannot lie inspired errors?? This is a plain denial of the truth of Scripture. You are very mislead on teh doctrine of Scripture. It is no wonder that you are so glib with other passages of Scripture.

Even for you, Yelsew, this is extremely disappointing. To see someone come out and deny the truth of Scripture so blatantly is discouraging.

Creation does not contradict Scripture. Scripture gives the correct interpretation of nature. The truth learned from creation is that God exists. Salvation must come through God's words.

But since you have denied believing that Scripture is God's word, why do you quote it as authority?? Your position on salvation could very well be a part of Scripture that man made up and indeed contradicts God's real truth. You have no basis of assurance about anything anymore with respect to salvation.

We are not denying that man has the ability to choose. You apparently are not participating here very well. We are saying that the choices of man are always made in accordance with his nature. Both Scripture and experience teach us that.

 

Always?

If you mean that because man has an innate propensity to sin, man cannot be God, I agree with you. But if you mean that man cannot make good choices because he has a sin nature, I disagree with you for even the sinner feeds his children good bread and not stones; even the sinner does good things for others, even a murderer has compassion for non-victims. Sinners are capable of very strong interpersonal relationships. etc., etc., etc.,. The sin nature does not shape every aspect of our lives, our free will does. Without free will, no one would build hospitals, no one would build schools, there would be no churches, etc.

Though our free will cannot eliminate the inherancy of our nature, it is our free will that shapes our nature! It is our ability to determine the extent of, or the boundaries of, the sins that we engage ourselves in that shapes us. It is our free will that makes one a murderer vs a fraud vs a liar vs a depraved person. The one constant is, that we have an innate sin nature, but it is our free will that determines whether or not we continue to obey that nature or to seek God and thus break whatever hold that nature has on us.

It is by our free will that we hear the Word. It is by our free will that we listen enough to be convicted by the Holy Spirit, It is by our free will that we humble ourselves before the throne of God begging for mercy.

Just as Peter used his free will to declare that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, we use our free will to arrive at the same conclusion based on the knowledge we gain and the influence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not ask the apostles "who do you say that I am" early in his ministry to and with them. It was near the end of his ministry after they had witnessed and therefore had knowledge about Jesus that He asked that question. It was after Peter learned what he could about Jesus, that the Holy Spirit confirmed in (revealed to) Peter that Jesus is truly the Son of God, the Messiah. I am convinced, as Peter, that Jesus truly is the Son of God, the Messiah. I would not have agreed with Peter when I first heard or read the story, but now I fully accept that truth readily, and tell any who will listen that I do and why I do.

Yes, because I still have the innate sin nature, I am still tempted to sin, but I am no longer bound over to it, and refusing to sin is becoming much easier the more I practice refusing (a free will choice).

 

Then I suggest that you avoid hospitals because they are not mentioned in scripture! Besides they were built because of a wrong motive, thus they are no good!

 

If what a sinner does turns out good, does it matter what the motive was for doing it? The individual sinner that did something good has his works tested as if by fire, just the same a the most righteous believer's works are tested, none of which results in salvation! Each individual faces judgment for what they are, not what they did. The "what you are" is the product of what, and in whom you believe and whether or not you are repentant for your sins.

So, you can go to the hospital with confidence that you will receive proper care, in spite of the fact that the builder of the hospital was merely seeking a tax shelter or a monument that bears a bronze plaque upon which his/her name is emblazoned. You need not fear that you are doing something that glorifies the builder, by receiving treatment there. Thus the result is good, even though the motivation may have been bad.

Your going to the hospital has no bearing on the builders salvation!

 

ScottEmerson, I should have added Methodism and Presbyterianism because infant baptism is not scriptural.

Ray Berrian, If you think Pentecostalism has more truth than Calvinism, you need to wake up! Why not go and let them slay YOU in the Spirit. That is obviously not of God because that, too, is not scriptural. Neither is speaking in tongues without an interpreter, WOMEN ELDERS, etc. I cannot believe you can make such a statement and seriously mean it. What did Kenneth Copeland say about God. He is about 7 ft. tall, hand-span of 9 inches...What kind of mess is that?! Obviously you made that statement out of ignorance. You should have posted that on the "Funny Arminian Arguments" thread.

 

Yes.

 

What I wish so badly that you would understand is that those denominations, in all likelihood, say the same thing about Primitive Baptists. So this judging attitude you have towards those other denominations really does come back to you. See the thread I wrote earlier about our "lens" from which we read the Bible.

Please understand that, in all likelihood, and even though your own theology makes such great sense to you, other denominations believe that theirs is the most Biblically based, and think that yours just may be a type of heresy.

 

And that means precisely what? That there is no truth, but truth is relative? Or that people have opinions about doctrine? Well, the latter is true, I guess, but I'm not sure why it's worth saying.

Fortunately, we have a way of resolving whether or not such opinions have merit. It's called the Bible. If anyone thinks Primitive Baptists are heretical, let them demonstrate it from the text.

Yes, there will always be differences of opinion about debatable texts, but other texts are only debatable to those who are blind on the issue in question. And as for the Biblical basis for infant baptism, if you can find anything in the Bible for or against it, then present your texts. If not, then infant baptism is unbiblical. Whether or not it is wrong is something you have to figure out based on other texts you feel are related, and then the burden is upon you to demonstrate how they support your view. But truth can't be reduced to "it doesn't matter because everyone disagrees."

 

Infant baptism is not unbiblical simply because the bible is seemingly silent on the issue. Jesus command to his disciples was God into all the world making disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. What is missing in that command is this, "make sure you don't baptize infants because that is unbiblical", and that satisfies your argument! What is included is, "making them disciples". If you make the parents of an infant disciples, are they not going to raise their infant to adulthood, making every effort for their infant to become a disciple too? Or at least do there level best to do so? Are the parents responsible for that infant? If they want their infant baptized is there a command in the bible that prohibits them from doing so? If no command against, then surely it must be allowable, so what's your beef?

Get real npetreley,

 

Yelsew, You apparently do not know what total depravity is even though we have talked about it many times. Total depravity does not mean that man can do no civic good; it does not mean that all man's choices are equally bad. What it means is that sin has affected every area of man's being. Hence it is total. A sinner can make good choices in terms of civic good but he cannot please God. Those choices have no redeeming value.

As for infant baptism, I do not know of any church that actually baptizes infants. Most of them sprinkle them. It is an unbiblical practice because of what it teaches, in most cases. In any event, it is an unnecessary practice. The Bible teaches that baptism is an act of the believer, not of an unbeliever.