Invalidating God's word

[CoreyD]

Sure. Paul and Luke were educated individuals for their time, but that doesn't mean they were given supreme knowledge or the understanding of everything God is doing, has done, or will be doing. They, like Pascal, were a product of their own times and cultures, and they lived on the side prior to Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein (among many others).

Moreover, it's a specious contrast to draw between "worldly wisdom" and "godly wisdom" when the biblical books don't comprehensively inform about the purpose and meaning and workings of everything under the Sun. So...........naturally, this will leave many people asking questions that either don't get answered well by Christians, or those questions turn out to not have any discernibly accessible answers.

I must have misunderstood you.
I thought you were interested in this : it's not always easy to outright validate the whole of the Bible on historical grounds
I can't figure out how Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein (among many others) factor in on validating the Bible.

Perhaps I can help you understand why Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein (among many others) have nothing to do with validating the Bible, and why there really is no friction between naturalism and spiritualism science and the Bible, if you create a thread, on specifically what you are trying to nail down, and give me an alert on it.
I don't want to derail this thread debating whether or not the Bible can be trusted.

If you don't create the thread, perhaps one of these days, I just might create one for you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I must have misunderstood you.
I thought you were interested in this : it's not always easy to outright validate the whole of the Bible on historical grounds
I can't figure out how Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein (among many others) factor in on validating the Bible.

Perhaps I can help you understand why Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein (among many others) have nothing to do with validating the Bible, and why there really is no friction between naturalism and spiritualism, if you create a thread, on specifically what you are trying to nail down, and give me an alert on it.
I don't want to derail this thread debating whether or not the Bible can be trusted.

If you don't create the thread, perhaps one of these days, I just might create one for you.

I don't have time on maintaining a thread. I've created enough threads already over the past several years that I think most of the challenging issues have been touched upon.

 

[jas3]

Can you please quote where I said "that those beliefs weren't held until much later"?

In post #10, you quoted @The Liturgist five times, the last of which began with the following: That said, baptism, for infants, children and adults, is the normal way of reception into Christ’s church, and it grieves me that some denominations like the Quakers and Salvation Army do not celebrate it, and still others, the “credobaptists” refuse the font to infants and those with mental disabilities.

You responded,

The later "church" had these beliefs. Was that around the 13th century or so?

The early Church is the apostles (You can verify this, by checking any encyclopedia).

What a bizarre claim. I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say with this - are you quibbling over calling the post-apostolic, ante-Nicene Church "early"? Or are you actually claiming that "the Church" as it's referred to in the New Testament is only referring to the Apostles?

Claims from a corrupted church, is not evidence.

Do you deny that the Church of the fourth century which promulgated the Nicene Creed was "one, holy, catholic and apostolic"?

No claims will convince me, that's true.
I don't consider everything someone opens their mouth and say, to be evidence. Do you?

Do you consider every historical primary source to be "claims" instead of "evidence," or is that only when you don't agree with what they teach?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I must have misunderstood you.
I thought you were interested in this : it's not always easy to outright validate the whole of the Bible on historical grounds
I can't figure out how Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein (among many others) factor in on validating the Bible.

Perhaps I can help you understand why Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein (among many others) have nothing to do with validating the Bible, and why there really is no friction between naturalism and spiritualism science and the Bible, if you create a thread, on specifically what you are trying to nail down, and give me an alert on it.
I don't want to derail this thread debating whether or not the Bible can be trusted.

If you don't create the thread, perhaps one of these days, I just might create one for you.

Moreover, Corey, my statements, couched as they have been within the contexts of a portion of Pascal's thinking, stand, and they will continue to stand. They will stand because, unlike a number of people here, I have hundreds of sources supporting my statements. It's not my fault if the same people who disagree with me also fail, or outright refuse, to engage my sources. In such an atmosphere, particularly one arbitrated by fundamentalist type thinkers on both the Right and the Left, it becomes a waste of time since none of what I will state will be taken seriously or as having any academic substance.

The irony in all of this is that I'm more than willing and able to engage THEIR sources and, what's more, I will and do apply critical analysis to THEIR sources in order to bring out the strengths and weakness of their viewpoints, interpretations and paradigms.

So, in this case of the matter of the "validation of the Bible" which you're bringing up, I can immediately land into it with critical, analytic sensitivity and ask you, "What is your working definition of "validation of the the Bible" and how did you either come by it through drawing upon other sources, or how did you, yourself, derive it and built it and come to understand your definition as being 'true' and fully applicable?''"

If all you're intending to imply is that both the Science and the Bible don't have to be seen as being in absolute conflict, then I can stop you right there because I already agree with you at some level on that notion. However, if by this you mean to imply that no one else outside of both you and me should have not reasons to see the Bible (as well as various Church Dogmas/Doctrines at any given time) as being invalid, whether partially or in whole, then there is a very long list of issues that can be brought up, and that list can be made all too easily these days.

