The Inspiration of Scripture

[bekkilyn]

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But how do you determine which Christ is true? The Bible talks about how there are many false Christs. For some believe in Colton Burpo's Christ. Others follow Alan John Milller and his claims to be the reincarnated Christ. Others follow a Christ that is depicted as a white European, and yet Jesus was actually Jewish. However, we know about the proper and true Jesus Christ and His real teachings via the Bible and not by some false vision, some guy claiming to be Christ, or by people creating drawings of Jesus and saying this is Him.

 

[ObadiahHaidabo]

This is generally a point that causes people to go batty.

I read, and my sanity is intact! I enjoyed your post. I'm not sure I agree entirely, but that's due to it has given me impetus to research a little further.

This probably isn't the place, but you indicate uncertainty that Luke-Acts was written in the same language ("I think Acts was written in Greek, and MAYBE Mark and Luke"). When I run across you in a different section here, I'll followup.

You believe in Once Saved Always Saved. No doubt it impacted your life in what you wanted to hear. But the verses I gave you refutes the OSAS doctrine.

How do you get to that conclusion from what I wrote?

That was honestly my reaction as well.

I think people discount the powerful experience that some people have when they learn of God's love. There are people in this world that are filled with shame, riven with depression, or desperately lonely and unloved owing to their circumstance. There are people on this planet who feel no one will love them ever. To accept the words of Jesus and feel deeply and certainly in your heart that you are loved unconditionally - for some, for the first time in their whole lives - can be profoundly transformative. We should honor and celebrate that. It's one of the most beautiful parts of our faith.

Many Christians who grew up in the Church do not appreciate the impact of the "Good News" because they've heard it since their first memory. But the idea that (a) the most powerful entity in the universe loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you, and (b) there is life after death is mind-blowing to someone who hears it with new ears.

 

[Mountainmike]

With respect. Go back to the thread title. It is that I am challenging.

"what the bible says, God says"

The immediate problem you come to is defining what the bible says. We all know the words that are in multiple versions. But what does it actually say? ie what does it mean?

On every major issue, protestant disputes in which they take opposite positions show that using just the words of the bible, you can not know what it says! So that demands additional authority from outside it.

So the point I was making - In which case it is no longer what the "Bible says" - it is bible +tradition+ authority. That is what God says.

Sure we can agree on parts of doctrine. I think christianity spends too much time disagreeing!
I do not know the structure of lutheranism but at least one part of it reached an accord with the holy see on "faith alone" provided you take the correct meaning for faith as" formed faith" which immediately begs the question on definition of words. It also illustrates the problem ,as much as it does the solution, because I understand it not all of lutheranism agrees with the accord.

We do not agree on all points, but that doesn't mean there's absolutely no possibibly of agreement on anything.



Clearly, you don't understand how Lutheranism works. We do not need an infallible canon. As Luther said, if Judas preached the Gospel, then we'ld have to read "The Gospel according to Judas".


Here's a good resource on our approach to the Bible:

https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Bible-Martin-Luther-Introductory/dp/0801049172

 

[bekkilyn]

Except... maybe....this one?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If you don't believe that "what the bible says, God says" .....what is your Christianity based on?

Do you realize that you are "God-breathed" as well, as are all of the living beings he created? Does that mean you are God and/or that everything you say, God says?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That was honestly my reaction as well.

Deductive reasoning. Once Saved Always Saved would be tied to a person's idea that Jesus loves them even if they abide in unrepentant grievous sin. Yet, John 15:10 says if abide in Christ's love if you keep His commandments; 1 Corinthians 16:22 says that if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. The way we are to love Christ is to keep His commandments (John 14:15). So the type of Jesus our friend describes here from who they believed to be God is not biblical.

I think people discount the powerful experience that some people have when they learn of God's love. There are people in this world that are filled with shame, riven with depression, or desperately lonely and unloved owing to their circumstance. There are people on this planet who feel no one will love them ever. To accept the words of Jesus and feel deeply and certainly in your heart that you are loved unconditionally - for some, for the first time in their whole lives - can be profoundly transformative. We should honor and celebrate that. It's one of the most beautiful parts of our faith.

Many Christians who grew up in the Church do not appreciate the impact of the "Good News" because they've heard it since their first memory. But the idea that (a) the most powerful entity in the universe loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you, and (b) there is life after death is mind-blowing to someone who hears it with new ears.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that Jesus loves us unconditionally in the sense that we can commit grievous unrepentant sin and still be saved. Jesus warned how sin can have dire consequences for our soul in the afterlife (See: Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 9:62); Even after the cross we see this truth taught: (See: 1 John 3:15, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

With respect. Go back to the thread title. It is that I am challenging.

