Which Old testament events are historically accurate?

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Salvation is not about holding to certain doctrines -- it is about knowing Christ!

You are creating a false dichotemy. We are given the doctrines of the Bible for a reason. So that we may know Christ and grow in truth. The Bible is clear that a Christian is identified by his actions and his beliefs (doctrines). How can we say that someone "knows" Christ if they deny biblical truths? </font>[/QUOTE]I agree to a point. The problem is that you’ve made adherence to a theory of inerrancy as a requirement for salvation. That is in direct opposition to the central message of Galatians. Believers in Christ follow Abraham’s example of believing in God and His provision (Jesus). Abraham did not have the Law (God’s written word), circumcision, rituals or temple sacrifices to follow to come to Christ. Paul makes it explicitly clear that these additional things are not necessary for salvation! Now there are many good doctrines that I think Christians should hold to, but they have nothing to do with salvation. To try to separate the wheat from the tares goes directly against the teaching of Christ.

This is not intended to be shot a Joshua at all. I am just responding to your dangerously false post. Being Christian is more than some nondescript spiritual enlightenment. Our faith is based on what the Bible teaches.

At it’s core though, our individual faith is based on a personal experience with Christ. Most of the time, the Bible plays a strong role in *introducing* us to Christ, but sometimes people meet Christ without having the advantage of the Bible (i.e. Abraham). Our faith in Christ is not mediated through the Bible.

If the Bible is false then your foundation of "knowing Christ" lacks any real meaning. Therefore the authority and reliability of scripture is critical.

Just because someone doesn’t accept a theory of inerrancy doesn’t mean that they think the Bible is false… The authority and reliability of scripture *is* important, but that does make it *essential* to salvation.

Your habit of labeling those who disagree with you as not belonging to Christ is offensive to God.

Since you have chosen to speak for God, how do you know that this judgment is offensive to God? The Bible teaches us ways to identify true believers and gives examples of judging others as non-believers- there are distinctive traits of both. Discerning who is or is not a Christian is not a light matter but it is also not forbidden like many think. [/QB][/QUOTE]

If someone denies the divinity of Christ (NOTE: not accepting the virgin birth does not necessarily mean that that person does not believe in the divinity of Christ), or denies that Christ has come in the flesh, or denies the resurrection of Christ, or rejects the call to follow Jesus, then they are not true believers.

But you have condemned not only Joshua but all CBF members (in another thread) as being outside the Christian faith. How can you possibly justify such a blanket condemnation?

How can we avoid fellowship with false Christians if we are not to judge?

It’s not about judging, it’s about judging with false standards.

What is the minimum doctrinal agreement for fellowship? The Bible establishes a fairly high threshold.

This is a different question than the question of salvation…

People organize themselves into churches to follow Christ according to the dictates of the conscience that has been enlightened by the word of God. Each church needs to determine for themselves what the minimal doctrinal standard needs to be. In the same way, denominations *can* establish minimal doctrinal standards for fellowship, whether they be legalistic, wide-open liberal, razor-thin fundamentalist or anything in between.

But that’s not what you were discussing earlier.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Have you ever entertained a thought about what the book of Galatians teaches? Salvation is not about holding to certain doctrines -- it is about knowing Christ!

Your habit of labeling those who disagree with you as not belonging to Christ is offensive to God.

I would just like to point out the irony and obvious trap that libs put themselves in. </font>[/QUOTE]The “libs”? Now I’m a liberal? You don’t have a clue.

On one side, a person is free to believe as the "spirit" leads them.

Nope. Not the “spirit”, but the Holy Spirit of God.

They can believe pretty much what they want in regards to essential doctrines.

Nope. If they deny the resurrection, the divinity of Christ, that Christ has come in the flesh or deny the call of discipleship, they are definitely not Christian. But you seem to have also included an acceptance of “inerrancy” as necessary for salvation. This flies in the face of Biblical teaching in Galatians, Romans, the Gospels, etc.

They champion this right and force acceptance from others.

How have you been forced? By pointing out some problems with the popular theories of inerrancy, they have made many uncomfortable, but no one has been forced.

On the other side, a fundi such as myself, is not free to do the same. You see, I can believe what I want to about essential doctrines, I just can't make them mean anything to anyone else.

You are just as free to argue your points as anyone else. But personal attacks only betray your desperation and lack of supporting evidence.

I am not free in my interpretation to say that others are not saved if they deny certain truths.

No one is stopping you from doing it, but I sure have the right to strongly correct you for your unbiblical and subChristian condemnation of everyone who disagrees with you. In another current thread you said that everyone in CBF is not your brother in Christ. You are not discerning the Body of Christ correctly if you make blanket judgments like that.

Here is where it gets funny, the libs even use the Bible as the basis for what they say!

What is sad is that you can’t seem to recognize that many people who think that inerrancy is a weak concept and a misplaced theological emphasis do not believe the Bible! Since you are throwing that label “lib” around and you seem to think I’m one, let me set you straight. The Bible is completely trustworthy for faith and practice. I’ve never had any problem believing the Bible. What I have noticed is that many people who trumpet the cry of inerrancy the loudest have the hardest time implementing the command not to bear false witness, the command against trying to separate the wheat from the tares, and the commands to love your brothers and sisters in Christ as well as your enemy.

