Featured The Domino Theory of Scripture

There is no such thing as an apostate that was gloriously saved.
They are either saved, or apostate.

They are either God's children, or the devil's children.
There is no in-between.

"Honest dissenters" are called "unbelievers".
Renouncing faith is called "falling away" from a faith one never had.

The Bible itself claims that God's word is pure ( Psalms 12:6 ).

I don't know for sure what a "Fundamentalist" is, but I do know what a blood-bought child of the living God is.
We know His voice, and follow Him ( John 10:27 ).

Good question.
I believe that I have all that I need from God, especially His word.

Can you match true God-given faith with argument?
It appears to me, that you are trying to.

Faith is not rational.

It ignores what is rational, in favor of what is declared by the Lord in His word.
"Intellectualism" doesn't even come into play in the face of God-given faith.

We know Him apart from needing to be convinced by men, and we do not lean on our own understanding for a foundation ( Proverbs 3:5-6 ).
We hear His words ( John 8:47 ).

 

With respect, did you actually read what you typed above?

First you state that no Christian claims that God's word is errant...then you turn right around and claim that it is, by injecting human mis-handling of it.
What it seems that you are ducking, is God's promise to preserve His words for His children ( Psalms 12:6-7 ).

Incidentally, I know of many who profess Christ and do not actually believe His words, do not believe that Scripture is inerrant, and that deny many doctrines of His word.

 

Show me historical proof that the churches in the 1st century were using more than 66 books.

 

It appears to me that this thread is yet another attempt at proving that there is nothing a believer can stand on except sand, or what an established institution of men want us to stand on.

Please tell me this is not true, sir.

As believers in Jesus Christ, we have His word, and we trust it and Him.
Alone.

 

Lack of true God-given faith and the working of His Holy Spirit are why people do not come to Christ...not human persuasion.

Intellectualism, philosophy and logic have nothing to do with the power of God.
He works completely independent of man's desires, and gives the gift of eternal life to whosoever He wishes.

His Spirit is in no way helped or hampered by the activities of men.
God uses men, whether believers or unbelievers, to do His will.

There's a third choice in the above...

Bible believers need to ask themselves whether they care about what some person has labeled as "DT", or simply cast it aside in favor of preaching His word and seeing who will believe it.
Lastly, there is no such thing as "an honest seeker" who "gets saved" and does not come to God on His terms:

Unconditional acceptance of His words...each and every one of them ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

Side note:
It appears to me as if you advocate people becoming "radiant Christians who revel in God's grace, but reject biblical inerrancy".

Do you reject Biblical inerrancy?

 

John Gill (1690-1771) in his Exposition of the Entire Bible wrote, ". . . Not in an apocryphal book, called the Apocalypse of Elijah the prophet, as some have thought, but in Isa 64:4 with some variation; and is brought to prove that the Gospel is mysterious and hidden wisdom, unknown to the princes of this world, and ordained before the world was, for the glory of the saints: for the following words are not to be understood of the glories and happiness of the future state; though they are indeed invisible, unheard of, and inconceivable as to the excellency and fulness of them, and are what God has prepared from all eternity, for all those on whom he bestows his grace here; but of the doctrines of grace, and mysteries of the Gospel, as the context and the reason of their citation abundantly show; and are what . . . ."

 

If we are fellow members of the same body with the patriarchs and prophets of old, (Ephesians 2:19, 3:6) then would it not follow that Christ’s body, His bride, the church existed prior to the institution of baptism and the Lord’s Supper? If essence of the church partly consists in the administration of the sacraments, how do you factor in the fact that the church existed prior to the institution of any of the sacraments of the new covenant?

It is certain that the church consists of all those whose names are recorded in heaven.

“to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,” (Hebrews 12:23 ASV)

I think we are agreed that Abraham and the other believers before the coming of Christ in the flesh are not excluded from the body of Christ and are part of the bride of Christ. My question is then, how does this square with Roman theology which says that Peter was the first pope and the church started with the apostles?