"what the bible says, God says"

The immediate problem you come to is defining what the bible says. We all know the words that are in multiple versions. But what does it actually say? ie what does it mean?

On every major issue, protestant disputes in which they take opposite positions show that using just the words of the bible, you can not know what it says! So that demands additional authority from outside it.

So the point I was making - In which case it is no longer what the "Bible says" - it is bible +tradition+ authority. That is what God says.

Sure we can agree on parts of doctrine. I think christianity spends too much time disagreeing!
I do not know the structure of lutheranism but at least one part of it reached an accord with the holy see on "faith alone" provided you take the correct meaning for faith as" formed faith" which immediately begs the question on definition of words. It also illustrates the problem ,as much as it does the solution, because I understand it not all of lutheranism agrees with the accord.

Even the Catholic traditions are written down today. So was there a record in the Bible about some other book titled the "Catechism" in Scripture? No. In fact, the majority of the time the word "traditions" appear in the Bible, it was used in a negative sense and Jesus at times said that the Jewish people violated God's Word by their man made tradition.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have never claimed that God does not speak through scripture, but God did not write scripture himself and God is not limited to scripture as a communication tool. "God's mind" would still be 100% intact if the bible were to vanish in every possible way tomorrow. Christ (the Word) would still 100% exist if the bible were to vanish in very possible way tomorrow. Christ alone is the foundation and center of faith, not a book or collection of writings.

I suppose but why do you think the ancient Hebrews kept the collection from Moses through the prophets? Why do you think we have a New Testament in the first place? Sure, God can reach out to anyone of us any time he pleases, nothing will stop that if he chooses. I know of very few Christians that don't have some story of God speaking to them in prayer, isn't that what we are supposed to do as Christians, enter into a relationship with God through the gospel?

This is about the inspiration of Scripture, don't you think it was pretty important to early Christians to keep the Apostle's doctrine? Because I'm convinced, that is exactly why we have a New Testament.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[bekkilyn]

With respect. Go back to the thread title. It is that I am challenging.

"what the bible says, God says"

The immediate problem you come to is defining what the bible says. We all know the words that are in multiple versions. But what does it actually say? ie what does it mean?

On every major issue, protestant disputes in which they take opposite positions show that using just the words of the bible, you can not know what it says! So that demands additional authority from outside it.

So the point I was making - In which case it is no longer what the "Bible says" - it is bible +tradition+ authority. That is what God says.

Sure we can agree on parts of doctrine. I think christianity spends too much time disagreeing!
I do not know the structure of lutheranism but at least one part of it reached an accord with the holy see on "faith alone" provided you take the correct meaning for faith as" formed faith" which immediately begs the question on definition of words. It also illustrates the problem ,as much as it does the solution, because I understand it not all of lutheranism agrees with the accord.

For Methodists, it's scripture + tradition + reason + personal experience, with scripture being the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. We are prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For Methodists, it's scripture + tradition + reason + personal experience, with scripture being the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. We are prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.

What makes your traditions any more superior than say the traditions of some other church?
Can they be proven to be divine in origin like the Bible?

 

[bekkilyn]

I suppose but why do you think the ancient Hebrews kept the collection from Moses through the prophets? Why do you think we have a New Testament in the first place? Sure, God can reach out to anyone of us any time he pleases, nothing will stop that if he chooses. I know of very few Christians that don't have some story of God speaking to them in prayer, isn't that what we are supposed to do as Christians, enter into a relationship with God through the gospel?

This is about the inspiration of Scripture, don't you think it was pretty important to early Christians to keep the Apostle's doctrine? Because I'm convinced, that is exactly why we have a New Testament.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Yes, I believe it was important and I would also agree that scripture is a great gift that God has given to us through those who wrote and compiled it into the bible as we know it today. I simply do not believe the bible to actually be God or that God is limited to *only* the bible when he speaks to us. It is still Christ (the living Word) alone who is central to our faith. However, if the bible were to vanish tomorrow, the gospel of Jesus Christ would still be 100% intact and the event of the resurrection of Christ still 100% true.

 

[ObadiahHaidabo]

Deductive reasoning. Once Saved Always Saved would be tied to a person's idea that Jesus loves them even if they abide in unrepentant grievous sin.

He does!