This is all I'm attempting to say, and I've already given you 3 examples of the sorts of issues that come up that, for many folks, invalidate both the Bible and, overall, the Christian Faith. Of course, both you and I, in different ways, can disagree with those invalidating evaluations made of the Bible and the Christian Faith.

Much could be said here, but I don't like writing more than a few hundred words in any one single post.

 

[CoreyD]

Seriously, all Christians you have met here think they will also be sitting on one of the 12 thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel?

Well every single person who says they are Christian on these forums, claims to be born again, Is that not true?
From what the Bible says, those born again are heirs to the kingdom, and go to heaven to be kings and priest with Christ. They are party to the kingdom covenant Jesus made at Luke 22:28-30

So, if they do not think they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, why do they think they are born again?
Could it be the term 'born again' been used so loosely, and freely, that it has lost its meaning and purpose.

There are only 12 correct? So how can all of us sit on them? Can you elaborate what you meant here?

Thanks you for asking.
I'll answer in a separate thread, since I don't want to go off topic.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well every single person who says they are Christian on these forums, claims to be born again, Is that not true?
From what the Bible says, those born again are heirs to the kingdom, and go to heaven to be kings and priest with Christ. They are party to the kingdom covenant Jesus made at Luke 22:28-30

So, if they do not think they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, why do they think they are born again?
Could it be the term 'born again' been used so loosely, and freely, that it has lost its meaning and purpose.


Thanks you for asking.
I'll answer in a separate thread, since I don't want to go off topic.

Actually, many, if not most, folks here come from traditions which stress that the new birth is accomplished with the baptism by water of an individual, usually as an infant. These folks hardly concern themselves about exegetical matters.

 

[CoreyD]

What I said can be framed any way one likes, but it doesn't represent what I've either said or believe. I believe Water Baptism is a legitimate work on behalf of God. It just isn't Salvation--it *follows Salvation*--something some seem utterly unable to fathom.

Not all the works we do as Christians are works *to get saved.* Nearly all the works we do as Christians *follow Salvation.* These works, therefore, are legitimate works that we do in partnership with God. Even if they are not works *to get saved* they remain works done in partnership with God, in service to Him. I hope I made that clear enough?

"Works to get saved"?
Interesting. That's a first. Persons on here say that works cannot save you.
Can you please give me a list of those "works *to get saved.*"? Thank you.

You remain very obscure in your question.

I'm trying.

Apollos had received a Baptism of repentance, and had not yet learned how to live in the Spirit of Jesus.

Can you please show me where you read Apollos "had not yet learned how to live in the Spirit of Jesus".

John led Jews in living in the Spirit in accordance with the Law, since his ministry preceded the era of Grace.

Forgive me please. I'm still trying to get used to the many things people say, which I have never read.
Can you explain please, what you mean by "living in the Spirit in accordance with the Law".

I do not see how this approaches anything I said? I said that Water Baptism is unnecessary in the matter of Salvation, even though those who converted from gross sin or from paganism got Water Baptized as a public testimony that they had gotten saved. It was a useful tool in the matter of making a public testimony, which was encouraged--not required.

You don't see?
There were twelve disciples, who were baptized in John's baptism.
They got baptized after Paul explained to them that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance in preparation for the one that was to come, in whom they should believe in.
When the people heard this, they got baptized, after which Paul laid his hands on them and they received holy spirit.

Acts 19:1-7...
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Were these persons required to be baptized in the name of Jesus, even thought baptized by John? Why, or why not?
Please consider John 1:35-37; John 3:22-4:3

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually, many, if not most, folks here come from traditions which stress that the new birth is accomplished with the baptism by water of an individual, usually as an infant. These folks hardly concern themselves about exegetical matters.

Just to clarify, did you mean to say “These folks hardly concern themselves about eschatological matters”?

 

[Guojing]

Well every single person who says they are Christian on these forums, claims to be born again, Is that not true?
From what the Bible says, those born again are heirs to the kingdom, and go to heaven to be kings and priest with Christ. They are party to the kingdom covenant Jesus made at Luke 22:28-30

So, if they do not think they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, why do they think they are born again?

But you said that you don't think you will be sitting on one of the 12 thrones.

So what makes you different from the other Christians you met here that you believe are claiming Matthew 19:28 for themselves? Are you not "born again" then?

 

[Guojing]

I find that some, thinking they know God's word, judge those who disagree with them. The Bible does say that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. What it does not say is that baptism is necessary for Salvation. That would be adding to God's word.

How would you understand Luke 7 :29-30 then?