Paul says, “and he [i.e. Jesus] came and preached to you that were far off [i.e. the Gentiles], and peace to them that were nigh: for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father. So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.” (Ephesians 2:18-20 ASV)

Who are those that believing Gentiles are fellow citizens with? Is it not the believing Israelites of old? Who is “the household of God,” is it not the church? (1 Timothy 3:15)

 

Personally I don't think calling a person a nut is saying their ideology is mistaken. My wife calls me a nut sometimes! And I certainly don't think it's gossip.

But anyway, point taken. Thank you.

 

The Church (the House of God 1 Timothy 3:15; Colossians 1:13; Apocalypse 1:6-9 and speaking of the Church 1 Peter 2:10) didn't exist prior to Christ who 'perfected' the law of the Prophets. However, the Kingdom of God given Moses remains as "a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation" [Exodus 19:6]. Can you find Scriptural evidence where the Kingdom of God given to Moses was terminated, defeated, or otherwise overthrown?

I agree these will be in the Kingdom of God, but I don't think our discussion was about 'who is in the Kingdom of God,' rather more about 'what is the Kingdom of God'.

I don't agree that Abraham was of the House of Jesus Christ. Rather I do agree that with Christ's sacrifice Abraham can be said to be in the Kingdom of God, Abraham was said to be just.

Yes St. Paul did say that, didn't he? We are now citizens, those near and afar, of what? Of the Kingdom of God, "the household of God"

How many ways can I say it. Now answer the question, which Church?

JoeT

 

Several things wrong with this statement.

1. How is the wording "very different" from Is. 64:4?
2. If you are going to invoke Origen please give a citation. Sorry, I don't just take your word for it.
3. Even if Origin said that, what does that prove? Origin did not know Paul and would have no way of "verifying" that Paul did not quote the OT. It is an opinion only. Therefore, Origin in no way would refute anything.
4. Saying it is written does not show Paul considered that work to be Scripture. That is just nonsense. First, there is no indication he was actually quoting that work and not Isaiah. Second, can Paul not say it is written if it is actually written?

 

[/QUOTE]
First, you have not dealth with how it is "very different" than the passage in Isaiah. Which deals with number 4, It is written, Paul is quoting Isaiah loosely. That being said, who makes Origen the authority on this passage?

 

Another difference between Christianity and other religions is that Christians consider the original scripture writings to be inerrant and we try very to cut through the copiest mistakes and translation imprecision to get to that original meaning.

Muslims reject some of the original Koranic writing, calling them Satanic Verses. Supposedly Satan fooled Mohammed and tricked him into putting some false things into the Koran.

Mormons are happy with the KJV, even though Joseph Smith wrote (didn't complete) a corrected KJV called the Inspired Version. In other words, they choose to follow what their own religion says inaccurate verses.

Jews mostly don't even believe the Hebrew Bible is inspired, so they're mostly unconcerned with what was originally written. About 1000 AD, Jews produced the Mesoretic Text which is appears altered in some ways from what likely was the original manuscripts. And, it seems they destroyed all the older Hebrew manuscripts they had.

Fundamentalist Christians have a KJVO doctrine. This doctrine means they have no interest in studying manuscripts to home in on the original written words of the Bible.

Opposite of Fundamentalists, we have Liberals. They approve of changing the Bible to support their non-biblical views.

 

Not every Apostolic quote are transcriptions from the Hebrew or Greek translation of the OT. Isaiah 64:4, ". . . men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. . . ." 1 Corinthians 2:9, ". . . Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. . . ." Psalms 14:2, ". . . The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. . . ." Romans 3:11, ". . . There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. . . ." You fail to understand it is how God wanted it restated in some instances. There are more examples.

 

It is my understanding that Apocalypse of Elijah is of a post Apostlic origin. Written in the early 4th century.

 

Just to be clear, the statement contained in Van's post #53 is from Deadworm, not Van. My response was "When an inspired author cites an uninspired writing, only the portion cited in support of the authors point is validated."