No problem, i try to make a habit of doing fullest context.
I appreciate that. It is always preferable to see the quote within its full context, but in this case, quoting the entire chapter (as would be ideal) would be more than most people would be willing to read and would likely border on plagarism.
He's hinting at the unimportance of the virgin birth...That itself is an attack on both the authenticity of scripture and on the deity of Christ.
He's hinting at it in the same way that he is hinting at the relative unimportance of anyone's favorite pet doctrine. Clearly, however, he is not denying the virgin birth, nor is denying any other doctrine of the Church. Rather, he is encouraging us to consider the importance of individual doctrines in light of who Christ is and what He has done.
How do you derive this from that...
we know that...Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God... So apparently we are able to interpret simply enough the written word.
Paul writes, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37)
Pretty simple really!
I have read the entire book and the chapter from which the quote is taken. It seems rather clear to me. I am not sure what your Scripture citation has to do with the topic however.
He is questioning the importance of such doctrines..God placed them in his word for a purpose..To attest to scripture and proof of divinity...Any, any undermining sets out to minimalise scripture and our LORDS divinity.
God placed them in His word because they are true. Bell is not minimizing the Truth of them. He is, however, suggesting that our faith not depend upon our pet doctrines but on who Christ is and what He has done.
How'd you derive all this out of that?
Like I said. I have read the book and the chapter from which you are quoting. I don't have a copy of it handy to quote directly from the chapter, but from what I remember of the book, taken in context, the meaning of the passage is rather clear. If you want to PM me the entire chapter, I would be happy to discuss in greater detail.
Both, before i was born again i mentally assented to Gods existence and accepted His truth as REVEALED in His word, but knew Him not. When i delved in to seek Him from scripture i was given the gift of faith..
If that is the case, then my experience is different from yours. Perhaps, this is part of the reason we relate to Bell differently. In my life, Jesus acted, I came to believe, and then I accepted what the Bible taught about Him. My initial experience with the Gospel was in that order. Certainly, I knew of what the Bible taught before this time. But, I did not come to believe because of something that I had read. I believed what I read because I believed in what Jesus had done in my life. And, so in my faith today, the priority does not lie in doctrines such as the virgin birth and the resurrection (although I believe in these things, because I believe God). Rather the priority wrests in my faith in Christ, which was cemented by what He has done, and which is not based on the historicity or literalism of any particular core doctrines of the Christian faith.
I despise guys like bell who undermine God's revealed word.
You have yet to show that he has done so. In fact, I think this discussion has shown the intense respect that he has for Scripture in his teaching and in his general hermaneutic approach.