And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

A literal reading indicated that water baptism is necessary for one not to reject God?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But you said that you don't think you will be sitting on one of the 12 thrones.

So what makes you different from the other Christians you met here that you believe are claiming Matthew 19:28 for themselves? Are you not "born again" then?

This is a loaded question, and seems to be asked to goad/bait another member.

 

[Guojing]

This is a loaded question, and seems to be asked to goad/bait another member.

Have you been following the conversation we are having?

It's not goading

 

[CoreyD]

Is there a reason I should believe that those who learned, heard, and knew the apostolic preaching and teaching all, universally, fell away and that the Church vanished from the earth by the late 1st century?

This is a great question.
I like the fact that you are willing to reason on it. I don't see that very often. It's an indication you are open-minded.

Is there any reason I should believe that those who heard and knew the apostolic preaching and teaching all abided by and accepted the teachings of the apostles?

I have quite a number of reasons for believing that they did not stand fast in the teachings of the apostles.

1. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-15 - written around 50 A.D. - has warnings such as... we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed... And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed...
2. Jesus' words (?70-80 A.D.?) to the seven churches that describes the state at the time - Revelation 2:1-3:21, which contains expressions such as... you have left your first love; you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam; you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate; you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols; you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead; you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked...
3. Around the same time Jesus gave the Revelation to John, there were men such as Papias, Polycarp, and others, considered bishops in the Smyrna congregation. Papias describes his way of gathering information in his preface: I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice. Papias, then, inquired of travelers passing through Hierapolis what the surviving disciples of Jesus and the elders—those who had personally known the Twelve Apostles—were saying.
4. The Eschatological on Papias shows that there was a lot of misinterpretations, and misunderstandings, as early as the late 70s A.D. In part, we read... Eusebius concludes from the writings of Papias that he was a chiliast, understanding the Millennium as a literal period in which Christ will reign on Earth, and chastises Papias for his literal interpretation of figurative passages, writing that Papias "appears to have been of very limited understanding", and felt that his misunderstanding misled Irenaeus and others. Irenaeus indeed quotes the fourth book of Papias for an otherwise-unknown saying of Jesus, recounted by John the Evangelist, which Eusebius doubtless has in mind: The Lord used to teach about those times and say: "The days will come when vines will grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when crushed will yield twenty-five measures of wine. And when one of the saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will cry out, "I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me."...
5. Human nature, as is evident by the fact that we have so many branches of Christianity (over 45,000 and growing), and these branches did not recently start growing. Neither did they spring from one root.

As you can see, it's easy to understand Jesus parable of the weeds and wheat. Matthew 13:24-30
The Christian congregation was allowed to become overrun with Satan's ministers. 2 Corinthians 11:15
I have every reason to believe the man of lawlessness - the rebellious apostates, infiltrated the congregation after the apostles were all gone, and as Paul said, "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock." Acts 20:29

I also have good evidence from the history of the dominant church at the time, that the clergy of that time "opposed and exalted himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." 2 Thessalonians 2:4

If I can't trust someone like Ignatius to have held firm to the apostolic doctrine, then that means nobody did; that means even the Bible is unreliable and there is no Christian Church anywhere.

I like your reasoning. Very good.

However, there are a few things about our God we do well to remember.

• God removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;. Daniel 2:21
• The corrupt priests in Israel - all gone (Jeremiah 23:1, 2)... and what does God say he will do... Then I Myself will gather the remnant of My flock from all the lands to which I have banished them, and I will return them to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and multiply. I will raise up shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or dismayed, nor will any go missing, declares the LORD. Jeremiah 23:3, 4
• Isaiah 50:2 Is my hand shortened, that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, by my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a desert; their fish stink for lack of water and die of thirst

It's important too, we understand why the Christian congregation was formed.

• Acts 1:4-8; Acts 2:1-4 The gospel needed to be preached to every nation.
• 1 Corinthians 12:1-30; 2 Corinthians 11:2 The gathering of the body of Christ was to be complete, and ready for the marriage to the lamb.

Neither of these purposes were yet realized, and since God's hand is not short...

We can illustrate it this way.
Suppose you wrote an important book to benefit everyone, which an enemy tries to destroy, by ripping the leaves out, tearing them, and throwing them from a cliff overlooking the ocean. Oh no. Your work is lost.
That's how it appears.
You may be delighted to hear someone talking about a portion of the book you wrote. Then you hear another portion being discussed. Another... and yet, another.
What happened is that fragments of your book were found by various persons, and what you wrote spread, in portions - not complete.
What if you filled in the gaps for those who were interested enough, not only to read those portions, but also share them.

This illustrates what happened with the remnants of truth in the Christian congregation.
They spread. They were picked up. They were built upon with the help of God's spirit.
Recall, that it is God who chooses, as he knows the heart.