Even if the theory of inerrancy was true, the demons would believe it and still be lost.

The very thing that fundis do to establish credibility is to refer to the Scripture as inerrant and therefore totally reliable in everything it touches on.

The libs deny inerrancy and yet appeal to it when it fits whatever way the wind is blowing.

While most liberals do not hold to theories of inerrancy, many thoughtful Christians find popular theories of inerrancy lacking in merit and necessity. But here you charge that “liberals” are using theories of inerrancy to support their assertions? Ridiculous! Please show an example of this!

I think you’ve confused believing the Bible with a theory of inerrancy.

How bizarre and painful it must be to be so unsure about truth.

How sad it is when someone has to resort to ad hominem attacks and condescending comments!

[ August 09, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
But you have condemned not only Joshua but all CBF members (in another thread) as being outside the Christian faith. How can you possibly justify such a blanket condemnation?

I did? Are you sure it was me? I think that many things the CBF stands for are false but I do not remember condemning anyone to include Joshua.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
But you have condemned not only Joshua but all CBF members (in another thread) as being outside the Christian faith. How can you possibly justify such a blanket condemnation?

I did? Are you sure it was me? I think that many things the CBF stands for are false but I do not remember condemning anyone to include Joshua.</font>[/QUOTE]No you didn’t… I got you confused with PreachTheWord. I’m very sorry about the confusion.

 

[Dr. Brigit]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Josh, in all fairness to you and all you hold dear in the theological realm. I do not question your salvation. I never entertained the thought you were saved.

He's not saved? Wow, that's news to me! Thanks for letting me know.

Brigit
(I'm on my way to tell the congregation right now! Boy will they be surprised!)

 

[TomVols]

Folks, if you genuinely believe someone on here isn't saved, flaming them isn't the answer. A loving, truthful, private witness would be the best option. Now let's cut out the nonsense.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
...nor am I attacking Joshua but his list of major doctines that he denies speaks for themselves.
Murphy

Murphy,

Could you list for me what those major doctrines are?</font>[/QUOTE]Joshua I will begin with 2 Tim 3:16 since we are on that discussion right now. Adding to this would be 2 Peter chapter 1 where Peter declares that even direct revelation from God doesn't supersede God's Word.

Following your lack of belief in the Scriptures we can add your views on the Virgin birth(from your post on page 4 of this thread)that same post mentions the unbelievability of the reserection, but I am not sure what you meant by that.

On page 1 we find you referencing your unbiblical view of homosexuality. These are the ones I remember from this thread.
Murphy

 

[Dr. Brigit]

So, C.S., you consider:

- the "inerrancy" of the Bible (which I deny)
- the Virgin Birth (which I accept but don't consider significant and consider open for debate)
- the physical resurrection (which I affirm)
- the sinfulness of homosexuality (which I emphatically deny)

to be major doctrined of the faith without which one cannot be a Christian? Of those, I would only argue for the resurrection. Inerrancy is a fabricated "doctrine" defined according to the tenets of modernism. Acceptance of the virgin birth is mentioned nowhere as a prerequisite for salvation or acceptance of the gospel (and isn't even mentioned in two of the gospels). The sinfulness of homosexuality is a topic of widespread debate in the Church and - like all matters of specific behavior - has been historically open to reinterpretation. It can hardly be considered key to the faith.

Joshua

 

[Dr. Brigit]

Originally posted by TomVols:
...A loving, truthful, private witness would be the best option.

Great Tom. Now they're all going to show up at my doorstep with casseroles. Thanks a lot.

Joshua

 

[Dr. Brigit]

Hmmm...looks like my wife is still logged on on this computer. Ack!

Joshua (I think)

(Is there a way to have it automatically log you off when you leave the website?)

 

[rhoneycutt]

Originally posted by TomVols:
Folks, if you genuinely believe someone on here isn't saved, flaming them isn't the answer. A loving, truthful, private witness would be the best option. Now let's cut out the nonsense.

Tom,
If you keep posting like this I am going to have to consider voting for you as BB Member of the year.
Oh wait your a Tennessee fan what was I thinking....
October 26, I am going to recieve a wonderful birthday gift from Knoxville, its been seven long years....

Peace
Russell

 

[w_fortenberry]

Mr. Villines,

Please forgive me for keeping you waiting. You have asked me to... "Please explain why the gospels provide different accounts of the events surrounding the empty tomb."

However, I must admit to some confusion. I have read the passages in question and have not found the supposed contradictions. Perhaps you could quote the verses and explain why you beleive your synopsis of them is accurate to the Scripture.

You also stated, "I don't see any point in researching biblical inconsistencies, only to have you do the kind of cognitive backflips for which inerrantists are notorious."

If you would please explain to me what you mean by a cognitive backflip, I will try not to waste your time with such a performance.