I think you are conflating love and salvation. God can love someone and yet that person refuses salvation. I imagine it happens every day.

Yet, John 15:10 says if abide in Christ's love if you keep His commandments; 1 Corinthians 16:22 says that if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. The way we are to love Christ is to keep His commandments (John 14:15). So the type of Jesus our friend describes here is not biblical.

We disagree on eternal security, but I really don't see anything about salvation being discussed here. I am not equating God's love with salvation because they are two different things.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that Jesus loves us unconditionally in the sense that we can commit grievous unrepentant sin and still be saved.

No, but if you remove "and still be saved" I would agree 100% with that statement.

The Bible definitely teaches that whether you sin or not, whether you're saved or not, whether you are a Satanist or not, whether you persecute Christians or not, regardless of what you do - God still loves you. For example, God loved Paul before Emmaus. Yes, God does love us unconditionally. You can reject this love and reject salvation, but even then, God will still love you.

Indeed, I think salvation would be impossible without God's unconditional love. I'm sure you believe that someone can live the first part of their life in great wickedness yet have a sincere repentance and accept Jesus as their savior. Indeed, this is the story of Paul. How would God extend salvation if he did not love unconditionally? If God does not love unconditionally, then you're saying it's possible to do things (at least in this life) that would cause God to stop loving you. This would mean that God cannot forgive and extend salvation to anyone, and that is completely wrong.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He does!

I think you are conflating love and salvation. God can love someone and yet that person refuses salvation. I imagine it happens every day.

But the person who heard this felt... "joy." So this is confirmation of the OSAS doctrine that one can sin and still be saved. Obviously the enemy desires for a person to think that they sin and still be saved. After all, this was the first thing the serpent (the enemy) tried to do with Eve.

We disagree on eternal security, but I really don't see anything about salvation being discussed here. I am not equating God's love with salvation because they are two different things.
No, but if you remove "and still be saved" I would agree 100% with that statement.

The Bible definitely teaches that whether you sin or not, whether you're saved or not, whether you are a Satanist or not, whether you persecute Christians or not, regardless of what you do - God still loves you. For example, God loved Paul before Emmaus. Yes, God does love us unconditionally. You can reject this love and reject salvation, but even then, God will still love you.

Again, a person would not feel joy if they knew they were going to be condemned by God and yet God loved them. I would not take comfort or joy in knowing that.

Indeed, I think salvation would be impossible without God's unconditional love. I'm sure you believe that someone can live the first part of their life in great wickedness yet have a sincere repentance and accept Jesus as their savior. Indeed, this is the story of Paul. How would God extend salvation if he did not love unconditionally? If God does not love unconditionally, then you're saying it's possible to do things (at least in this life) that would cause God to stop loving you. This would mean that God cannot forgive and extend salvation to anyone, and that is completely wrong.

I am not discounting that "God so loved the world," but that does not mean a person is going to take comfort in having joy in hearing God loves them if they know they also know that they are condemned.

 

[bekkilyn]

What makes your traditions any more superior than say the traditions of some other church?
Can they be proven to be divine in origin like the Bible?

Tradition is the experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Therefore, it may include the traditions of other churches. Methodism was only a denomination starting in the 18th century, but Christianity was very rich in tradition for centuries before then.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Tradition is the experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Therefore, it may include the traditions of other churches. Methodism was only a denomination starting in the 18th century, but Christianity was very rich in tradition for centuries before then.

That really does not answer my questions. In short, tradition cannot be proven to be on par with Scripture for tradition is not something that is divine in origin like the Word of God.

 

[redleghunter]

I've read it, thank you. We don't agree... that's ok. If you think "be of one mind and one accord" means we have to look, think, and act alike WHILE we are still not perfected, you would be wrong. It means that despite our differences, we are to work together to the glory of God and the coming Kingdom. I do not believe that the authors of the NT had a clue that they were really programmed robots that didn't have any control over what they said. And I do not believe that they had any clue in the world that the stuff they were writing would be included in a bible. Therefore, any time they reference the written word of God, they are referencing what was accepted as the bible in their time. And that did not include the NT at that time.

Who is taking the position the authors of the NT were programmed robots? Obedient to God's will yes, robots no.

Isaiah went naked for three years obeying the command of God:

Isaiah 20: NASB

1In the year that the commander came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him and he fought against Ashdod and captured it, 2at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet.” And he did so, going naked and barefoot. 3And the LORD said, “Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush, 4so the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. 5“Then they will be dismayed and ashamed because of Cush their hope and Egypt their boast. 6“So the inhabitants of this coastland will say in that day, ‘Behold, such is our hope, where we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria; and we, how shall we escape?’”

