T. Taylor
Seeking the Truth
This is what is known as an argument from ignorance. I agree that the message is primarily concerned with the gospel of the kingdom, and further miracle accounts should be taken at face value, but where do you see anything suggesting that God supernaturally links "all truth," to scientific, math, historical truth?
I recognize that my arguments are sometimes weak, but that's partially because I cannot think in english (which is not my native language) and when I try to make a point I end up with a simplified version of what I thught. So that's an excuse . (Other excuses later , maybe)
How is that exactly az argument from ignorance. I don't quite get it.
Where do I see that suggestion? It is very simple. The word 'all' means everything, thus it includes scientific, mathematical, historical and any kind of truths. God is well aware of those things, He upholds and governs everything. He is not wrong, doesn't make a mistake and most importantly He doesn't lie.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent...(Num. 23:19 ASV)
My point is, that God would not lie about something, even if it is not important.
Again, you need to explain why conservative Bible believing scholars that hold a view similar to yours about the inspiration of the Bible come up with 7 different interpretations.
Those scholars say:
"It means A,"
"No B,"
"No clearly C,
"No it is not vague or unclear, it means D"
"You are all wrong it is E,"
"The HS has shown me that you are all carnal and wrong, it means F,"
"It is obviously the case that G is the only proper way to interpret Gen 1:1-2:3,"
And your response: "There is nothing unclear or vague, therefore all the above scholars that hold similar views to mine about God leading us into all truth are all correct."
Wait what?
Law of noncontradiction has just been violated.
Since clarity would produce ONE AND ONLY ONE THEORY from Bible Scholars who held your view. You have to provide some reason why there are 7.
Again, as I said, everything God says is true. However there is a deciever who has disciples and their goal is to corrupt the Word of God (what God said) and the minds of men. Corruption means that the deciever mixes the truth with lies. He used this tactic at the first attempt to decieve mankind and he succeded. (see gen. 3)
So the main reason why there are "7 different interpretations" is because the interpreters have fallen for some lie or are stuck in a tradition that is based on lies. One other reason as I stated before is the lack of humility towards the Word, they don't trust in what it says.
And your response: "There is nothing unclear or vague, therefore all the above scholars that hold similar views to mine about God leading us into all truth are all correct."
Wait what?
Law of noncontradiction has just been violated.
That is not what I would say, so that is a straw man. (probably )
So God goes to the trouble of making sure the authors wrote the original autographs error-free in order to insure the Bible leading us into all truth, and then God approved error destroying the truth-value of those same accounts?
Wait What?
God did not approve the corruption of the Scriptures, first of all He just let it happen in order to separate the wheat from the tares.
This is a non-sequitur. Did God allow human free will in recording their accounts in the Bible? If no, then are you a mormon or a Muslim? If yes then describe how God gave them perfect knowledge outside of their culture of things like cosmology, and I'm not talking about current cosmology, since that is wrong. I'm talking about Grand Unified theory and explanations of dark matter and dark energy only discovered in the last 25 years. And further who in audience that read the Bible the past 3000 years would have even understood or been able to be led into the truth of the inflationary hot big bang cosmology given they came from a prescientific world?
Ok. It is a non-sequitur. Then I change my sentence: The general message is true and the details are true also. How about that? Oh, and is it not a false dilemma what you wrote next?
Off course God allowed free will in recording the accounts in the Bible. In the same time they did not write what they wanted to say.
They wrote down what God wanted them to record, but they used their vocabulary, style, etc.
God did not gave the perfect knowlegde (meaning complete knowledge), just gave the partial but true knowledge about for example cosmology.
God is above all cultures and their beliefs, and even He wants His people outside of worldly cultures. He pointed out in His Word what things the world (cultures) got wrong and what is right in His eyes. Conclusion> God would have told His faithful if the culture which surrounds them is in error regarding cossmology for instance.
What you wrote afterwards I didn't fully understand or I just shaked my head because of what you asserted there.
Every denomination reads into the text. And every denomination has some scholars who exegete or draw out of the text its meaning to the original audience. So there is no interpretation gap that is universal.
I agree.
But I don't know what you mean by "universal interpretation gap". Please explain.
So my faith tells me Christ was fully man but not fully God, actually he was "begotten" or was the first-born. The spirit tells me Jesus was the "first of creation," and that means he was created but was the most important creation." (Mods - I'm being facetious here to make a point, I don't actual hold this view so please don't modify it due to not reading it in context or misrepresent me as a heretic).
Actually that is similar to my understanding, but don't call me heretic.
My point is that across church history we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of false claims based on the statement, "I have faith that this is what the HS is telling me."
Paul had faith that his words were from the Lord. But said if he came back preaching another gospel (that he had faith that the new gospel was from the Lord) they should:
A: Abandon the old gospel and adopt the new one
B: Abandon Paul's new gospel even if accompanied by angels
So here too the method you present is not the method we see presented in scripture, i.e. that is it is self-refuting.
I'm sympathetic to your view however, being raised in the Charismatic church, I was taught and hardily agreed with every one of your claims albeit 40 years ago.
I agree with the first sentence.
Paul presented God's message truthfully. It was not true because he had faith (that doesn't make it true), but because it came from God. What Paul said had to line up with other scriptures and at the same time it had to measure up to the Deutoronomy 13 test. If not it would not qualify as Scripture. Additionally Paul warned the readers of his letters that they must not fall for the deception i.e. the corruption of the truth.
What method am I presenting?
Actually I'm endorsing self-refuting and I used it many times.
I also respect your view. Wow 40 years is a lot.
Upvote
0