Do you affirm the fundamentals?

Do you believe in the fundamentals?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 67.7%
  • No

    Votes: 20 32.3%

  • Total voters
    62

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The fact that one regards a Bible recording of history as "morally neutral" has nothing to do with whether the genre is to be labeled "apocalyptic" or allegorical.
You infer a meaning that I neither expressed nor inferred. You might regard that as clever debating, I would regard it as unworthy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
bling,

That doesn't answer my questions to you: What do you consider is a more accurate biblical teaching of the atonement? Or, don't you agree with the doctrine of atonement?

What happens if the Bible + Spirit for you comes to a different conclusion than the Bible + Spirit for me?

Oz
That cannot happen if we are following the same Spirit.

You can start by reading my post 104 which just briefly explains Is. 53.

But also:
Yes I very much believe in atonement, but Jesus only provided the atonement sacrifice and was the High Priest in the atonement process.

What ever atonement explanation, you wind up accepting, has to agree with the fact Christ's sacrifice was a literal ransom payment and not just like a ransom payment. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe Christ's torture, humiliation and murder as a ransom payment.

This does not mean the Ransom Theory of Atonement is correct since this "theory" has God paying the ransom to an undeserving satan. God owes satan nothing and since God could just as easily and safely take His children without paying satan, it would actually be wrong for God to pay satan.

We can all agree on the payment being the torture. humiliation, and murder of Christ.
We can all agree on Deity making this huge sacrificial payment.
We can all agree on the child set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God are Christians (you must enter like a child only).

The issue than is who is the undeserving kidnapper being paid this huge ransom payment and how does this ransom payment have value to the kidnapper?

We already said it could not be satan so we agree on that.
Some have tried to say he is death, sin or evil but those are intangibles and cannot value Christ's crucifixion and really need nothing paid to them.
Some say the analogy does not go that far, but it is not an analogy and it makes no sense without a kidnapper.
Some say God takes the payment, but that means God is the criminal (kidnapper) which means He would be undeserving. So those that believe this turn around and say: "God is deserving", but that means it is not a ransom payment. Even beyond this issue: what value would God get out of the torture, humiliation ands murder of Christ, unless God is blood thirsty? Who and why have this as a payment? Does God have a problem?

If you think about it there is another person running around in this whole scenario and that is the rebellious disobedient sinner himself, who certainly does not deserve anything and cannot go to God without first becoming as another person (a child). Think about the prodigal son: was it the same rebellious disobedient young son who left home, the one who returned home the same way he left? Who dragged that son away from his father forced him to do wicked things and ended up holding the son in a pigsty (the rebellious disobedient prodigal son himself)? When you talk to a nonbeliever who are you trying to convince to let go, take the ransom and become a new person?

The problem with believing the nonbeliever is the kidnapper is the fact all the popular theories of atonement do not address that possible conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
The text of Sinaiticus is often defective, omitting a large number of texts. However, it may be possible to use a manuscript with discernment, making allowances for its characteristic errors. Most of the omissions in Codex Sinaiticus have occurred by reason of a common mistake of copyists because of a similar ending, which the scribe of Sinaiticus was especially prone to make. These omissions are readily recognized. The following passages are examples where the italicized words are omitted in Sinaiticus.

Bob,

What evidence do you have to demonstrate this is a truthful statement?

How do you know Sinaiticus omitted a large number of texts? Are you comparing it with the Textus Receptus? If so, then it may be shown by MSS history that the TR has ADDED to the Scripture when compared with Sinaiticus & Vaticanus

Sinaiticus is housed in the British Library. My Christian son when in London, went to view it. He said that his response to seeing it was to weep, which is quite different to your rather cynical view of it.

You stated: 'Most of the omissions in Codex Sinaiticus have occurred by reason of a common mistake of copyists because of a similar ending'.

That's a rather audacious statement to make when you were not there to KNOW what 'omissions' were made in Sinaiticus and why there were left out or changed.

Other "inspired" modification of the Church to Codex Sinaiticus and our modern Bibles are:

  • In Matthew 5:22, the words "without cause" are missing in both the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
  • The words of Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever." Do not exist in these two most ancient manuscripts as well as many others. The parallel passages in Luke are also defective.

