The Domino Theory of Scripture

[Dave G]

These "apostates" include ex-Christians I know who were gloriously saved as young men. So here are the 5 questions for discussion on this thread:

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.

1) Is the insistence on an inerrantist view of Scripture essential enough to thereby unwittingly encourage honest dissenters to renounce their faith in biblical revelation and its Gospel?

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

(2) Why do Fundamentalists insist on biblical inerrancy when the Bible itself never claims to be inerrannt, not even in the vague claim that the OT is "god--breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)?"

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

(3) On what basis do Fundamentalists claim an inerrant NT, when the NT didn't even exist as a consensual canon of books until the 3rd century? [No, 2 Peter 3:15-16 does not refute this problem.]

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 ).

4) Jude cites the alleged supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative and In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the same phrase ("It is written") that he uses to cite OT texts. So on what basis do Fundamentalists accept the Protestant OT canon (despite Josephus) as opposed to Paul's and Jude's apparently open-ended view of canonicity, the Septuagint, and the Catholic inclusion of the OT apocrypha?

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.

(5) How is it intellectually honest for Fundamentalists to continue to cling to biblical inerrancy, when faced with clear examples of biblical errors for which they have no rational answer?

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 ).

 

[Dave G]

No Christian, Fundamentalist or Liberal, claims that God's Word is errant. What you are ducking is the issue of cultural bias and human error in hearing and transmitting God's Word.

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.

 

[Dave G]

Show us historical proof that there were churches using ONLY 66 books before the Reformation

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

 

[Dave G]

What I want non-Baptist posters to see is how this evasion illustrates a twofold basic character flaw unwittingly promoted by the Domino Theory of Scripture [hereafter DT].

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.

 

[Dave G]

1) The DT creates a character rigidity that prevents believers from provisionally suspending their doctrinal bias to breathe the fresh air of honest and open inquiry into the Truth. Concede one proven error in the Bible and they are plagued by a devastating faith crisis! This rigidity prevents Fundamentalists from being good listeners and from empathizing with honestly held alternative presuppositional frameworks. This character flaw is a major reason why honest intelligent seekers shun dialogue with Evangelicals that the Holy Spirit might otherwise use to bring them to Christ.

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.

(2) Worse, DT places a higher premium on being right in their own eyes than on getting honest seekers saved. So Fundamentalists need to ask themselves whether they'd rather honest seekers recognize the merits of DT and reject Christ or become radiant Christians who revel in God's grace, but reject biblical inerrancy.

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?

 

[37818]

In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the same phrase ("It is written") that he uses to cite OT texts.

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 . . . ."

 

[Noah Hirsch]

There are three provinces of God's Kingdom, the Church Militant, His earthly realm, the Church suffering, those in purgatory, and The Church Triumphant, those in heaven. All of the mentioned individuals are said to be just men, some were said to talk to God 'face to face'; therefore I see no reason why they wouldn't be members of the the Body of Christ, as if I could be their judge.

JoeT

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)

 

[John of Japan]

John, you are not anything to Clark Pinnock. While his niece may have shared some stories about Pinnock in reminiscing a lost Uncle, for you, Pinnock is an ideological enemy. What you are doing is spreading gossip. This is the second time you have done it and you need to find another way to respond to people mentioning Pinnock.

I’m sure you can do better than calling your ideological opponent “a nut” and then trying to defend it by saying that the niece said it.

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.

 

[JoeT]

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?

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?

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 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 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?

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.

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)

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"

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)

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

JoeT

 

[Deadworm]

If some of the Bible is in error

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 . . . ."

No, the wording is very different from Isaiah 64:4 and the early church father, Origin, verifies that the actual quote is lifted from the Apocalypse of Elijah, thus refuting Gill's claim. By introducing the quote with "It is written," Paul shows that he considers this apocalypse Scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

No, the wording is very different from Isaiah 64:4 and the early church father, Origin, verifies that the actual quote is lifted from the Apocalypse of Elijah, thus refuting Gill's claim. By introducing the quote with "It is written," Paul shows that he considers this apocalypse Scripture.

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?

 

[Deadworm]

David Taylor: "2. If you are going to invoke Origen please give a citation. Sorry, I don't just take your word for it."

Origen, Comm. in Matth. 5:29, on Matthew 27:9.

David Taylor: "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."

Now your Baptist bias is clouding your judgment. Origen also wrote a Commentary on 1 Corinthians and knew it very well. Yet the saying's wording is drawn from Apocalypse of Elijah and no extant Greek version of Isaiah preserves that wording! the point is not the uniquely of the teaching to this Apocalypse, but Paul's acceptance of it as Scripture. You also ignore Jude's frequent dependence on the divine revelation in 1 Enoch, which prompts major NT scholar Richard Bauckham ("Jude," p. 138) to write, "Jude's dependence on 1 Enoch has scarcely ever been disputed." Jude 9 application of the story of Michael's involvement with the dispute over Moses' corpse is lifted from the Assumption of Moses and is, according to the ancient church father, Didymus a reason why the authority of Jude is disputed (For a thorough discussion of the authority for Jude of the Assumption of Moses, see Bauckham, pp. 236-245, 259-270.). You really must investigate the massive evidence for an elastic biblical canon in the first 2 Christian centuries.

