Bible
- Thread starter fatboys
- Start date
I'm saying that I've been freed from those images of a Judgmental God who sends His Creation to a Hell like place. So from that perspective, yes, God does not make judgments. God is life itself. And life does not make judgments.
.
Upvote
0
It's way more than God creating life. God IS life!
What I don't get is how can God judge what He is, which is life. It would be like judging yourself and sending yourself to Hell because you don't like what you believe. Isn't that the root cause of dis-functionalism?
.
Upvote
0
I don't see it that way at all. From my perspective, ALL is God!! And if we treated as such, this would be a much better world.
.
Upvote
0
BigDaddy4
It's a new season...
- Sep 4, 2008
- 7,442
- 1,983
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't understand that perspective at all. God is in all, but all is not God. Are you saying that when God created the world in Genesis 1 that he was just making himself bigger? Or that we should treat each other as gods? Isaiah 64:8 says that God is the potter and we are the clay. The clay can be made to reflect the potter, but it cannot be the potter.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
God making Himself bigger? That make me grin. That's an image that is new to me. I think that question is, where does one see the Divinity of God? And, where IS God?
It's more that all of this Creation, both the seen and unseen, is an activity of God. And that we should treat it with the sacredness that it is.
.
Upvote
0
Hebrews 1:1-2 says that the God spoke to the fathers and the prophets and that during the time of Christ, God spoke to us by His Son. This is God speaking to those who at some point either wrote down God’s words or spoke God’s words to an amanuensis. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that he wrote the commands of The Lord which again demonstrates that he only wrote what God had inspired him to write. In John 14:26, Christ tells the apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach them everything they needed to know and to bring to remembrance, the things that Christ had told them. In these examples, God is shown to be the author of the ideas and the illocution. Also, these verses and many more demonstrate that only God could give the authority to those who were designated as His spokesperson. Inspiration can be defined as “a superintendence of God the Holy Spirit over the writers of the Scriptures” (Enns ch 18).
I would agree that part of the reason for God’s progressive revelation was that man’s ability to fathom God in all His glory would be impossible if it were presented all at once. However, Christ told Nicodemus in John 3:12 that there were things about the heavenly things that are beyond our understanding and were still held back. God revealed what was necessary for us in order to believe who He is and to believe in His Son for our salvation. Paul relates the man who went into God’s heaven and was not permitted to recount what had been seen, so there is still more that God has not revealed and it is according to His own purposes.
As far as revelation goes, the general revelation of His creation giving Him glory is not arguable. I believe that we are continually given glimpses of the intricacy and boundless beauty of His creation but special revelation is complete. There are no more prophets beyond the book of Revelation that have been ordained by God to reveal anymore of Him. Christ Himself warns of those who claim to speak for God and who are false prophets. Paul warns against accepting any Gospel other than the one that He taught which was the same as what Christ taught. Any other form of revelation must be under the Bible’s authority; not beside and not above it.
Works Cited
Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Moody Publishers, 2008. Kindle file.
Upvote
0
He also admitted that sometimes he just expressed his personal opinion. For instance after telling women to wear a veil he admits the following:
"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."
Sorry, I don't see it proving that.
That's not how i define inspiration.
I would agree that part of the reason for God’s progressive revelation was that man’s ability to fathom God in all His glory would be impossible if it were presented all at once. However, Christ told Nicodemus in John 3:12 that there were things about the heavenly things that are beyond our understanding and were still held back. God revealed what was necessary for us in order to believe who He is and to believe in His Son for our salvation. Paul relates the man who went into God’s heaven and was not permitted to recount what had been seen, so there is still more that God has not revealed and it is according to His own purposes.
Says who? Enns?
If there weren't going to be anymore prophets Jesus would not have told us how to distinguish the true from the false.
The Bible and the Gospel are not synonymous. Paul was talking about those who tried to present a different meaning of Jesus' revelation than his understanding. It had nothing to do with the question of further revelations.
Upvote
0
God's Truth differs from the rocks when compared to the plants which differs from the animals which differs with Human Beings which differs from Christ. It's all relative depending upon where one stands in this cosmic wide Creation.
.
Upvote
0
"He also admitted that sometimes he just expressed his personal opinion. For instance after telling women to wear a veil he admits the following:"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."