Your cynicism towards Sinaiticus as alleged inspired modification, indicates that you don't seem to understand that theopneustos (God-breathed, 2 Tim 3:16) refers to 'all Scripture' in the originals. It does not refer to Sinaiticus or the Textus Receptus. Is the KJV your favourite 'God-breathed' Bible?

Your examples of Matt 5:22 and Matt 6:13 are typical of those claiming the TR is accurate and the Received Text has had words deleted. The fact is that the TR has added words. The words omitted by Sinaiticus were not there in the first place, based on other documents that have been discovered around the time of the late 4th century (dating of Sinaiticus).

Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
That cannot happen if we are following the same Spirit.

How do the Christian people in the church know you are both following the same Spirit or NOT following the same Spirit if both claim the same Spirit?
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How do the Christian people in the church know you are both following the same Spirit or NOT following the same Spirit if both claim the same Spirit?
This is not addressing the majority of my post, but I will address it.
"By their Love" or lack of Love (selfishness).
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
One that clarifies that substitutionary atonement is not penal substitution but vicarious satisfaction. I cannot accept that the Father poured out His wrath on His Son.
I don't like either view. They both seem too intellectually contrived, as if based on the philosophy of Plato or Aristotle.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I don't like either view. They both seem too intellectually contrived, as if based on the philosophy of Plato or Aristotle.
Well, people try to explain things in ways others can understand them, and that requires some rationality.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
This is not addressing the majority of my post, but I will address it.
"By their Love" or lack of Love (selfishness).

It addresses a part of your post to which I chose to respond.

I know secular people who love others and me. They are not selfish.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I think if Paul thought he was writing the infallible word of God, his Greek would have been better parsed, and he would have taken a great deal of care to ensure that it was 100% schmic. What we have is excited outbursts and a scribe flat out keeping up, and in Romans this amazing expose of internal discourse where everything that Paul was brought up to be is in dialogue with everything he has done, and in the fertile ground of this internal dialogue we are confronted with many things that God wants us to know.

Philip,

From where did you generate that interpretation of Paul? From 'I think'? Your view of '100% schmick (excellent)' seems to be generated from your, 'I think'.

You've provided not one piece of evidence here to support your theory of Paul's 'internal discourse' or 'internal dialogue'.

Would it be true to say that you have a view that does not think much of Paul's theology and part of that is his fallible grammar?

Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
'Useful for teaching'? Not exactly the Nobel Prize for Literature from Paul there, is it?

Meanwhile I don't see the words 'perfect' or 'inerrant' anywhere in that quotation, nor in the Nicene Creed for that matter.

Are you suggesting we have to add to Scripture that which is not written, and then believe it? Because that is exactly what Biblical inerrancy is; a man made gospel, different from the one we are given in Scripture.

Catherine,

You don't need to see the words 'perfect' or 'inerrant' in 2 Tim 3:16 (NIV) to know that 'all Scripture' in the original documents refers to the inerrant Scriptures. 'God-breathed' covers that.

When Scripture comes from the perfect God (Deut 32:4; Matt 5:48) who does not tell lies (Num 23:19; Heb 6:17-18) and tells the truth (Ps 31:5; Rom 3:4), that is I can affirm that the Bible is inerrant in the autographa.

That's the nature of God, the perfect, truthful God who does not lie. Therefore, the Scripture he provides to human beings is perfect, truthful and without lying, i.e. inerrant in the original documents.

I don't have to see the words 'Trinity' or 'Bible' in the Bible to know that the teachings are true. Therefore, I don't need to see the word 'inerrant' in the Bible to know that 'all Scripture' is inerrant in the autographa.

Oz
 
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

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
'Useful for teaching'? Not exactly the Nobel Prize for Literature from Paul there, is it?

Catherine,

Please do exegesis of the term Paul used in 2 Tim 3:16 for 'useful', ὠφέλιμος (ōphelimos), which Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon states as meaning 'useful, beneficial, advantageous ... for someone or something' (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:909).

Any day of the week I'll use a GPS in my motor vehicle that is useful, beneficial and advantageous to get me from Brisbane to Bedourie in western Queensland, Australia.

bedourie1.jpg

That GPS has all the qualities of being advantageous in my travel plans and getting me the directions to where I want to go. The GPS has the advantageous Google qualities to give directions to places I would have to inconvenience myself to find.

The Scripture is a great advantage in my life; it puts me streets ahead of trying to do it on my own or following the world's way of knowing where to go in life and after-life.