The scriptures bears out this illustration for us in the case of God's people - ancient and modern.
Isaiah 10:21, 22; Isaiah 11:11, 12, 16; Jeremiah 23:3, 4; Micah 2:12; Micah 4:1-6

God collects his people into his pen.
This has been "God's MO" throughout generations. God has not changed.
The problem - which isn't really a problem if one are humble, is identifying the pen where Jesus has gathered / collected his sheep.
If a person is a sheep God will gather that person. -
Haggai 2:7

And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts.

John 6:44

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

John 10:14, 27

14 I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me,
27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.

Unless, of course, someone somewhere claims to have restored it, but if I were willing to believe that then I'd probably also believe in golden plates.

God is the restorer oh his things. Not man.
God restored Israel. God restored the temple after allowing Babylon to sack it.
The restored temple was more magnificent than the previous. It was a beauty.
The Christian congregation that God restores today, must be a beauty. Finding gems are hard.
It requires diligent persistence in searching.

Should I believe in golden plates? Or should I believe in the Christian Church?

-CryptoLutheran

I hear this expression "Christian Church". Is that one particular denomination, or all the denominations combined?

To answer your question though... You should believe what the Bible teaches. Then you will know the truth.
If you know the congregation of God, then stick to it.
If you aren't sure, then search for it.
The Bible is your guide, and prayer is your S.O.S signal

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Have you been following the conversation we are having?

It's not goading

Not my first rodeo as they say.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Just to clarify, did you mean to say “These folks hardly concern themselves about eschatological matters”?

Yes. Thank you for pointing out my error.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

What I said can be framed any way one likes, but it doesn't represent what I've either said or believe. I believe Water Baptism is a legitimate work on behalf of God. It just isn't Salvation--it *follows Salvation*--something some seem utterly unable to fathom.

Not all the works we do as Christians are works *to get saved.* Nearly all the works we do as Christians *follow Salvation.* These works, therefore, are legitimate works that we do in partnership with God. Even if they are not works *to get saved* they remain works done in partnership with God, in service to Him. I hope I made that clear enough?

Baptism is not a work a Christian does. There are at least three basic elements to baptism: 1) Water applied to the human body 2) In the true name of God (Triune Formula) 3) Another Christian baptizing the recipient.

All Christians are passive in their baptism. No Christian baptizes himself. Baptism is always the work of another. In other words, NO CHRISTIAN CAN TAKE CREDIT FOR THEIR BAPTISM. No Christian can get credit for baptism anymore than they can take or get credit for open heart surgery. In open heart surgery, the recipient is in a passive state and does not contribute anything to it.

Some might say, "I consented to be baptized." However, consenting to be baptized is not baptism, it is consenting.... any more than consenting to open heart surgery is the actual surgery itself. Baptism is not a work the recipient does in "partnership" with God. It is not a public testimony, it is not an outward response to an inward reality....all these supposed definitions of baptism are not found in Scripture.

The Christian receives baptism...and that is it.

More on this later.

 

[Guojing]

Not my first rodeo as they say.

Well, if you don't want to understand the context, that is your call.

 

[Guojing]

Baptism is not a work a Christian does. There are at least three basic elements to baptism: 1) Water applied to the human body 2) In the true name of God (Triune Formula) 3) Another Christian baptizing the recipient.

All Christians are passive in their baptism. No Christian baptizes himself. Baptism is always the work of another. In other words, NO CHRISTIAN CAN TAKE CREDIT FOR THEIR BAPTISM. No Christian can get credit for baptism anymore than they can take or get credit for open heart surgery. In open heart surgery, the recipient is in a passive state and does not contribute anything to it.

Some might say, "I consented to be baptized." However, consenting to be baptized is not baptism, it is consenting.... any more than consenting to open heart surgery is the actual surgery itself. Baptism is not a work the recipient does in "partnership" with God. It is not a public testimony, it is not an outward response to an inward reality....all these supposed definitions of baptism are not found in Scripture.

The Christian receives baptism...and that is it.

More on this later.

Interesting, would you say that reasoning also apply to physical circumcision since Jews were circumcised at 8 days old?

Therefore its not a work as well?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Interesting, would you say that reasoning also apply to physical circumcision since Jews were circumcised at 8 days old?

Therefore its not a work as well?

That may have been one of the aspects discussed at the council in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. Interesting.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Interesting, would you say that reasoning also apply to physical circumcision since Jews were circumcised at 8 days old?

Therefore its not a work as well?

Comparing circumcision with baptism is somewhat complicated. I don't hold a one for one correspondence. Circumcision does not share in the incarnation the way baptism does (Romans 6:2ff) and in the atonement the way the Lord's Supper does (I Cor 10 & 11, Matthew 26:28).