David Taylor: "4. Saying it is written does not show Paul considered that work to be Scripture...can Paul not say it is written if it is actually written?"

No, because Paul's epistles use the expression "it is written" countless times, always with reference to Scripture. The credibility of your claim requires you to come up with one Pauline example that is an exception to this rule.[/QUOTE]

 

[Reformed1689]

David Taylor: "2. If you are going to invoke Origen please give a citation. Sorry, I don't just take your word for it."

Origen, Comm. in Matth. 5:29, on Matthew 27:9.

David Taylor: "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."

Now your Baptist bias is clouding your judgment. Origen also wrote a Commentary on 1 Corinthians and knew it very well. Yet the saying's wording is drawn from Apocalypse of Elijah and no extant Greek version of Isaiah preserves that wording! the point is not the uniquely of the teaching to this Apocalypse, but Paul's acceptance of it as Scripture. You also ignore Jude's frequent dependence on the divine revelation in 1 Enoch, which prompts major NT scholar Richard Bauckham ("Jude," p. 138) to write, "Jude's dependence on 1 Enoch has scarcely ever been disputed." Jude 9 application of the story of Michael's involvement with the dispute over Moses' corpse is lifted from the Assumption of Moses and is, according to the ancient church father, Didymus a reason why the authority of Jude is disputed (For a thorough discussion of the authority for Jude of the Assumption of Moses, see Bauckham, pp. 236-245, 259-270.). You really must investigate the massive evidence for an elastic biblical canon in the first 2 Christian centuries.

David Taylor: "4. Saying it is written does not show Paul considered that work to be Scripture...can Paul not say it is written if it is actually written?"

No, because Paul's epistles use the expression "it is written" countless times, always with reference to Scripture. The credibility of your claim requires you to come up with one Pauline example that is an exception to this rule.

[/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?

 

[Shoostie]

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.

 

[Deadworm]

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?[/QUOTE]

It is possible that the author of Apocalypse of Elijah drew from the language, if not the intent of Isaiah in composing his saying about Heaven. You really must learn to read the relevant texts for meaning side by side before pontificating:
"As it is written, eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man the things prepared for those who love Him (1 Corinthians 2:9)."
"From ages past no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God beside you. ' who works for those who wait for Him (Isaiah 64:4)."

First, Origen is one of the most prolific and respected theologians of the first 2 centuries. More importantly, he discusses various texts of Scripture and what the earlier manuscripts read.
Second, the Apocalypse of Elijah, but no text of Isaiah, contains the wording found in Paul.
Third, only Isaiah is defending monotheism.
Fourth, only the Apocalypse of Elijah addresses post-mortem rewards for the righteous.
Fifth, only the Apocalypse of Isaiah restricts the beneficiaries to "those who love Him."
Less importantly, sixth and seventh, only Isaiah deals with the sweep of history ("ages past").
and only the Apocalypse of Elijah alludes to the human imagination.

 

[37818]

No, the wording is very different from Isaiah 64:4 and the early church father, Origin, verifies that the actual quote is lifted from the Apocalypse of Elijah, thus refuting Gill's claim. By introducing the quote with "It is written," Paul shows that he considers this apocalypse Scripture.

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.

 

[Deadworm]

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.

Your point is decisively refuted by the discovery of the exact wording of 1 Cor. 2:9 in the Apocalypse of Elijah and the absence of this wording in any ancient manuscript of Isaiah. And you are ducking Jude's use of supernatural events alleged in the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. 2nd century church fathers similarly invested 1 Enoch with the same authority as our Scripture.

 

[Deadworm]

Notice that Baptist posters in this thread freeze like Bambi in the headlights when confronted with the challenge to produce a precisely 66 book biblical canon prior to the Protestant Reformation.

Here is a challenging question for Baptists: why should Hebrews be canonical Scripture when it is not written by Paul and claims no divine inspiration for its authorship? Indeed, Eusebius reports that the church at Rome rejects Hebrews (HE 3.5.3). By contrast, the Roman author of the first century epistle to Corinth, 1 Clement, describes his own words as "said by God through us" (59:1)" and as "written by us through the Holy Spirit (63:2)." This claim is evidently embraced by the Pauline church of Corinth because they mass produce it; and the 2nd century church father, Clement of Alexandria elevates Clement of Rome to the status of an "apostle" and frequently quotes him as though 1 Clement has the scriptural status. So how can Baptists duck the essential inference that the Spirit simply guided the Catholic church to eventually accept the canonicity of Hebrews and reject the canonicity of 1 Clement?

 

[37818]

Your point is decisively refuted by the discovery of the exact wording of 1 Cor. 2:9 in the Apocalypse of Elijah and the absence of this wording in any ancient manuscript of Isaiah. And you are ducking Jude's use of supernatural events alleged in the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. 2nd century church fathers similarly invested 1 Enoch with the same authority as our Scripture.

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

 

[Van]

Van said: ↑
In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the same phrase ("It is written") that he uses to cite OT texts.

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 . . . ."

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."