 

[Strong in Him]

Deductive reasoning. Once Saved Always Saved would be tied to a person's idea that Jesus loves them even if they abide in unrepentant grievous sin.

But faulty.

I didn't say anything about salvation, or continuing in sin.
I was challenging your point that in the New Covenant, God speaks only through the Bible and not audibly. I was challenging it because he spoke audibly to me. It doesn't matter what he said; he spoke. THAT was my only point.

 

[bekkilyn]

That really does not answer my questions. In short, tradition cannot be proven to be on par with Scripture for tradition is not something that is divine in origin like the Word of God.

What I specifically said was:

For Methodists, it's scripture + tradition + reason + personal experience, with scripture being the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. We are prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.

There was no claim here that tradition is "on par" with scripture as a source of Christian doctrine. However, scripture is not the *only* source as sola scriptura claims.

We are all divine in origin as God created all. Still doesn't mean we are God.

 

[redleghunter]

You really seem to be missing this individuals point. Do you think at times we who are followers of Christ come across as very arrogant?

Of course they won’t. The cross is foolishness to those not in Christ.

Not my words:

1 Corinthians 1: NASB
18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written,
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29so that no man may boast before God. 30But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

 

[Ken Rank]

Jesus didn't say anything about writing everything down and waiting to have it canonized in some council. The reason we have the New Testament is because it was either written by the Apostles or close associates. The church did have these scrolls and did make meticulous copies a lot the same way Jews kept their sacred writings. I don't think your clueless...etc, I think you are missing the obvious and I'm just wondering if it's on purpose. Like why we have a New Testament in the first place. You mention Ephesus, in case you didn't know that was the mother church of the churches in Asia Minor, founding at least 7 other churches. If Smyrna wanted the letter to the Ephesians or the letter to the Colosians read in their churches they had to make a copy. One of the things churches did regularly was to make meticulous copies of those scrolls. They were read regularly in the churches and that, by the way, is a tradition still practiced among the Orthodox. The complete canon wasn't officially recognized unanimously by the churches because the churches knew what they were for hundreds of years. It's when gnostic writings started to creep in that the church had to decide what represented the Apostolic witness.

Oh and by the way, the idea that the New Testament was compiled sometime in the second century is grist from a propaganda mill known as liberal theology. Once in a while I wish people would at least have the presence of mind to recognize that the church knows it's own sacred writings. They knew them because they had been read in the churches for hundreds of years before the actual canon of Scripture was actually recognized formally.

What you are doing is trying to fit this information into your current paradigm. That's fine... that is what people do. They never question whether their paradigm is wrong or has a hole or two in places... they just assume it is correct and fit everything else inside of it. I don't, sorry. I am a white, Western, Greek influenced, Christian living in the United States who knows he can't read a first century Jew from that perspective and fully grasp what he is saying. The bible was written in the Ancient Near East by Semites who wrote in a language that was more pictorial than my own, and they used certain phraseology in places that was unique to that time and place. Additionally, people like Paul used certain rules of exegesis in his writings that we are entirely unaware of but that, when pointed out, jump off the pages once recognized. Exegesis, by the way, that is DESIGNED to effect context, and again, we don't even recognize those things he is doing.

I am suggesting one read from the perspective of those who wrote it... you are suggesting we ignore anything outside our bias and only read from our own time and perspective. Your way works... to a point... and I know that well because 2 decades ago I read from your perspective. But I also learned that I had left a great deal on the table God placed there to be consumed. All that, and.... letters written to specific churches for specific purposes were not in wide spread distribution. Your claim that the first century church having those letters among their churches has no historical evidence to back it... none. After the first century? Sure... but if you think in 60 AD that copies of Paul's letters to all those cities he sent them to were copied and kept in all the churches is simply an error in thinking on your part and you have nothing to prove your point. Since it can't be proved... you can't use it, or at least, I won't. I therefore stand and will continue to stand on the notion that when the NT writer mentions the written word of God, they are referring to the canon in their time. These weren't Americans making up new rules as they go... they were Jews more entrenched in a culture you despise than you realize. And until you have the ability to see from anywhere outside your own lens... then at least on this topic, we have nothing else to share. I am not going to keep going back and forth in some weird theological urinating match because you want to prove some historically unprovable point. Come with evidence or I will see you in another thread Mark.

Blessings.
Ken