The scripture that you quoted is from 1 Cor. 11:16 and Paul does not state that this is his own personal opinion. However, Paul does specify when it is his own personal thoughts as opposed to the direct Word from God Himself. The example is in 1 Cor. 7:10 and has to do with the institution of marriage. I see no objections from scholars that Paul was still not under the authority and inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he defined who was making the command. There is no reason to argue that Paul would step in and out of inspiration since it was the power of God and not Paul’s power or authority that the Holy Spirit followed. Paul’s inspiration from the Holy Spirit is not lacking or spotty in his recorded texts.
"That's not how i define inspiration."
That may be but the definition that I gave is shared by Benjamin B. Warfield, Edward J. Young, and Charles C. Rylie to name a few. So, by their authority as scholars and men of greater understanding and wisdom than myself, they have more right by virtue of authority to define biblical inspiration than I do.
"Says who? Enns?"
Yes, Enns teaches that there is no more special revelation about who God is and what His character is, along with countless other scholars. Again, these scholars are highly trained in biblical studies that include theology, language, comparative studies, and so on. This gives them the authority and right to make these judgments. Along with the teachings of scholars is my own studies and I find no inclination that there are any other prophecies to be expected other than what is deposited in Bible that would be considered special revelation of/from God.
I mentioned our discussion to Professor Badal yesterday, (Badal is a professor at Moody Bible Inst. and holds a doctorate in Leadership-Applied Theology). He expresses the same doubts about special revelation or other revelation of/from God being unfinished in relation to what is already deposited in the Bible. The question that exists is if there is more special revelation to be divulged, “how is to be interpreted?” God gave us the apostles and prophets not only to divulge the progressive revelation but also to interpret that same information. What is suggested by stating that the Bible is not the only repository for special revelation/His revelation (the revelation about God and who He is) is that the cannon is still open but the Church Fathers did not accept this premise, nor do Bible scholars.
Badal also states that there is no other source for special revelation other than the Bible which is where we learn about Him. The central theme of Scripture is Christology which extends from Genesis to Revelation and Christ is the fulfillment of God’s revelation.
"If there weren't going to be anymore prophets Jesus would not have told us how to distinguish the true from the false."
There are no more prophets that reveal special revelation or as you put it “His Revelation.” There are personal prophecies and general ones as well but there are no more canonical revelations after John’s book. Jesus told the audience in Matthew 7:15 about false prophets and in Matt. 24: 4, 5, 11, 24, and 25 also. His warning was against the claims of those who posed as Himself and there were false prophets after His declaration in Matthew as well as authentic ones. The sense that there would be true prophets that would reveal more about God in the sense of special revelation/His Revelation is not indefinite and is not necessarily expected. Christ is explaining that He is the fulfillment of God’s revelation as Badal states.
"The Bible and the Gospel are not synonymous. Paul was talking about those who tried to present a different meaning of Jesus' revelation than his understanding. It had nothing to do with the question of further revelations."
The statement is by Paul in Galatians 1:6-9 and Paul is warning these folks that even if an angel were to contradict the revelation of the Gospel, then that angel (in effect a false prophet) would be condemned. Christ fulfilled the special revelation and there are no more canonical revelations to come from outside the Bible.
The scripture that you quoted is from 1 Cor. 11:16 and Paul does not state that this is his own personal opinion. However, Paul does specify when it is his own personal thoughts as opposed to the direct Word from God Himself. The example is in 1 Cor. 7:10 and has to do with the institution of marriage. I see no objections from scholars that Paul was still not under the authority and inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he defined who was making the command. There is no reason to argue that Paul would step in and out of inspiration since it was the power of God and not Paul’s power or authority that the Holy Spirit followed. Paul’s inspiration from the Holy Spirit is not lacking or spotty in his recorded texts.
"That's not how i define inspiration."
That may be but the definition that I gave is shared by Benjamin B. Warfield, Edward J. Young, and Charles C. Rylie to name a few. So, by their authority as scholars and men of greater understanding and wisdom than myself, they have more right by virtue of authority to define biblical inspiration than I do.
"Says who? Enns?"