As for the point of researching biblical inconsistencies, is it not the duty of every Christian to speak that which is good to the use of edifying that it may minister grace unto the hearers (Ephesians 4:29)? Is it not the truth of God's Word which provides edification? Is not the Word of God truth (John 17:17)? If then the Word of God is truth and there are portions of the Bible which are not true, then is it not our responsibility as Christians to discern which portions are true and which are false that we may grow thereby (Hebrews 5:14)?

Though you may have come here just for casual conversation and sharing of ideas, is it not your calling to minister the Word of Truth both in season and out of season (II Timothy 4:2)?

 

[John Wells]

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believrs. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to suport you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's character. Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

CHRIST is its grand subject, our good the design, and the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgement, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

Amen! Good day!

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Dear Doctor
Thanks for the speedy reply, it was as I suspected. First of all I don't know which of these will sink the Gospel ship but I do believe that a mindset of dismissing Biblical truth may point to an actual rejection of the author. Concerning Homosexuality I believe that a person can be saved and not realize that this is sinful. That is until the light of the scripture shines on their sin, at that time I believe the Christian will understand that this is sin. Now they may not deal with their sin as such but we can all say that about a particular sin in our lives. My problem is that when Pastors stand and deny the truth that it may influence that person from accepting what the Word says. This occurs when we reinterpret Scripture, remember Peter said no private interpretation.
Now to the Virgin birth. It is my understanding that for Jesus to have become the perfect sacrifice he had to be sinless. If His mother was not a virgin how was this possible? Also if you dissagree with the Virgin birth would you mind explaining how He was born.
Murphy

 

[C.S. Murphy]

In case Joshua is out of town would any of you that agree with his view of Scriptures like to answer the question. If not Virgin born how did Christ get here? I am curious.
Murphy

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
In case Joshua is out of town would any of you that agree with his view of Scriptures like to answer the question. If not Virgin born how did Christ get here? I am curious.
Murphy

I accept the virgin birth, but its not essential to me. How did Jesus get here if not for the virgin birth? Well, lets see if I can remember how my daddy told me about what happens when there's a man and women and they are nekkid..

In all seriousness, Mary could have been raped (or even had consenual sex) days, months, or even years prior to the conception of Christ. Her lack of virginity would not in and of itself prevent a later divine conception independant of an earthly father. In either event, Christ would still be sinless as he had did not sin in his conception, only Mary and/or a human father.
Secondly, just as being born of a human mother does not diminish Christ's divinity (he's not a partial god or half-god, but completely God) having a human father would not prevent him from being perfectly divine-Its not beyond God's power to make a child in the womb "pefect". And we all call God our "father".
Regardless, the virgin birth is not essential to Jesus' place as the risen Christ and Lord.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
[QBI accept the virgin birth, but its not essential to me. [/QB]

Have you read Machen's book?

 

[Daniel David]

David, both of you Villines, and anyone else who denies the virgin birth - you are WRONG! I can not be more emphatic about that. On what grounds do you superimpose theology on what God said? Is it because you have a difficulty with miracles? Isn't that the simplistic naturalistic way of seeing the universe? Oh sure, IF miracles didn't happen, then Christianity doesn't exist. We could all be CBF then.

The miracle was that Emmanuel (God with us) was born of a virgin. That is what the Scripture declares. Deny that and you deny an essential doctrine of Christ. To do that is to deny Christ. John 8:24 - If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sin. A person must believe in the absolute deity of Christ. If He had a human father, he is just a supersaint, or perhaps even superman (a little more than man and a little less than God). He is certainly not worthy of worship and not qualified to be the savior of the world.

The virgin birth cannot be denied by Christians. If you deny it, you only profess Christ and have no place in His kingdom. You can scoff and mock; it matters not to me.

I don't know why I am amazed when the libs come up with their excuses for certain passages. If I had to write 4 biographies of a particular person, I might not include the same information in all 4. WOW! What a difficult concept. Does that mean that the information is questionable and that it probably didn't happen? Hey, there isn't a biography about me... maybe I'm not really here at all.

Why do all 4 gospels have to include the virgin birth to be real? How ridiculous. Next.

____

Romans 1:16

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
David, both of you Villines, and anyone else who denies the virgin birth - you are WRONG!

David never said that he denied the virgin birth. You are factually incorrect.

Oh sure, IF miracles didn't happen, then Christianity doesn't exist. We could all be CBF then.

Your constant slaps against CBF indicate that you have some serious personal issues. I urge you to seek professional assistance.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:

In all seriousness, Mary could have been raped (or even had consenual sex) days, months, or even years prior to the conception of Christ. Wrong! how do I know? Because the Scriptures say Virgin.

Secondly, just as being born of a human mother does not diminish Christ's divinity (he's not a partial god or half-god, but completely God) having a human father would not prevent him from being perfectly divine-Its not beyond God's power to make a child in the womb "pefect". And we all call God our "father". Regardless, the virgin birth is not essential to Jesus' place as the risen Christ and Lord.[/QB]

Concerning your quote above about Jesus could have a human father I have only one word to say
W O W !!!!!!!!!!
That was my personal comment but I believe Paul has another word concerning those who believe such a thing. 2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
Murphy