I'll accept the God-breathed Scripture any day of the week to be useful, beneficial and advantageous for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training me in righteousness. I get the advantage of these qualities coming from God Himself - through Scripture.

For the Christian life, it is more than the 'Nobel Prize for Literature'. Paul's words and grammar don't need any worldly accolades. He assures us that the God-given Scripture is disciplining us for life with a capital L while on this earth and preparing us for the life to come.

'Well done good and faithful servant' (Matt 25:23) will be from the advantageous training I've received by putting Scripture into action. I'm more interested in that 'acclaim' than the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,118
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,503.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Does evolution try to get God out of the creation picture or not?

They are unrelated. One can believe in God as creator while thinking evolution's probably how life unfolded, or not. One can think evolution's probably how life unfolded while believing in God, or not. You can even reject both God and evolution.

Since evolution is a scientific construct, and God is not part of that (being unfalsifiable, and all that), they are independent elements of a worldview which can be combined, or not, at the intellectual choice of the person constructing that worldview.
 
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

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
One that clarifies that substitutionary atonement is not penal substitution but vicarious satisfaction. I cannot accept that the Father poured out His wrath on His Son. I certainly would accept this view put forth by James Akin at EWTN.com - The Divinity of Christ & Substitutionary Atonement

"An understanding of substitutionary atonement that is compatible with the Catholic faith is known as vicarious satisfaction. According to this view, Christ allowed himself to be killed by men (not by God) and by allowing himself to be killed he offered his life to God as a sacrifice of love. Because of the infinite merit of the sacrifice (due to his divinity), the Father accepted the sacrifice as making satisfaction for the sins of the world. Christ thus made satisfaction for us vicariously but was not "punished by God," who due to his omniscience cannot regard an infinitely holy Son as anything other than infinitely holy."

One, maybe not you, might retort that Jesus Himself said the words "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me." On the surface that looks like penal substitution, but when seen as referencing the whole of Psalm 22 it takes on a much different meaning. And although I cannot find it now, I think it is Hebrews which describes the obedience of Christ as a sweet smelling fragrance acceptable to the Father.

I used to go round and round with Chris in that other now defunct forum because he was really in to penal substitution, that Jesus became literally guilty of our sins, a reprobate Himself, and was punished literally for our sins. Jesus takes my sins away, but He is not hated by the Father in doing so. I am atoned for by Jesus, what I deserve is not given me, but rather something I do not at all merit.

chevy,

You state: 'I cannot accept that the Father poured out His wrath on His Son'.

What's your view of the meaning of expiation / propitiation in 1 John 2:2?

The Greek word for propitiation/expiation is: hilasmos. Arndt & Gingrich's Greek Lexicon gives the meaning in 1 John 2:2 as, 'propitiation, expiation'.

See 'What is propitiation?'

Oz
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Who are you to decided that those are the fundamentals?

The O.P. was badly worded, but it refers to a specific document from a specific time in the USA. Inter alia, it is the original source of the word "fundamentalism."
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
They are unrelated. One can believe in God as creator while thinking evolution's probably how life unfolded, or not. One can think evolution's probably how life unfolded while believing in God, or not. You can even reject both God and evolution.

Since evolution is a scientific construct, and God is not part of that (being unfalsifiable, and all that), they are independent elements of a worldview which can be combined, or not, at the intellectual choice of the person constructing that worldview.

Paidiske,

That is not the Darwinian trajectory.

This is what Charles Darwin wrote in The Autobiography of Charles Darwin:

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished (Darwin Online, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, p. 88, emphasis added)​

Your view is that evolution is a 'scientific construct'. No, it's a theory. It comes with a considerable amount of invention. It's theory cannot test hypotheses, using empirical/experimental/repeatable evidence. I'm waiting for people like you to provide evidence of transition species in the fossil record from ape-like beings to human beings.

You want to use the language of science of 'God is not part of that (being unfalsifiable, and all that)'.

That's not God's view. He has provided the evidence in creation and you don't have to go through the falsifiable-unfalsifiable quagmire. God's view of the evidence is:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Rom 1:20 NIV).​

God doesn't beat around the bushes when it comes to evidence he provides for his existence. It's right before our eyes, 'being understood from what has been made'.

Where does that leave you and me before God? His authoritative view is: 'Without excuse'.

Oz
 
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