Yes, Enns teaches that there is no more special revelation about who God is and what His character is, along with countless other scholars. Again, these scholars are highly trained in biblical studies that include theology, language, comparative studies, and so on. This gives them the authority and right to make these judgments. Along with the teachings of scholars is my own studies and I find no inclination that there are any other prophecies to be expected other than what is deposited in Bible that would be considered special revelation of/from God.
I mentioned our discussion to Professor Badal yesterday, (Badal is a professor at Moody Bible Inst. and holds a doctorate in Leadership-Applied Theology). He expresses the same doubts about special revelation or other revelation of/from God being unfinished in relation to what is already deposited in the Bible. The question that exists is if there is more special revelation to be divulged, “how is to be interpreted?” God gave us the apostles and prophets not only to divulge the progressive revelation but also to interpret that same information. What is suggested by stating that the Bible is not the only repository for special revelation/His revelation (the revelation about God and who He is) is that the cannon is still open but the Church Fathers did not accept this premise, nor do Bible scholars.
Badal also states that there is no other source for special revelation other than the Bible which is where we learn about Him. The central theme of Scripture is Christology which extends from Genesis to Revelation and Christ is the fulfillment of God’s revelation.
"If there weren't going to be anymore prophets Jesus would not have told us how to distinguish the true from the false."
There are no more prophets that reveal special revelation or as you put it “His Revelation.” There are personal prophecies and general ones as well but there are no more canonical revelations after John’s book. Jesus told the audience in Matthew 7:15 about false prophets and in Matt. 24: 4, 5, 11, 24, and 25 also. His warning was against the claims of those who posed as Himself and there were false prophets after His declaration in Matthew as well as authentic ones. The sense that there would be true prophets that would reveal more about God in the sense of special revelation/His Revelation is not indefinite and is not necessarily expected. Christ is explaining that He is the fulfillment of God’s revelation as Badal states.
"The Bible and the Gospel are not synonymous. Paul was talking about those who tried to present a different meaning of Jesus' revelation than his understanding. It had nothing to do with the question of further revelations."
The statement is by Paul in Galatians 1:6-9 and Paul is warning these folks that even if an angel were to contradict the revelation of the Gospel, then that angel (in effect a false prophet) would be condemned. Christ fulfilled the special revelation and there are no more canonical revelations to come from outside the Bible.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sure sounds like it to me!
Huh? This is where he says it is directly from the Lord:
10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband
Are you thinking 1 Corinthians 7:7?
I see no reason to presume he always was. These are letters he is writing, after all. He doesn't know they are going to end up as scripture.
I have no reason to think they have anymore wisdom or understanding than I do. The first two I recognize as part of the 19th century Princeton Theology which gave birth to Fundamentalism. The third person I don't even recognize. But since I'm no fan of either the Princeton Theology or Fundamentalism, there no reason I would take their word for it.
Well, that's convenient. We wouldn't want anymore divine interference, would swe?
I never heard of Enns but the fact he is associated with the Moody Bible Institute, wouldn't give me much confidence in him.
Really? I wasn't aware there was any institution that had the power to give them that kind of authority. It sure didn't come with my PhD!
If that were the case there would be no Book of Revelation.
I'm not surprised. Truth is, no religion wants to be superseded.
Uh, when the Church Father's were around the canon was still open.
And I should believe Badal, because he teaches as Moody Bible Institute? Naah, I don't think so.
Nope, don't buy it. Christology begins with the New Testament.
There are no more canonical revelations because men closed the canon. That didn't stop God from talking.
Upvote
0
"I have no reason to think they have anymore wisdom or understanding than I do. The first two I recognize as part of the 19th century Princeton Theology which gave birth to Fundamentalism. The third person I don't even recognize. But since I'm no fan of either the Princeton Theology or Fundamentalism, there no reason I would take their word for it.
I never heard of Enns but the fact he is associated with the Moody Bible Institute, wouldn't give me much confidence in him.
And I should believe Badal, because he teaches as Moody Bible Institute? Naah, I don't think so."
I see that your bias and rejection of scholarship are your methods of reason. In which case our discussion is over.
Upvote
0
Rejection of scholarship? LOL. I am an academician. What I accept is the higher criticism of standard academic scholarship today, which your 'scholars' reject.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
